RILEY (EDWIN) VS. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF MCCRACKEN COUNTY, KENTUCKY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED: FEBRUARY 11, 2011; 10:00 A.M.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2010-CA-000073-MR
AND
NO. 2010-CA-000093-MR
EDWIN RILEY
APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE
APPEAL AND CROSS-APPEAL FROM MCCRACKEN CIRCUIT COURT
v.
HONORABLE THOMAS O. CASTLEN, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 09-CI-00087
BOARD OF EDUCATION
OF MCCRACKEN COUNTY,
KENTUCKY
APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
OPINION
VACATING AND REMANDING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: STUMBO AND VANMETER, JUDGES; SHAKE,1 SENIOR JUDGE.
1
Senior Judge Ann O’Malley Shake sitting as Special Judge by assignment of the Chief Justice
pursuant to Section 110(5)(b) of the Kentucky Constitution and Kentucky Revised Statutes
(KRS) 21.580.
VANMETER, JUDGE: Edwin Riley appeals from the order of the McCracken
Circuit Court granting the McCracken County Board of Education’s (“School
Board”) motion for summary judgment and summarily denying Riley’s motion for
summary judgment. The School Board cross-appeals from the trial court’s order
denying its motion to dismiss for Riley’s failure to join indispensable parties. For
the following reasons, we vacate and remand.
The School Board currently operates twelve school centers in the
McCracken County Public School District (“School District”), which constitutes
all areas of McCracken County, Kentucky not located within the Paducah
Independent School District. The School District is divided into three attendance
zones, namely Reidland, Heath, and Lone Oak, each of which contains a high
school, a middle school, and two elementary schools.
In June 2007, the School Board established and received approval by the
Kentucky Board of Education (“KBE”) of a local District Facilities Plan (“DFP”).
Later, the School Board sought permission to amend the DFP to allow for the
construction of a new high school, as well as for realignment of certain grades at
each school center in the Lone Oak attendance zone. This amendment was
approved by the KBE in December 2007.
In 2008, the School Board voted to request permission from the Kentucky
Department of Education (“KDE”) to initiate the amendment process of the DFP
for a second time to provide for the construction of a new consolidated high school
to enroll grades ten through twelve of the Reidland, Heath and Lone Oak
-2-
attendance zones. The KDE approved the request by letter dated September 24,
2008. On November 20, 2008, the School Board unanimously approved the
amendment and submitted the proposed amendment to the KDE for review and
consideration. Upon the recommendation of the KDE, the KBE approved the
amendment for review during its state board meeting on December 10, 2008.
Riley filed the underlying action alleging, in part, that the School Board’s
amendment of the DFP was in violation of the “Kentucky School Facilities
Planning Manual” of June 2008 (“Manual”). First, Riley claimed the School
Board failed to address whether any required circumstance existed to justify an
amendment, and that no such circumstance existed. Second, Riley argued the
School Board did not timely submit the amendment to the KBE for final approval.
In response, the School Board filed a motion to dismiss on the basis that the
KDE was a necessary and indispensable party to the action. The court denied the
School Board’s motion, and after further discovery, the parties each filed motions
for summary judgment. The court granted the School Board’s motion for summary
judgment, concluding that Riley was precluded from challenging the School
Board’s compliance with the administrative regulations for amendment of the DFP
in light of the KBE’s approval of the amended DFP. This appeal and cross-appeal
followed.
In its cross-appeal, the School Board argues the trial court erred by denying
its motion to dismiss the action for failing to join the KDE as an indispensable
party. We agree.
-3-
CR2 19.01 provides, in part:
A person who is subject to service of process . . . shall
be joined as a party in the action if (a) in his absence
complete relief cannot be accorded among those already
parties, or (b) he claims an interest relating to the subject
of the action and is so situated that the disposition of the
action in his absence may (i) as a practical matter impair
or impede his ability to protect that interest or (ii) leave
any persons already parties subject to a substantial risk of
incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent
obligations by reason of his claimed interest.
In this action, Riley challenges the School Board’s compliance with
established regulatory requirements for amending the DFP as prescribed by 702
KAR3 4:180, which incorporates the Manual by specific reference. The regulations
maintain that every school district must develop a local DFP once every four years.
702 KAR 4:180, Section 1. In addition, the DFP, as well as any amendments
thereto, must be “developed in accordance with the standards and hearing
procedures contained in the [Manual].” 702 KAR 4:180, Section 2.
In regard to the amendment process of the DFP, the Manual provides:
The local board of education may request an amendment
to its DFP under the following circumstances:
1. A major change in enrollment.
2. A major change in curriculum.
3. A major disaster.
4. An unforeseen occurrence.
Manual, Section 502.2. To begin the amendment process, “the local board of
education shall vote in open session to request permission from KDE to reassemble
2
Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure.
3
Kentucky Administrative Regulations.
-4-
the LPC [local planning committee] that developed the current DFP.” Manual,
Section 502.3. Then, the board must notify KDE of the need for an amendment,
after which the KDE shall issue a decision to approve or disapprove the need for an
amendment. Manual, Section 502.4. Ultimately, the amendment must be
developed and approved by the LPC, reviewed by the KDE, tentatively approved
by the local board, reviewed in a public hearing, finally approved by the board, and
then submitted to the KBE for final review. Manual, Section 502.9. Final review
by the KBE follows the same process required for approval of a new DFP.
Manual, Section 108.3 provides, a “district shall submit verification of the
completion of the steps . . . to KDE 45 days in advance of the State Board
Meeting[.]”
The rule is well-established that “[a]n administrative agency’s interpretation
of its own regulations is entitled to substantial deference.” Hughes v. Kentucky
Horse Racing Authority, 179 S.W.3d 865, 872 (Ky.App. 2004) (citing Camera
Ctr., Inc. v. Revenue Cabinet, 34 S.W.3d 39 (Ky. 2000)). Thus, “[a] reviewing
court is not free to substitute its judgment as to the proper interpretation of the
agency’s regulations as long as that interpretation is compatible and consistent with
the statute under which it was promulgated and is not otherwise defective as
arbitrary or capricious.” Hughes, 179 S.W.3d at 872 (citing City of Louisville By
and Through Kuster v. Milligan, 798 S.W.2d 454, 458 (Ky. 1990)).
Here, the Manual is an administrative regulation detailing the procedural
steps a local school board must take in order to seek the review and potential
-5-
approval of a DFP, and any amendments thereto, by the KBE and KDE. It follows
that the School Board’s compliance with the procedural steps detailed in the
Manual is left to the discretion of the KBE and KDE. Thus, an action challenging
such compliance with the Manual should be brought against the state agency
charged with interpreting its own rules of compliance. Accordingly, the trial court
erred by failing to dismiss this action for Riley’s failure to join the KDE as an
indispensable party.4
The order of the McCracken Circuit Court is vacated and this action is
remanded to the trial court with directions to dismiss this case for failure to join an
indispensable party.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT/
CROSS-APPELLEE:
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE/
CROSS APPELLANT:
Robert L. Prince
Benton, Kentucky
Gorman Bradley, Jr.
L. Miller Grumley
Paducah, Kentucky
4
Since we vacate and remand on procedural grounds, we are unable to meaningfully review
Riley’s appeal. Thus, we decline to address Riley’s remaining claims of error.
-6-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
