STATE v. BOARD OF EDUC. OF IND. SCH. DIST. NO. ONE

Annotate this Case

STATE v. BOARD OF EDUC. OF IND. SCH. DIST. NO. ONE
1959 OK 81
339 P.2d 534
Case Number: 38694
Decided: 05/05/1959
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

STATE OF OKLAHOMA EX REL. ERNEST E. CLULOW, JR., PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NUMBER ONE OF TULSA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA; AND A. JACKSON LAWRENCE, CITY AUDITOR OF CITY OF TULSA, OKLAHOMA, DEFENDANTS IN ERROR.

Syllabus by the Court

¶0 1. The free public school system of this state is a matter of general state concern and city charters cannot run counter to state statutes touching said system.
2. The phrase 'term of office' as used in

Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County; W. Lee Johnson, Judge.

Action for alternative writ of mandamus. From order of Court vacating alternative writ of mandamus and denying peremptory writ of mandamus, plaintiff in error appeals. Affirmed.

Ernest E. Clulow, Jr., Tulsa, pro se.

C.H. Rosenstein of Rosenstein, Fist & Mesirow, Charles E. Norman, Asst. City Atty., Tulsa, for defendants in error.

BERRY, Justice.

¶1 Plaintiff in Error, State of Oklahoma ex rel. Ernest E. Clulow, Jr., will be referred to herein as "petitioner". Defendant in Error, Board of Education of Independent School District No. One (1) of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, will be referred to as "School Board" and where referred to collectively, defendants in error will be referred to as "respondents".

¶2 As reflected by history given in Owen v. City of Tulsa, 27 Okl. 264, 111 P. 320, the City of Tulsa, many years ago, adopted a charter form of government pursuant to Art. 18 of the Constitution of Oklahoma, and a legislative act appearing as C. 12, S.L. 1908, which act became effective March 22, 1908. It appears that shortly after adopting a charter form of government, an independent school district was created, and as reflected by the record herein and the history given in State ex rel. King v. White, 170 Okl. 126, 39 P.2d 69, 70, an ordinance which became effective in 1913, was enacted under which a school board of seven members was provided for. It was provided in said ordinance that the members of the school board should serve three years.

¶3 At a regular annual school board election held in 1958, Mr. Joseph M. Green was elected to fill position No. 5 on school board. In 1959 Mr. Green died. Following his death, school board met in special session and appointed Mr. William L. Butler "to fill the unexpired term of Mr. Jos. M. Green."

¶4 It became apparent in 1959 that members of school board were of the opinion that Mr. Butler was appointed to fill Mr. Green's unexpired term which would not expire until in 1961 and for said reason the manner of electing a person to position No. 5, which is the position now occupied by Mr. Butler, would not be submitted to the people at the annual school board election to be held in 1959. Petitioner made known to school board that he wished to be a candidate for position No. 5, and upon petitioner being advised by school board that it considered that said position, because of Mr. Butler's appointment thereto, would not be open until 1961, petitioner filed this action seeking by way of mandamus to require and compel respondents to place his "name on the ballot for the May 19, 1959 school board election as a candidate for Director No. 5 of Independent School District No. 1." From an adverse decision of the trial court, petitioner perfected this appeal on the original record.

¶5 In his brief, petitioner states that the issue presented by this appeal is "Does the Oklahoma School Code general statute on the subject, i.e.

¶6 The pertinent portion of Ordinance No. 1103 of Tulsa and the applicable statutes of the Oklahoma Statutes are these:

¶7 Ordinance No. 1103, Sec. 10, Vacancies:

"The Board of Education elected hereunder shall have power to fill vacancies by appointment until the next annual election at which time a member shall be elected by the voters to serve for the unexpired term."

¶8

"Any vacancy occurring on the board of education of an independent school district and of a dependent school district maintaining a high school shall be filled by the board of education of such district for the unexpired term; provided, however, that if the board of education does not fill such vacancy within seventy (70) days after the same occurs, it shall be mandatory on the part of the board of education to call a special election to fill the vacancy for the unexpired term, which election shall be held for the election of a board member only, and the said election shall be conducted in the same manner as the regular annual school election. Vacancies on boards of education of dependent school districts not maintaining a high school shall be filled by the county superintendent of schools for the unexpired term."

¶9

"* * * Provided, that cities which have adopted, a charter form of government, shall have the power of fixing the number of members of their board of education, and their terms of office, and may, subject to the constitution and general laws of the State, regulate the time and manner of the election of the members of the board of education."

¶10 The free public school system of this State is a matter of general state concern and city charters cannot run counter to state statutes touching said system. In the first paragraph of the syllabus to Board of Education of City of Ardmore v. State ex rel. Best, 26 Okl. 366, 109 P. 563, this was said:

"The free public school system which the Legislature is directed to establish by article 13 of the Constitution is a matter of general state concern, and not a municipal affair."

¶11 In the first portion of the syllabus to State ex rel. Friend v. Cummings, 47 Okl. 44, 147 P. 161, the thought expressed in the above quoted syllabus was restated thus: "The free public school system in Oklahoma is a matter of general state concern, and not a `municipal affair,' and city charters can only run current with and never counter to the general laws of the state touching the free public school system."

¶12 If Sec. 4-14, supra, is here applicable then under the cited cases the provisions of said statute prevail over the provisions of Ordinance No. 1103, Sec. 10, supra, and the trial court did not err in rendering judgment against petitioner.

¶13 Petitioner contends, however, that Sec. 4-14 is not applicable because the Legislature did not intend that said statute apply to a city with a charter form of government. In support of said contention petitioner cites Sec. 5837, Statutes of Okla. 1893, and subsequent statutes, which are no longer in effect, to the general effect that where practical, vacancies in the membership on school boards shall be filled at the school board election next following the vacancies. The history that petitioner gives concerning such statutes and of other statutes relating to schools is interesting and enlightening but does not tend to establish that the statutory law applicable to this case is other than the law set forth in the statutes which we have quoted supra. Petitioner also cites and stresses

¶14 Petitioner states that the codifier of the 1910 Oklahoma Statutes deleted from a statute bearing upon the issues presented by this appeal, certain relevant matter. We are unable to agree. However, if we assume such is in fact the case, the error was cured upon the 1910 Okla. Statutes being adopted in 1913. See Barnett v. Barnett, 158 Okl. 270, 13 P.2d 104.

¶15 Upon petitioner attempting to become a candidate for position No. 5 on school board, Mr. Butler, the person appointed to succeed Mr. Green, also attempted to become a candidate for said position. Petitioner asserts that this effects an estoppel and an election on Mr. Butler's part not to continue to serve as an appointed official. The position in controversy is a public office and Mr. Butler's action or inaction cannot change the statutory law applicable to the term of the office which he holds. We add, that by force of statute an appointed officer holds office until the end of the term for which the officer whom he succeeds was elected or appointed and until his successor is elected and qualified.

¶16 Petitioner contends that if his position is not well founded, then by force of

¶17 The action of the trial court in denying application for writ of mandamus is affirmed.

¶18 DAVISON, C.J., WILLIAMS, V.C.J. and JOHNSON, BLACKBIRD, JACKSON and IRWIN, JJ. concur.

 

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.