Oregon Advisory Opinions February 20, 1959: OAG 59-29 (February 20, 1959)
Collection: Oregon Attorney General Opinions
Docket: OAG 59-29
Date: Feb. 20, 1959
Advisory Opinion Text
OAG 59-29.
District Attorney, Gilliam County
You have asked for our opinion on three questions relating to public schools, the first of which is as follows:
"1. What is the status of joint districts between Gilliam and Morrow Counties following the election for county unit in Morrow County on November, 1958?"
In an opinion dated December 2, 1958, No. 4272, the question of the adoption by Morrow County of the county unit school plan as set forth in ORS chapter 333 was considered, and various questions involving the county unit system were presented therein. However, no problem relating to "joint" school districts was raised in that opinion.
The effect of the adoption of the county unit system, upon prior existing joint school districts is to be resolved
from an examination of the provisions of ORS chapter 333. Under the county unit system there are but two classes of school districts, known as city school districts and county school districts: ORS 333.010. The city school districts include each district containing at least 1,000 children of school age, encompassing within its boundaries an incorporated city or town, and all territory not included in a city school district constitutes the county school district: ORS 333.015, 333.040. Under ORS 333.140 it is provided in part that all real and personal property and uncollected taxes, belonging to all districts, including "joint districts" heretofore existing within the corporate limits of each school district created by virtue of the Act shall become the property of the county school district and be subject to control of the county school board or representatives appointed by said board. This section further provides that all indebtedness outstanding of any school district including a "joint district" is an obligation of the county school district. Under ORS 333.170 it is provided that when the chapter becomes effective in any county during a school year the county school board "shall supplant the district school boards of all districts" becoming a part of the county school district. ORS 333.340 provides for the division of school property for joint districts as follows:
"If this chapter becomes effective in any county having a joint school district with any other county, the district boundary boards of all counties in which such district is located shall divide and apportion the school property of such district. If the boundary boards fail to reach a settlement within 60 days, the county district superintendent of schools and the county school superintendent concerned shall each appoint one member of an arbitration board and the two appointees shall appoint the third member. The arbitration board shall divide and apportion the school property of the joint school district within 30 days." (Emphasis supplied)
It seems clear from the foregoing provisions that upon adoption of the county unit system the county school district is established which includes all territory in the county not included in a city school district. Included within the county school district would be that portion of the territory of any joint school district which extends into the county adopting the county unit system. Provision is made in the law for an adjustment of assets and liabilities of such joint districts: ORS 333.340.
The only exception to the foregoing is ORS 333.050, which provides that:
"(1) Any union high school district that includes a city school district or that includes territory in more than one county shall not be disturbed by establishment of a county school district under ORS 333.060 to 333.080. * * *"
We trust the foregoing answers your first question.
Your second question is:
"2. Can a County voting for county unit proceed with out consent of the ReORGAnization committee of the other county adjoining?"
We find nothing in the county unit law which requires the consent of a body in an adjacent county in order to initiate an election to vote upon the adoption of the county unit system. Indeed, under ORS 333.070 the county court must upon petition of not less than 100 legal voters of the proposed county school district submit to the legal voters of such district the question of whether or not the chapter shall be effective in the county. See Opinions of the Attorney General, 1944-1946, p. 110. Undoubtedly in connection with your second question you had in mind the provisions of the School District ReORGAnization Act of 1957 as contained in ORS 330.505 to 330.780.
ORS 330.530, relating to the preparation of the comprehensive plans for reORGAnization by county committees, provides in part:
"* * * A plan for the reORGAnization of school districts involving territory lying in two or more counties shall be prepared by the joint action of the committees of the respective counties, and shall be included in the comprehensive reORGAnization plan of each of the counties concerned." (Emphasis supplied)
ORS 330.640 states that in all elections under the School District ReORGAnization Act,
"* * * the returns of the election shall be canvassed and the results proclaimed by the county committee, or by both county committees jointly where the election involves more than one county." (Emphasis supplied)
It seems clear from the above quoted provisions that a plan for reORGAnization of school districts which involves territory in two or more counties is required to be prepared by the "joint action" of the respective county committees and is required to be included in the reORGAnization plan of each of the counties concerned.
However, we are not here concerned with the establishment of a new "administrative district", but rather with the authority for one county to adopt the county unit system, which adoption may affect joint school districts extending into an adjacent county. ORS 330.645 provides the exclusive procedure for reORGAnization as follows:
"The procedure provided in ORS 330.505
to 330.780 is the exclusive procedure for effecting reORGAnization of school districts after August 20, 1957, except that consolidation, reORGAnization or boundary changes may be made under the procedures existing prior to August 20, 1957, when the committee created pursuant to ORS 330.505 to 330.780 for the county in which the affected districts lie finds that such consolidation, reORGAnization or boundary change is desirable and is not likely to conflict with any contemplated reORGAnization under the provisions of ORS 330.505 to 330.780. A school district created by or affected by a consolidation, reORGAnization or boundary change made pursuant to the authority of this section does not thereby become an administrative school district." (Emphasis supplied)
As noted from the above section, an exception to the exclusive procedure for reORGAnization is when the committee created "for the county" in which the affected districts lie finds that such consolidation or boundary change is desirable and is not likely to conflict with any contemplated reORGAnization under the provisions of the School District ReORGAnization Act. If such consent of the county committee has been obtained it would necessarily carry with it a finding that the establishment of a county unit system would not "conflict" with any contemplated reORGAnization under the School District ReORGAnization Act. Such findings, constituting an exercise of discretion by the school committee, are presumed to be valid and will not be set aside by the courts unless there is a clear showing that the action is illegal or arbitrary: School District No. 17 v. Powell, 203 Or. 168, 191; Opinion No. 4178, dated September 9, 1958.
Under the limited facts submitted we can only advise that in our opinion a county voting for a county unit system must secure the consent of the reORGAnization committee of that particular county pursuant to ORS 330.645 prior to such election, where the initiation and conduct of such election was subsequent to August 20, 1957. The county committee should not grant such consent if the contemplated consolidation, reORGAnization or boundary change conflicts with the comprehensive plan prepared by it or its joint action with the committee of an adjacent county.
Your final question is:
"3. Can property in a joint district be excluded or included from (or in) a county without the consent of the voters within the affected area?"
It is clear from the language of ORS 333.340, supra, that the property owned by a joint school district, extending over county lines, is to be divided in the manner provided. We find nothing in the law requiring an election on this question other than the election creating the county unit system. When the law goes into effect the operating force of ORS 333.340 comes into play and the property is to be divided accordingly.