Opinion ID: 2419959
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: injunction prohibiting the hearing before the commission

Text: It is to be recalled that the Commissioner set a hearing for November 4, 1976, and the Westheimer I.S.D. adopted the position that the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to hear the matter. Houston I.S.D., the Commissioner, and Houston Teachers Association argue that the scheduled hearing before the Commissioner was not a judicially reviewable decision as the administrative remedies had not been exhausted. Courts generally hold that administrative bodies are entitled to and should exercise the duties and functions conferred by statute without interference from the courts. Texas State Board of Examiners in Optometry v. Carp, 162 Tex. 1, 343 S.W.2d 242 (1961), citing Turner v. Bennett, 108 S.W.2d 967 (Tex.Civ.App.-Beaumont 1937, no writ). It follows, however, that intervention by the court in administrative proceedings may be permissible when an agency is exercising authority beyond its statutorily conferred powers. Specifically, it has been held that when there is an absence of jurisdiction in an administrative agency, then the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is not applicable. McFarlin v. State, 272 S.W.2d 630 (Tex.Civ.App.-Waco 1954, writ ref'd n. r. e.). In the instant case this court must determine whether the injunction issued by the trial court as reformed by the court of civil appeals constitutes a prohibited interference with the administrative process. Resolution of this issue requires determination of the jurisdiction of the Commissioner to conduct such hearings. Alternate grounds of jurisdiction of the Commissioner are presented by the parties. First, the Commissioner asserts jurisdiction under powers delegated by statute. Second, Houston I.S.D. argues jurisdiction on the grounds that the Commissioner retains the power to rescind void orders. On the first contention, the Commissioner asserts that the refusal of the County School Trustees of Harris County to hold a hearing to review their 1972 order creating Westheimer I.S.D. is an action reviewable by the Commissioner under Section 11.13(a) of the Texas Education Code: Persons having any matter of dispute among them arising under the school laws of Texas or any person aggrieved by the school laws of Texas or by actions or decisions of any board of trustees or board of education may appeal in writing to the commissioner of education, who, after due notice to the parties interested, shall hold a hearing and render a decision without cost to the parties involved, but nothing contained in this section shall deprive any party of any legal remedy. In the instant case, however, the State Board of Education has issued a final order affirming the order of the County School Trustees of Harris County creating Westheimer I.S.D. Westheimer I.S.D. maintains that neither the County School Trustees of Harris County nor the Commissioner have any jurisdiction to review or rescind such a final mandate of the State Board of Education. The assertion of statutory powers of review by the Commissioner are untenable under the Texas Education Code. The powers of the Commissioner are specifically limited by the actions of the State Board of Education, as provided in Section 11.52(j) of the Texas Education Code: The commissioner of education shall observe and execute the mandates, prohibitions, and regulations established by law or by the State Board of Education in accordance with the law. Moreover, the courts have consistently supported the position that the Commissioner may not review valid orders of the State Board of Education. In Bevers v. Winfrey, 260 S.W. 627, 633 (Tex.Civ.App.Beaumont 1924, no writ), the court held: A final order, when made, by the state board of education is binding on all interested parties as fully and as completely as a judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, and such order must be obeyed in all its terms, unless modified or set aside by an appeal through the courts. Similarly, in Lawler v. Castroville Rural High School Dist., 233 S.W.2d 613, 616 (Tex. Civ.App.San Antonio 1950, writ ref'd), the court considered an order by the county board of trustees that changed the site of a school when the previous site had been approved by the State Board of Education: The decision of the State Board of Education upon the matter at issue was not subject to being countermanded or set aside by a subsequent order of the local board of trustees. Under certain circumstances, a material change of conditions, such as the destruction of a proposed site, or a substantial shift in population, or some major alteration similar thereto, might authorize a local board to designate another site after action had been taken by the State Board. Under these circumstances the order would be a new one dealing with a different matter from that passed upon by the State Board.... It is well settled that in the absence of an appeal to the judiciary and a showing of an abuse of discretion on the part of the State Superintendent and the State Board, the decision of superior administrative authority must be followed. Herein, the hearing by the Commissioner would constitute, in effect, a review of the 1972 final order of the State Board of Education, rather than a hearing on a new matter. Therefore, a review of the case law and the Texas Education Code supports the holding that the Commissioner does not have jurisdiction to review a valid and final order of the State Board of Education. As the second or alternative ground of jurisdiction, Houston I.S.D. argues that where the order is void, the Commissioner has jurisdiction to rescind the order. As support for the proposition, Houston I.S.D. cites Jayton Rural High Sch. Dist. v. Girard Ind. Sch. Dist., 157 Tex. 115, 301 S.W.2d 80 (1957); Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. New Process P. Co., 129 Tex. 617, 104 S.W.2d 1106 (1937); and Lawler v. Castroville Rural High School Dist., supra . Upon analysis of these cases it is evident the reasoning on which they are based does not apply to the instant case. In Jayton the local board was rescinding its own void order, rather than an allegedly void final order of the State Board of Education. Magnolia involved the right of review by the Railroad Commission of its own unappealed final order. The court held that the Railroad Commission could review its order even though there were no changed conditions. In contrast to Jayton and Magnolia, the instant case is not an attempt by a governmental agency to rescind its own final order but is an attempt by a lower administrative office, the Commissioner, to rescind an order of a superior agency, the State Board of Education. On the other hand, the Lawler decision is more clearly in point with the instant case. In Lawler the court held that a local board of trustees could only modify or change a final order of the State Board of Education if there was a material change of conditions. The problem posed in applying the rule in Lawler is determining when allegations present a material change of conditions. This court holds that a material change of conditions shall be narrowly construed, providing a basis for review in only limited circumstances. Such a policy recognizes that there are aspects of administrative orders which must be treated with flexibility, rather than with the binding effects of traditional res judicata. Limited flexibility is necessary to effectively compensate for the summary disposition of many administrative proceedings, the shifting nature of administrative policies, and the inherent problems posed in reaching hybrid administrative-judicial rulings. However, whenever possible the courts should support the finality of administrative orders in keeping with the public policy favoring an end to litigation, whether it be in the administrative or judicial process. Continued litigation of issues or piecemeal litigation should be discouraged. Therefore, to constitute material changes of conditions, the allegations must reflect that the changes have intervened since the rendition of the order and must not constitute issues which might have been raised in the prior hearing had adequate and diligent research been conducted to discover such facts. Herein, Houston I.S.D. argues in its petition of review filed with the Commissioner that conditions have changed. In support of this assertion, it alleges primarily: (1) that Spring Branch I.S.D. has withdrawn its consent to the creation of Westheimer I.S.D.; (2) that a new survey indicates a portion of Katy I.S.D. did not consent; and (3) that the present Westheimer I.S.D. severs a portion of Houston I.S.D. so that it is not adjacent to the remainder of the District. This court holds that all such allegations could have been discovered and presented by Houston I.S.D. at the time of the prior hearings. This holding is impliedly admitted by Houston I.S.D., as it asserts the order was void ab initio as a result of these conditions. Thus, Houston I.S.D. is not arguing the existence of material intervening changes of conditions which originated subsequent to the rendition of the order but is asserting conditions existing at the time the order was issued. Therefore, this court holds that absent a showing of material change of conditions intervening since the rendition of the final order of the Board of Education, the Commissioner has no jurisdiction to rescind, countermand or change the order, even should such order have been void ab initio. The issue of whether the courts may properly intervene in the administrative process herein is not completely resolved by the determination that the Commissioner did not have jurisdiction to conduct the hearing on the validity of the order. Houston I.S.D. argues that even if the Commissioner did not have the authority to rescind the final order, he did have the authority to hold a hearing to determine whether he had jurisdiction over the matter. Normally, an administrative body or court would have authority to ascertain whether it had jurisdiction over a matter. Texas State Board of Examiners in Optometry v. Carp, supra . However, there is an exception to the rule, enunciated in City of Dallas v. Dixon, 365 S.W.2d 919 (Tex.1963), rev'd sub nom., Donovan v. Dallas, 377 U.S. 408, 84 S.Ct. 1579, 12 L.Ed.2d 409 (1964). In Dixon the City of Dallas sought a writ of prohibition to stop proceedings in a suit which was relitigating issues resolved in a prior judgment. The Texas Supreme Court reasoned that generally the defensive plea of res judicata is an adequate remedy in a second suit which relitigates issues of the first suit. However, the court held that circumstances may arise wherein the res judicata defense is not adequate, reasoning as follows: [4] We should recognize, however, that a plea of res judicata as a defense to a second suit is not an adequate remedy for one holding rights under an appellate court judgment when an actual interference with enforcement of the judgment is coupled with the second suit, or when the mere filing and prosecution of the suit destroys the efficacy of the judgment. In such instances we conceive it to be the duty, as well as the right, of the appellate court to exercise its original jurisdiction to enforce its judgment. 365 S.W.2d 919 at 923. Therefore, a second suit or hearing may properly be barred where it does no more than relitigate issues and where the mere filing of the action or request for a hearing destroys the effectiveness of the prior judgment or order. Herein, having determined Houston I.S.D. is seeking to relitigate issues which were or could have been presented during the previous hearings, this court must now determine whether the conducting of a hearing by the Commissioner to determine jurisdiction would in any manner destroy the efficacy of the prior order. The effect of the actions of the State Board of Education was to affirm the order of the Harris County Board of Trustees which authorized the creation of Westheimer I.S.D. Therefore, the order constituted the ultimate administrative step in finalizing the validity of Westheimer I.S.D. Westheimer I.S.D. alleges that the validity of its creation would be clouded by any further hearings before the Commissioner, thereby preventing it from becoming operational. In support of its position, Westheimer I.S.D. argues that in order to become operational it must hire personnel, purchase supplies, and acquire sufficient credit to maintain operating costs. The interim president of the Westheimer I.S.D. testified that these duties are effectively thwarted by the pendency of any administrative review. To further demonstrate how the pending administrative actions cloud the validity or effectiveness of the order of the State Board of Education, Westheimer I.S.D. offered testimony on the effect such an administrative review would have on the issuance of bonds by the District. Bond issuance requires that the bond transcript be approved by the Attorney General. In the trial court hearing an Assistant Attorney General testified that the verification of the legality and validity of the creation of the School District is central to the approval of a bond issue. As a condition of approval, the Attorney General also requires a no-litigation certificate. The Assistant Attorney General testified that approval would be withheld if notification was received that administrative proceedings were pending before the Commissioner which in any way involved the validity of a school district. Although the interim president of the Westheimer I.S.D. admitted that Westheimer I.S.D. had no immediate plans to issue bonds, the evidence on bond issuance demonstrates how the validity of the order of the State Board of Education serves as an indication of stability which is relied upon by government certifying agencies, as well as creditors or potential personnel. This evidence further illustrates how pending administrative hearings concerning the order negatively affect this essential indication of operational stability. Thus, the mere pendency of a hearing before the Commissioner would cloud the validity of Westheimer I.S.D., would impair its financial standing, and would thwart its functioning in accordance with the duties and responsibilities of a duly created school district. Accordingly, this court holds that a hearing before the Commissioner undermines the efficacy of the order of the State Board of Education. Under the rule enunciated in Dixon, it was the duty of the trial court to protect the order of the State Board of Education and to bar all further administrative hearings of any nature before the Commissioner which concern the validity of Westheimer I.S.D. as created by the order. Therefore, such actions of the trial court did not constitute wrongful interference by the courts into the administrative process.