Court Opinion

ID: 9719751
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:02:21.167239+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:09.688645
License: Public Domain

HANSON, Presiding Judge
(concurring specially).
I concur in the result but being unable to construe Section 20 of the School Law as a complete and independent method of school district reorganization it appears necessary to file this special concurrence.
*80On April 21, 1958, the County Board of Education of Walworth County approved a Master Plan for the reorganization of school districts in that county. The Master Plan was never finally approved by the electors of any school district involved in this proceeding.
On April 29, 1958, the Walworth County Board of Education granted the petition of certain electors residing in the Glenham Independent School District to delete a substantial portion of the Glenham district and attach it to the Mobridge Independent School District. Petitions were not filed by a majority of the electors in each of the school districts affected by the proposed reorganization as required by Subsection 1 of Section 5.
In my opinion the question has been considered and settled in the recent case of Hofer v. Bridgewater Independent School District, 76 S.D. 483, 81 N.W.2d. 300, 301. Section 20 of the School Law was quoted in full in that opinion. Apparently to emphasize its importance -the following portion of the statute was italicized “providing such change meets the requirements and limitations for reorganization.” In construing this statute the Court said “The power delegated to the County Board of Education to change boundaries of school districts upon the petition of a .majority of electors residing in the territory sought to be transferred may be exercised only under the circumstances prescribed. The exercise of the power is subject to the restriction that boundary changes meet ‘the requirements and limitations for reorganization’ ”, In other words it was determined that Section 20 was subject to all the requirements and limitations for the reorganization of school districts contained in Chapter 8 of Chapter 41 of the 1955 Session Laws and, -in particular, Subsection 1 of Section 5 thereof, which -then provided:
“Section 5. Requirements and limitations for reorganization. Except for the reorganization of unorganized territory and the reorganization caused by an incorporated town or city extending its boundaries, any reorganization of school districts by either the electors or the county board must meet the following requirements amid limitations for reorganization:
*81“1. No reorganization of school districts shall take place until the county or counties in which the reorganization is to take place has prepared a master plan which has been approved by the State Board of Education;”.
Subsection 1 of Section 5 has been amended by Chapter 60 of the Laws of 1957 ho read as follows:
“(1) Prior to the final adoption of a county master plan, as provided by law, school districts .may reorganize; provided that each such proposed reorganization is approved by the county board of education and a majority of the qualified electors in each school district whose boundaries are affected by such proposed reorganization, as evidence by a petition for reorganization. Such petition shall be filed with the county auditor who shall certify that signatures on the aforementioned petition represent a majority of the electors in each school district affected;”.
Although Subsection 1 of Section 5 has been amended since the Hofer case, it still remains a positive restrictive limitation on any school district reorganization. Section 20, on the ohter hand, was not materially changed by amendment in 1957. It still retains the same restrictive clause construed in the Hofer case, 1. e., any change of boundaries thereunder must meet “the requirements and limitations for reorganization.” In my opinion this proviso has the same meaning today as we said it had in the Hofer c'ase. In other words any boundary change under Section 20 must meet all of the requirements and limitations for school reorganization provided by law in Chapter 8 of Chapter 41 of the Session Laws of 1955, as amended, and in particular Subsection 1 of Section 5, as amended in 1957. The legislature expressly defined the term “requirements and limitations for reorganization” to mean that in Subsection 6 of Section 1. To hold otherwise, in effect, completely disregards and renders this restrictive proviso meaningless.
The words “approval” and “adoption” are used interchangeably throughout Chapter 8 in reference to the Master *82Plan. However, the qualifying language “Prior to the final adoption of a county master plan, as provided by law” now appearing in Subsection 1 of Section 5 refers, in my opinion, to the final adoption of the master plan by the elotors of the affected districts as provided in Sections 17 and 18 of the School Law. It manifestly does' not refer to the mere approval of the master plan by the county boards of education. As the Master Plan in Walworth County has not been finally adopted by the electors under Sections 17 and 18 and as petitions were not filed by a majority of the electors in each school district affected by the proposed reorganization under Subsection 1 of Section 5, the attempted deletion of territory from the Glenham district under Section 20 is without force or effect.
To ’interpret Section 20 as a complete and independent method of school reorganization does violence, in my opinion, to the whole intent and purpose of the school 'reorganization ¡procedure. It plac'es power in the hands of a few petitioners to accomplish school 'district reorganization without regard to a Master Plan and without regard to' the wishes of a majority of the electors in any district. Furthermore, the school district into which territory is thus transferred has nc opportunity either to approve or disapprove of the proposed change.
ROBERTS, J., concurs.