STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA
OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
June 24, 1975
Mr. David C. Vigen
Executive Director
Charities and Corrections
217 East Dakota Avenue
Pierre, South Dakota 57501
OFFICIAL OPINION NO. 75-117
Legality of State Training School's policy of providing educational services to local school districts
Dear Mr. Vigen:
You have requested an opinion based on the following facts:
The state training school at Plankinton is providing educational services to local school districts such as Plankinton and White Lake. At present the vocational education program is being funded by the Division of Vocational Education. The training school provides space, heat and light for the program in which these communities participate, and in turn charges a per diem for the services provided. The training school also hires the teachers in these vocational education programs. They are on the training school staff although they are funded by vocational education funds. The school is accredited by the state.
The question presented is:
Can the state training school at Plankinton legally provide vocational education services to local school districts?
The Division of Vocational Education is clearly authorized to provide financial assistance to the vocational education programs at the State Training School. SDCL 13-39-19 provides in part:
It shall be the duty of the board of vocational education ... to distribute funds appropriated by the Legislature or granted by any federal agency to public secondary, post-secondary, trade and technical schools in the state, on the basis of provisions of the state plan or plans approved by the board ... The state treasurer shall be custodian of all moneys paid to the state from federal appropriations for the promotion of vocational training and technical education, and shall disburse the same on warrants issued by the state auditor upon vouchers approved by the director of vocational education.
Lincoln High School, the accredited education facility at the State Training School, is a "public secondary trade school" since it is established, maintained, funded and controlled by the state, not by individuals. Rankin v. Love, 232 P. 2d 998, 125 Mont. 184 (1951). City of New Haven v. Town of Torrington, 43 A. 2d 455, 132 Conn. 194 (1945). It is not a penal institution. 1959-60 AGR 86. It is, therefore, eligible to receive vocational education funds.
Whether or not the State Training School is authorized to share its facilities with area schools is not so clear. But every available statutory indicator and sound policy considerations lead me to the conclusion that sharing the facilities is legal.
SDCL 13-39-27 states:
For the purposes of providing and having available such trade and industrial education and training, any school district of this state is hereby authorized and empowered to ... enter into any agreement or contract to provide for the training of those qualified who have school residence within such school district or to contract for any service in connection with such training which would be for the benefit of such contracting parties. Such contract or agreement shall not be subject to the regulation of the tuition law...
This would clearly indicate that the White Lake and Plankinton school districts could enter into a contract or agreement with the State Training School. Such inter-school district agreements (although not involving the State Training School) were upheld by former Attorney General Farrar in 1965-66 AGR 256.
It is therefore my opinion that the State Training School's contracts or agreements with the local school districts for providing vocational education services are legal.
The final determination that must be made relates to funding. The State Auditor General’s office has offered some informal guidelines relating to the per diem payments in this situation.
1. Per diem payments should bear a reasonable relationship to the added costs the State Training School incurs as a result of sharing its vocational education facilities.
2. Per diem payments should be paid into the same account from which the added expenditures will be withdrawn.
It is therefore my opinion that if area school districts wish to avoid duplicating the costly vocational education facilities already available at the State Training School, the law will not stand in their way. Use of the State Training School's vocational education facilities by local school districts is perfectly legal, provided the State Training School does not choose to turn its "maximum facility utilization policy" into a profit-making venture.
Respectfully submitted,
William Janklow
Attorney General
WJJ:LLF:dk
