BOARD OF ED. OF INDEP. SCH. DIST. NO. 93 v. DIXSON

BOARD OF ED. OF INDEP. SCH. DIST. NO. 93 v. DIXSON
1949 OK 217
210 P.2d 669
202 Okla. 110
Case Number: 34229
Decided: 10/11/1949
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Syllabus

¶0 1. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS - Expenditure of funds provided by bond issue for specified purpose - Effect of change of personnel or in board.
By constitutional provision, funds provided by voted bond issue for specified purpose must be expended for such purpose and no other. Art. 10, sec. 16, Oklahoma Constitution. But such provision is not violated merely by the expenditure of such funds by a new board subsequently created by the Legislature, or by a different board by new legislative authority, if the expenditure purpose is and remains exactly the same.
2. SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS - Statute providing for transfer of specified funds to board of education not unconstitutional.
That portion of section 13 of art. 15, ch. 1A of Title 70, S.L. 1949 (p. 570), providing for transfer of certain specified funds to the board of education of the district in which such funds are to be expended for improvement of separate schools, is not unconstitutional as violative of contractual relation between county commissioners and voters in connection with bonds voted under provisions of H.B. 283, Title 70, chap. 25a, S.L. 1941.
3. SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS - COUNTIES - Duty of county commissioner to transfer funds to board of education of independent school district for expenditure according to original voted purpose.
When funds now on hand were provided from bond issue voted pursuant to H.B. 283, Title 70, chap. 25a, S.L. 1941, for improvement of separate schools of the county and were allocated to a named independent school district, it was the duty of the county treasurer, after the effective date of Title 70, S.L. 1949, chap. 1A, art. 15, sec. 13, p. 570, to transfer such funds to the board of education of said independent school district for expenditure according to the original voted purpose.

Original mandamus proceeding by Board of Education of Independent School District No. 93 of Pottawatomie County against Annie L. Dixson, as County Treasurer, as in mandamus to require payment or transfer to plaintiff's treasurer of a certain sum of $145,300. Writ granted.

Joe H. Reily, of Shawnee, for relators.

Shelton Skinner, Co. Atty. of Pottawatomie County, and John L. Green and Earl P. Enos, Assts., all of Shawnee, for respondent.

WELCH, J.

¶1 The sum of money involved is a part of the proceeds of a bond issue voted in November, 1948, and duly authorized, approved, and sold, for the purpose of making permanent improvements to the separate schools of Pottawatomie county, Okla.

¶2 In May, 1949, the board of county commissioners, within their legal authority, by resolution, allocated or apportioned the sum of $145,300 to the separate school of Independent School District No. 93 of the county, to be expended for the improvement of said separate school.

¶3 This action poses the question whether the board of education, plaintiff herein, is the proper authority to expend such fund for the prescribed purpose. Doubt existed in the mind of the county treasurer on the thought that the board of county commissioners might be required to so expend the fund.

¶4 Formerly the law did provide for expenditure of such funds by the county commissioners in the following language:

"The Board of County Commissioners, upon receiving the proceeds of the sale of such bonds, shall expend the same of the uses for which they were authorized, in such place or places throughout the county as will in their judgment best serve the needs of the separate school children of the county. All such expenditures shall be made by such Board of County Commissioners in accordance with the laws governing and controlling the making of like expenditures or contracts by Boards of Education of independent school districts." Title 70 O.S.A. § 907.7.

¶5 However, that provision was superseded and repealed by the 1949 Legislature. At that time the law was rewritten, with some changes as to the method of voting bonds for such improvements as to separate schools, and with specified provision that when bonds were voted for improvement of such a separate school as here involved the funds thereby provided should be expended by the board of education of the district. Title 70, S.L. 1949, ch. 1A, art. 15, secs. 1-14, pp. 567-570. And specific provision was made as to existing funds from any previous bond issue. It was provided by section 13, above cited, p. 570, S.L. 1949, as follows:

"Provided the proceeds of any previous separate school bond issue in the hands of the County Treasurer which has been apportioned but not expended or contracted against by the Board of County Commissioners shall be immediately transferred to the Board of Education to which apportionment has been made for expenditure as herein provided."

¶6 That act became effective June 7, 1949, to become operative by its provisions (ch. 1A, art. 20, sec. 10, p. 607, S.L. 1949) on July 1, 1949, and thereby it became the duty of the county treasurer to transfer the $145,300, here involved, to the board of education, plaintiff herein, since that sum had been apportioned as aforesaid.

¶7 But it is urged that to so hold would violate the contractual obligation of the county commissioners to the voters that they, the county commissioners, should expend the proceeds of the voted bonds. We do not agree with that contention since the expenditure by the board of education, for the same purpose and at the same separate school, would fully discharge the obligation to the separate school involved and to the voters as to the expenditure of the funds involved.

¶8 Authorities support the rule that so long as the exact expenditure purpose is preserved and followed, a legislative change in the personnel or in the board to make the expenditure of such a fund is legal and valid. See Rorick v. Board of Commissioners of Everglades Drainage District, 57 F.2d 1048, and decisions therein cited; California Highway Commission v. Ballard, 77 Cal. App. 404, 247 P. 527; State ex rel. Urquhart v. Johnson, 107 Fla. 624, 145 So. 880; Reppel v. Board of Liquidation 11 F. Supp. 799.

¶9 We conclude that the county treasurer, defendant, should at once transfer this fund of $145,300 to the treasurer of the plaintiff board of education as a mandatory duty, and that no constitutional right is thereby violated; the said board of education then being strictly obligated to expend such fund only for the purpose for which the bonds were voted and the purpose for which the allocation or apportionment of such fund was made to this district by the board of county commissioners.

¶10 The writ is granted as prayed for.

¶11 ARNOLD, V.C.J., and CORN, GIBSON, LUTTRELL, JOHNSON, and O'NEAL, JJ., concur.