Court Opinion

ID: 9519569
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:18:56.30895+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:44:30.415880
License: Public Domain

Newton, J.,
dissenting in part and concurring in part.
I am unable to agree with one of the legal conclusions arrived at in the majority opinion. Section 23-154, R. R. S. 1943, sets out requirements for the calling of a valid special meeting of county commissioners. Adopted in 1879, it has stood the test of time and has never been amended. It was literally construed to mean exactly what it says as early as 1895 in the case of Morris v. Merrell, 44 Neb. 423, 62 N. W. 865. Down through the years it has, as a matter of practice, been steadfastly understood that no act of a county board, be it legislative, administrative, judicial, or ministerial in nature, was valid unless taken at a regular meeting or a special meeting called as required by statute.
The reasoning adopted is also applicable to section 23-153, R. R. S. 1943, which fixes the place where board meetings shall be held. If so applied, the county board could then meet anywhere, at any time, to deal with acts deemed “ministerial.” Actually, in a case like the one before us, such irresponsible action deprives the people of the county of an opportunity to question or challenge the sufficiency of the initiative petition. Whether or not they would have done so is immaterial. The statute guarantees them the opportunity.
That the majority opinion runs counter to public policy is clearly enunciated by the Legislature in sections 84-1401 and 84-1402, R. S. Suppq 1967, adopted as recently as 1967. It is therein stated that: “The public policy of the State of Nebraska is that all public meetings should be preceded by some publicized notice specifying the time and place of all such meetings in order that the citizens of the state can intelligently exercise their, democratic privilege of appearing at public sessions of governmental bodies.” § 84-1402, R. S. Supp., 1987. Min*213isterial acts are not exempted from the announced policy. On the contrary, it refers to “all public meetings” of governing bodies.
In my judgment, the opinion adopted in this case is a partial nullification of all the legislative acts mentioned above .and represents a direct and inexcusable encroachment by this court on the functions of the Legislature. It judicially approves what the Legislature expressly forbids.
Although, as indicated, I cannot agree that the action of the county board in calling an election at an unauthorized meeting was proper, I, nevertheless, concur in the result arrived at in the majority opinion. The error was not a fatal one, but this does not mean that other actions of a county board taken at irregular meetings, be they ministerial or otherwise, are to be sustained.
Section 23-343, R. S. Supp., 1967, provides for the establishment of county hospitals and the issuance of bonds for this purpose. Bonds may be issued only when authorized by a majority vote cast at an election called for such purpose. The election may be called by resolution of the county board or may be brought about by petition signed by 10 percent of the electors. If a proper petition is filed, the county board must call the election. The law distinguishes between challenges to election proceedings made before and after an election is actually held. Ordinarily compliance with statutory provisions is mandatory if enforcement is sought before an election, but after an election has been held, they are construed in support of the result of the election and are deemed to be directory only unless prejudice to a fair election appears. See, 29 C. J. S., Elections, § 67, p, 158; Haggard v. Misko, 164 Neb. 778, 83 N. W. 2d 483. No showing has been made that the error of the county board resulted in an unfair election and under such circumstances the election must be approved.
White, C. J., and Carter, J., join in dissenting in part and concurring in part.