STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA
OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

June 19, 1970

Michael V. Braley
State's Attorney, Hutchinson County Courthouse
Parkston, South Dakota 57366

OFFICIAL OPINION NO. 70-25

SDCL 13-6-53, as amended; Joint School Districts, authority of County Board of Education where territory in another county has been released to it by the County Board of Education of such other county

Dear Mr. Braley:

I have your request for an official opinion on the following statement of fact:

"At a joint meeting of the County Boards of Education of Yankton, Bon Homme and Hutchinson Counties, held May 14, 1969 at Scotland, South Dakota, the Boards of Hutchinson County and Yankton County released certain areas to Bon Homme County. Included areas were Odessa School District No. 41 and Odessa School District No. 24, both in Yankton County. Said districts were released to be involved in a Master Plan to create a new entity to be known as the Scotland School District.

"An election was held October 14, 1969, at which time both Odessa No. 41 and No. 24 voted by a majority of over 60% to become a part of the Scotland School District. The County Board of Bon Homme County then by resolution created the new entity effective July 1, 1970.

"Several families in Odessa No. 41 and No. 24 then presented petitions to the Bon Homme County Board, requesting minor boundary changes so as to be released to Menno School District No. 111 in Hutchinson County. The Bon Homme County Board honored the requests and released the land to the Hutchinson County Board to be so attached to No. 111."

The question you submit is as follows:

"Is any action required by the Yankton County Board relative to the release of that land in Odessa No. 41 and No. 24 to Hutchinson County? Or has the Yankton County Board, by its action and resolution of May 14, 1969, in releasing the above land to Bon Homme County, relinquished all of its rights relative to these two districts?"

SDCL 13-6-53 provides as follows:

"Any power or duty which a county board or county officer has under this chapter involving reorganization of its own school districts shall be performed jointly by all county boards and county officers of those counties containing territory involved in the reorganization of joint school districts, except that when by joint action of the county boards of education, an area of one county has been released to another county, then any additional action required shall be by the county board of education to which such area has been released. (Emphasis supplied.)

The Yankton County Board of Education, at meetings held on October 23, 1968 and May 14, 1969, released the land area with which you are here concerned, to the Bon Homme County Board of Education, provided the people in the area voted in favor of the Scotland plan. Such vote was favorable.

It is my opinion that action is not required by the County Board of Education of Yankton County, South Dakota. The original statute that was the subject of litigation in the case of Knodel Common School District No. 58 v. County Board of Education of Yankton County, South Dakota, 144 NW 2d 38, was amended by Chapter 40 of the Session Laws of 1966, adding that portion of the statute that is underscored above. Therefore, the case of  Knodel Common School District No. 58 v. County Board of Education of Yankton County, South Dakota, supra, has no application to the present question.

It is also necessary to distinguish the facts here from the factual situation set out in Official Opinion No. 69-91 of November 21, 1969, addressed to Senator Alfred J. Burke of Newell, South Dakota. In that case the new entity was formed by the State Commission on Elementary and Secondary Education. The county boards of education of neither Perkins County nor Meade County in that case had ever released their territory to Ziebach County. In fact, such release when the entity was formed by the State Commission itself was not necessary. The amended portion of the statute as above cited, therefore, did not apply but the rule in the case Knodel Common School District No. 58, Yankton County v. County Board of Education, supra, did apply.

Respectfully submitted,

Gordon Mydland
Attorney General