Harrisburg Sch. Dist. No. 6 v. Neal
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Arkansas Supreme Court?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Arkansas Supreme Court. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
The Harrisburg School District No. 6 and the Board of Education (the District) appealed an order from the circuit court that granted Appellee Byron Neal's motion for summary judgment. Mr. Neal was elected to one of five positions on the District's board of directors. His term did not expire until September, 2014. In February, 2010, the Weiner School District faced declining enrollment, and as a result, the Harrisburg and Weiner Districts entered into an agreement for an administrative annexation of the two districts. Mr. Neal was present at the February, 2010 meeting of the Harrisburg board of directors and voted in favor of the annexation. In March, an interim school board was formed from the annexed districts. The Harrisburg District chose its interim board members by selecting four of its five members to serve. Mr. Neal lost his position. In June, Mr. Neal filed his complaint with the circuit court to stop the District from removing him as a board member. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the District argued that state law gave it the authority to agree on how the board of directors would be staffed, and therefore the circuit court erred in granting Mr. Neal summary judgment. The Supreme Court found no error by the circuit court and affirmed the grant of summary judgment to Mr. Neal.
Download PDF
Cite as 2011 Ark. 233
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No.
11-75
HARRISBURG SCHOOL DISTRICT
NO. 6; AND FRANKIE LINDSEY,
FONDA EATON, BARRY MASSENGIL,
AND GREG REDDMAN, IN THEIR
OFFICIAL CAPACITIES AS MEMBERS
OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF
HARRISBURG SCHOOL DISTRICT
NO. 6,
APPELLANTS,
Opinion Delivered
May 26, 2011
APPEAL FROM THE POINSETT
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
NO. CV2010-081,
HON. JOHN NELSON FOGLEMAN,
JUDGE,
VS.
BYRON NEAL,
APPELLEE
AFFIRMED.
PAUL E. DANIELSON, Associate Justice
Appellants Harrisburg School District No. 6; along with Frankie Lindsey, Fonda Eaton,
Barry Massengil, Greg Reddman, in their official capacities as members of the board of
education of Harrisburg School District No. 6 (hereinafter collectively “The Harrisburg
District”), appeal from the order of the Poinsett County Circuit Court granting appellee
Byron Neal’s motion for summary judgment. The Harrisburg District argues on appeal that
the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Neal. We find no error and
affirm the order of the circuit court.
In September 2009, Neal was elected to one of the five positions on the board of
directors for the Harrisburg District. His term was not to expire until September 2014. In
Cite as 2011 Ark. 233
February 2010, the Weiner School District faced declining enrollment and, as a result, the
Harrisburg District and the Weiner School District entered into an agreement for an
administrative annexation of the Weiner School District into the Harrisburg District
(hereinafter “annexation agreement”). Neal was present at the February 25, 2010 board-ofdirectors meeting of the Harrisburg District and voted in favor of proposing the annexation
agreement to the Weiner School District.
On March 3, 2010, a special meeting of the board of directors of the Harrisburg
District was held, and the petition for annexation was a topic of discussion. At this meeting,
Neal moved to adopt a resolution to annex the Weiner School District and to file the petition
for annexation with the Arkansas State Board of Education (ASBE). Both actions were
approved unanimously by the board. Pursuant to the annexation agreement between the
school districts, a petition for annexation was filed with the ASBE on or about March 4, 2010.
That petition was approved by both school districts and was approved by the ASBE on or
about March 8, 2010. The approval by the ASBE was confirmed by an order of the chair of
the ASBE, issued on April 1, 2010.
The annexation agreement between the Harrisburg District and the Weiner School
District had provided that an interim school board would be formed consisting of one of the
board members from the Weiner School District and four of the board members from the
Harrisburg District, creating a new board consisting of five members. The ASBE’s April 1,
2010 order approving the annexation referenced the annexation agreement between the two
2
Cite as 2011 Ark. 233
school districts. On March 9, 2010, the board members of the Harrisburg District chose to
select its interim-board members by simply selecting four of its five members to serve on
it—Neal being the sole board member to lose his position.
On June 7, 2010, Neal filed his complaint against the Harrisburg District and
challenged the method by which the board chose which four members would serve on the
interim board. Neal requested a writ of mandamus directing the Harrisburg District to rescind
its vote and also sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary and permanent
injunctions prohibiting the Harrisburg District from removing him as a board member. The
circuit court denied the requests for immediate relief and scheduled the matter for trial. The
interim board began taking official action on behalf of the Harrisburg District on July 1, 2010.
On October 12, 2010, the Harrisburg District filed a motion for summary judgment
alleging that there were no genuine factual disputes and that, as a matter of law, it was entitled
to summary judgment because: (1) the method used to select the interim board members was
in accordance with the applicable law, the annexation agreement between the school districts,
and the order of the ASBE approving the annexation; (2) Neal’s claims were moot as the
interim board had already begun taking action; (3) Neal was barred from challenging the
selection by estoppel, laches, ratification, or waiver because he voted to approve the
annexation agreement between the school districts; and (4) Neal’s challenge was an improper
collateral attack on the order of the ASBE. On October 26, 2010, Neal responded to the
Harrisburg District’s motion and filed his own motion for summary judgment. Neal asserted
3
Cite as 2011 Ark. 233
that while he did vote to approve the annexation agreement, that agreement did not detail
the method by which the four members of the Harrisburg District would be chosen to
continue to serve on the interim board and that the applicable statute required the drawing
of lots by the directors of the Harrisburg District prior to annexation if there was going to be
a reduction in the number of board members, which was not the method used.
The circuit court filed its order on December 1, 2010, finding: (1) the Harrisburg
District and the Weiner School District in their annexation agreement and their petition for
annexation affirmatively chose to avail themselves of Ark. Code Ann. § 6-13-1412 to establish
an interim board; (2) Neal was not barred by estoppel, laches, ratification or waiver because
nothing in the record showed that he was aware of the method by which the other board
members of the Harrisburg District intended to use to reduce their number of members; (3)
Neal’s complaint was not a collateral attack on the ASBE’s order as the order also did not
detail a method by which the interim board would be formed other than referencing the
aforementioned annexation agreement and petition; (4) the action was not moot simply
because the interim board has been acting as the school board because the complaint was filed
prior to the effective date of the annexation and Neal sought a temporary restraining order;
and (5) the annexation agreement between the two school districts was not a binding
agreement, as specifically stated in the agreement itself, and did not specify the method that
would be used to select which board members of the Harrisburg District would remain on
the interim board. Based on these findings, the circuit court granted summary judgment in
4
Cite as 2011 Ark. 233
favor of Neal and enjoined the interim board from further action until the Harrisburg District
properly and legally selected the four board members pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 6-131412(c)(2). It is from that order that the Harrisburg District now appeals.
The Harrisburg District argues that Ark. Code Ann. §§ 6-13-1405 and 1406(a)(1), (2)
gave it and the Weiner School District the authority to agree on how the board of directors
would be constituted and, therefore, the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment
in favor of Neal. Neal responds that while the Harrisburg District had the option to choose
to have an interim school board, they did not have the right to choose the interim board
members outside of the procedure set forth in Ark. Code Ann. § 6-13-1412(c).
The law is well settled that summary judgment is to be granted by a circuit court only
when it is clear that there are no genuine issues of material fact to be litigated, and the party
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Couch v. Farmers Ins. Co., Inc., 375 Ark. 255,
289 S.W.3d 909 (2008). Once the moving party has established a prima facie entitlement to
summary judgment, the opposing party must meet proof with proof and demonstrate the
existence of a material issue of fact. See id. On appellate review, we determine if summary
judgment was appropriate based on whether the evidentiary items presented by the moving
party in support of the motion leave a material fact unanswered. See id. We view the evidence
in the light most favorable to the party against whom the motion was filed, resolving all
doubts and inferences against the moving party. See id. Our review focuses not only on the
pleadings, but also on the affidavits and documents filed by the parties. See id.
5
Cite as 2011 Ark. 233
To the extent that the grant of summary judgment was based upon the circuit court’s
interpretation of an Arkansas statute, that is a question of law which this court decides de
novo. See Evans v. Hamby, 2011 Ark. 69, ___ S.W.3d ___.
Neither party in the instant case argues that there is any issue of material fact in dispute.
The issue is simply whether the method used by the board of the Harrisburg District to
choose which of its members would serve on the interim board of directors was in violation
of the applicable law. We hold that the method used was in violation of the applicable statute
and, therefore, we affirm the circuit court’s order.
Arkansas Code Annotated § 6-13-1603 (Repl. 2007) allows certain school districts to
voluntarily agree to administratively consolidate with or be annexed to another school district.
At the time when the Weiner School District agreed to be annexed to the Harrisburg District,
Ark. Code Ann. § 6-13-1406 (Repl. 2007) governed the board of directors of each resulting
or receiving school district created. See Ark. Code Ann. § 6-13-1603(k).1 Under section 6-131406, the Harrisburg District had the option of agreeing with the Weiner School District to
keep the Harrisburg District’s board of directors the same even after the annexation until the
next regular school election or, in lieu of electing a new board of directors at the next regular
1
We acknowledge that Act 1217 of the 2011 legislative session created §§ 6-13-1415
to -1417 and amended the language in § 6-13-1603(k) to instruct that the newly-created
sections shall now govern the board of directors of each resulting district or receiving school
district created. The new sections create more detailed instructions, but still do not allow for
a board to simply choose among themselves which members will continue to serve on the
interim board if there is a reduction in the number of board members.
6
Cite as 2011 Ark. 233
school election, agreeing to form an interim board. See Ark. Code Ann. § 6-13-1406(a)(1)(A),
(B).
It is undisputed that the Harrisburg District and the Weiner School District agreed to
form an interim board. The annexation agreement between the districts provides in relevant
part:
3.
Board of Directors. Following approval of the proposed annexation by the
[State Board of Education], the [Harrisburg District] will establish a five (5) member
school board . . . . There would be an interim school board created effective July 1,
2010, made up of one (1) member from the Weiner School Board and four (4)
members from the Harrisburg School Board. Each school board would select
prospective members for each district for the interim board. The interim board of
directors will serve until the regular school election of September 2011 pursuant to
Ark. Code Ann. Sec. 6-13-1412(d).
Additionally, the petition for annexation submitted by the school districts to the ASBE states:
3.
The Petitioners submit that pursuant to A.C.A. §§ 6-13-1405, 6-13-1406 and
6-13-1412, that it is hereby agreed that the receiving Harrisburg School District shall
establish an interim school board consisting of four (4) current board members from
the Harrisburg School District and one (1) current board member from the Weiner
School District.
These documents both seem to indicate that the school districts were opting to use the
provisions of Ark. Code Ann. § 6-13-1412 (Repl. 2007), which provides:
(a)(1) Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, school districts that annex after
January 1, 2005, under Acts 2003 (2nd Ex. Sess.), No. 60, and opt to follow the
procedures in this section or school districts that voluntarily annex and opt to follow
the procedures in this section shall form a new board of directors made up of the board
of directors of the receiving district plus at least one (1) member of the board of
directors of each affected district as provided under § 6-13-1406(a)(1)(B)(ii).
However, adhering to that provision would have created a six-member board of directors for
the interim board. That is prohibited by section 6-13-1406(c)(1), which instructs that an
7
Cite as 2011 Ark. 233
interim board shall never have more than seven members, fewer than five members, or an
even number of members. See Ark. Code Ann. § 6-13-1406(c)(1)(A),(B). Therefore, the
board members of the Harrisburg District should have followed the procedure set forth in
section 6-13-1406(c)(2), which provides in pertinent part:
If the addition of members from the affected district or districts would cause the
interim board of directors to be out of compliance with subdivision (c)(1) of this
section or if the board of directors decides to reduce the size of the board of directors,
the total number of positions held by the members of the receiving district shall be
reduced as necessary by:
(A) Voluntary resignation of one (1) or more existing members; or
(B) Drawing lots by the directors of the receiving district prior to annexation.
Ark. Code Ann. § 6-13-1406(c)(2)(A), (B).
None of the board members of the Harrisburg District voluntarily resigned. Therefore,
to determine which four of the five board members would continue to serve on the interim
board, the directors of the Harrisburg District were required to draw lots prior to annexation.
See Ark. Code Ann. § 6-13-1406(c)(2)(B). That was not the method used. The then-existing
board members simply selected four of their five members to serve on the interim board, and
Neal was the sole board member to lose his position.
While the Harrisburg District argues that it did not opt to utilize section 6-13-1412
to create the interim board, this court, based on the above, does not find any error on the part
of the circuit court in finding that it did indeed avail itself of that statute and that Neal was
entitled to judgment as a matter of law when the Harrisburg District’s actions violated the
terms of the applicable statute.
8
Cite as 2011 Ark. 233
The Harrisburg District includes some additional fleeting arguments in its brief.
However, all are without merit. The Harrisburg District argues that the issue presented is
moot because the interim board has already begun acting on behalf of the school district.
Generally, a case becomes moot when any judgment rendered would have no practical legal
effect upon a then-existing legal controversy. See Kinchen v. Wilkins, 367 Ark. 71, 238 S.W.3d
94 (2006). The current interim board, created in violation of the applicable law, can still be
replaced by an interim board that is created in compliance with the applicable statute until a
permanent board is elected in the next regular school election. Therefore, this controversy is
not moot. The Harrisburg District also alleges that Neal’s complaint is an improper collateral
attack on the order issued by the ASBE. However, as noted by the circuit court, that order
did not refer to the specific method by which the interim board would be formed. The
ASBE’s order simply approved the annexation and referenced the annexation agreement and
petition for annexation submitted by the school districts. While the annexation agreement
provided that each school board would select prospective members for the interim board,
neither the agreement nor the petition for annexation provided the specific method that the
school boards intended to use to make that selection. Nothing included in the record
demonstrates that Neal knew what method the other members of the board intended to use
to reduce its number of members, regardless of the fact that he supported the annexation. For
that reason, the Harrisburg District’s allegations that Neal is barred by waiver and estoppel also
fail. Finally, the Harrisburg District argues that the annexation agreement was a binding
9
Cite as 2011 Ark. 233
obligation to which basic contract principles apply, that Neal had no privity of contract, and,
therefore, that Neal’s complaint should have been dismissed. However, the agreement itself
specifically stated it was a nonbinding agreement, that it had no legal force, and that it was
only intended to “be a memorandum of understanding to guide the filing of a petition of
annexation.”
We hold that no material disputed fact was unanswered in the instant case and that, for
all of the above-stated reasons, Neal was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.
Therefore, we affirm the order of the circuit court.
Affirmed.
10
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.
