Court Opinion

ID: 9732944
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 16:45:34.863873+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:36.547133
License: Public Domain

Smith and McCowh, JJ.,
dissenting.
The majority opinion misconstrues the statute. It gives the issue of undue hardship short shrift. We concur with the dissenting opinion by Boslaugh, J., regarding statutory construction, but we also dissent respecting the hardship issue.
The majority opinion states that the purpose of the *89act was to provide comprehensive school aid in proportionate amounts to every school district in the state. We do not so read the text, and these facts cast a shadow over the majority view: In the fall of 1969 Nebraska led all other states in the numbers of operating and nonoperating school districts — 1,420 and 400 respectively. See Simon and Grant, U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare Digest of Educational Statistics (1970).
We turn to the opening clause of section 12 of the act. The majority opinion insists that 1968-69 is the year for determination of actual pupil cost; yet it uses operating costs and average pupil membership in 1967-68 to make that determination. The approach is incorrect. It appears either to invert the statutory relationship between actual pupil cost and total financial support or to read the opening clause completely out of the act.
We are told that any other construction of the opening clause of section 12 would make the relationship between cost and support every year an invariable. The argument overlooks a fair construction of the statute: Prescribed support for one year would become an item of cost the next year.
Other states have determined school aid in a given year by revenue, costs, and membership in the prior year. See, Mort, Reusser, and Polly, Public School Finance 44-49 and 265; Johns and Morphet, Financing the Public Schools 283 (1960); Zenith School District No. 32 v. Peterson, 81 N. W. 2d 764 (N. D., 1957).
At the hearing before the state board on the issue of undue hardship, the Omaha district appeared by its president, Charles A. Peters, and its superintendent, Dr. Owen A. Knutzen. The board elicited minor instances of inefficiency, and greater inefficiency was probably inherent in a district of that size. One-half of all children in public schools of America attended schools located in 50 districts. Omaha ranked 38th. *90Its student membership formed 20 percent of the state total and 90 percent of the Blacks.
The tragic plight of disadvantaged children-in large urban school districts across the nation was well known. An urban crisis' struck Omaha. In the year of passage of the state aid act one student was killed. Students boycotted schools. The buildings became targets of racial disturbances.
Dr. Knutzen poignantly declared: “. . . the fact of life is that we live today and for these children tomorrow. We cannot undo . . . yesterday .... Omaha . . . has 50 percent of all A.D.C. (child welfare) cases in Nebraska .... If that doesn’t . . . spell human disaster in the consequences of the cost, I don’t know what would.” The burden of meeting the emergency fell upon the 1968-69 budget. The evidence stood unchallenged.
The technical staff of the Commissioner of Education for Nebraska recommended distribution of the money to Omaha on account of undue hardship. The commissioner, Dr. Floyd A. Miller, concurred, and he conveyed his recommendation to the board.
Sitting on the board was Robert G. Simmons, Jr., a resident of Scottsblufif and a practicing lawyer admitted to the bar in 1941. At the hearing this dialogue occurred: “Peters: . . . But . . . because we attempted to solve the problem, you are saying no . . .. Simmons: The Legislature said that . . . That’s the trouble with the Omaha people, you don’t realize that you are part of the State of Nebraska.”
It is our opinion that this court misconstrues the statute and that the state board acted arbitrarily. We would affirm the judgment of the district court, reaffirming School District of Omaha v. State Board of Education, 186 Neb. 170, 181 N. W. 2d 861 (1970).