COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND RELEASED NOVEMBER
21, 1995 |
NOTICE |
A party may file with the Supreme Court a petition to review an
adverse decision by the Court of Appeals. See § 808.10 and Rule
809.62, Stats. |
This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear in the bound
volume of the Official Reports. |
No. 95-1431-FT
STATE OF WISCONSIN IN
COURT OF APPEALS
DISTRICT III
ROBERT
J. VANDEN HEUVEL,
ROBERT
SCHUMACHER and
JOAN
SCHUMACHER,
Petitioners-Appellants,
v.
LITTLE
CHUTE AREA SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
KAUKAUNA AREA
SCHOOL
DISTRICT and
SCHOOL
DISTRICT BOUNDARY
APPEAL
BOARD,
Respondents-Respondents.
APPEAL
from an order of the circuit court for Outagamie County: JOHN A. DES JARDINS, Judge. Affirmed.
Before
Cane, P.J., LaRocque and Myse, JJ.
PER
CURIAM. Robert Vanden Heuvel, Robert
and Joan Schumacher, and the Little Chute School District appeal a trial court
order that upheld a decision of the School District Boundary Appeal Board. Originally, the Schumachers petitioned the
Kaukauna and Little Chute School Districts to transfer some undeveloped real
estate from the Kaukauna district to the Little Chute district. After the Kaukauna district denied the
request, Vanden Heuvel purchased the Schumachers' real estate and continued the
proceeding for redistricting. The trial
court correctly upheld the board's decision as long as it was not arbitrary and
capricious. Beloit v. State
Appeal Bd., 103 Wis.2d 661, 663, 309 N.W.2d 392, 393 (Ct. App.
1981). Vanden Heuvel raises several
arguments on appeal: (1) the board's decision was arbitrary and capricious; (2)
the board misstated crucial facts; (3) it made inadequate findings; and (4) the
Kaukauna district lost its right to oppose the proposed redistricting, by
failing to give the Schumachers notice of the school district meeting and by
failing to send a copy of the Schumachers' petition to the Little Chute
district. We reject these arguments and
affirm the trial court's order upholding the board.[1]
The
trial court correctly ruled that the board's decision was not arbitrary and
capricious. Section 117.15, Stats., recognizes that each
redistricting proposal presents the board with a unique set of
circumstances. Under the statute, the
board had a duty to consider various factors as they affected the educational
welfare of all children residing in both school districts, including estimated
travel times for students, their educational needs, the districts' respective
programs, the fiscal effect of the reorganization, the creation of
noncontiguous school district territory, and the districts' respective
socioeconomic levels and racial compositions.
Section 117.15, Stats. Here, the board gave two reasons for its
decision: (1) both school districts would adequately meet future students'
educational needs; and (2) real estate development and financial profit did not
furnish a persuasive basis for redistricting.
These factors supplied a rational basis for the board's decision. The statute's primary concern is the
students' educational best interests, and the board had the undeveloped real
estate's future students in mind. Once
the board concluded that both districts would provide them adequate education,
it had no obligation to alter the existing districts solely in the interest of
real estate development and financial gain.
Vanden
Heuvel's other claims merit no relief.
First, Vanden Heuvel correctly indicates that the board wrongly found
the real estate not contiguous with the Little Chute district. This discrepancy, however, was not material,
in light of the fact that Vanden Heuvel did not provide a compelling case for
redistricting. Second, Vanden Heuvel
maintains that the real estate is closer to Little Chute district schools than
Kaukauna district schools, within walking distance of some; however, he
provided no specific information on distances at the board hearing, and at any
rate such geographic incongruities are not unique near the borders of school
districts. Third, contrary to Vanden
Heuvel's assertion, the board made adequate findings. It simply ruled that Vanden Heuvel had not made a compelling case
for redistricting.
The
Kaukauna district did not lose its right to oppose Vanden Heuvel's appeal to
the board by failing to provide notice to the Schumachers or the Little Chute
district of the district meeting. Under
§ 117.12(3), Stats., the
Kaukauna district had no obligation to take any action on the petition. It could have let the petition lapse,
leaving it denied by operation of law. See
id. Judged in this
context, the lack of notice was not material. Moreover, Vanden Heuvel received what amounted to a de novo
hearing before the board. See Joint
Sch. Dist. No. 2 v. State Appeal Bd., 83 Wis.2d 711, 720, 266 N.W.2d
374, 378 (1978). It permitted him to
provide any information that he wished.
Finally, Vanden Heuvel did not raise this issue before the board. He therefore waived the matter. Goranson v. DILHR, 94 Wis.2d
537, 545, 289 N.W.2d 270, 274 (1980).
By
the Court.—Order affirmed.
This
opinion will not be published. See
Rule 809.23(1)(b)5, Stats.