Burnett v. Nix

George Rose Smith, Justice. This is a taxpayer’s suit brought by the appellant to enjoin six Saline county school districts from continuing to employ the seventh appellee, Millard Nix, as the districts’ tax representative. The appellant contends that there is no statutory authority for the districts to engage a person to perform the duties assigned to Nix, which are said to be partly a duplication of duties imposed by law upon the county assessor. The chancellor upheld the contract of employment. We agree with the chancellor. School boards have broad statutory authority to employ such employees as may be necessary for the proper conduct of the schools and to do “all things necessary and lawful for the conduct of an efficient free public school or schools.” Ark Stat. Ann. § 80-509 (d) and (m) (Repl. 1960).; Where such a wide discretion is vested in the school directors we have held that one who seeks relief in the chancery court has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that there has been a manifest abuse of the board’s discretion. Safferstone v. Tucker, 235 Ark. 70, 357 S. W. 2d 3 (1962). We are unable to say that the appellant has sustained his heavy burden of proof. According to the record, within the past five or six years these districts were confronted with serious financial problems. Statutory changes mandatorily allocated a certain portion of the districts’ revenues to the payment of teachers’ salaries. Moreover, by 1965 the ratio of assessed property values within the county had fallen to 15 percent of market values, so that the county found it necessary to employ professional assistance in the reappraisal of the taxable property within the county. See Ark. Stat. Ann. §§ 84-468 et seq. (Repl. 1960). In that critical situation the school directors concluded that additional revenues had to be found if the schools were to remain open. The six appellee districts joined together in the employment of Nix, contributing proportionately to the payment of hie salary and expenses. Nix’s duties are twofold. First, he prepares for each district the list of taxpayers that must be filed with the county assessor. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 84-405. The appellant concedes that the statute expressly authorizes the districts to pay the expense of compiling the lists, but he insists that the greater part of Nix’s time is devoted to. the other phase of his work, which is said to be a duplication of the county assessor’s functions. The proof does not support that contention. The second category of Nix’s contractual duties includes the discovery of new construction and other property not listed for taxation, the appraisal of such property, and the submission of that information to the appropriate district. At the trial in May of 1967 Nix testified that since the preceding January 1 he had discovered unas-sessed properties having a value of about one and a quarter million dollars. According to the districts’ testimony, the information being supplied by Nix cannot be obtained from the county assessor’s office until a year later. Yet the early acquisition of the information is important to the districts, because it enables them to plan the operation of the schools with knowledge of the revenues that will be available. Moreover, Nix supplies information not. furnished by the assessor, such as the location of new residential subdivisions that must eventually be served by the districts. That kind of data assists the school boards in planning the construction of new school buildings, where they will be most needed. In employing Nix the school directors also intended for his activity to play a part in preventing assessed values from falling below the minimum percentage required by law for the receipt of all available state-aid funds. It cannot be doubted that the maintenance of adequate assessed values will be of direct financial benefit to the-districts. We are not convinced by the appellant’s insistence that if there is any dissatisfaction with the county assessor’s appraisals, the sole remedy is at the ballot box when he seeks re-election. In the first place, the statutes already encourage citizens to discover and -report property that has been overlooked by the county assessor. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 84-444. And, secondly, the directors might understandably have some doubt about the incumbent assessor’s defeat at the polls by an opponent running upon a platform of higher assessments and hence higher taxes. For the reasons stated, we conclude that the appellant failed to show by clear and convincing proof that there was a manifest abuse of discretion on the part of the school directors in their decision to employ Nix to perform the duties assigned to him. Affirmed. FoglemaN, J., dissents.