If one county's board of education votes to release a school district to a neighboring county, when does that release actually take effect? Is the unilateral resolution enough, or does the receiving county's board also have to vote on it?
Plain-English summary
In February 1958, the Kingsbury County Board of Education passed a resolution releasing Common School Districts 16 and 17 to Hamlin County so the territory could be folded into the Lake Norden Independent School District. For nearly a decade after that, however, Kingsbury County kept treating the districts as its own: the County Auditor levied taxes on the territory, collected the money, and remitted it through the Kingsbury system. Lake Norden and Hamlin County never received any of it.
The Hamlin County Board of Education had adopted its own master plan in January 1960 that listed the "released" districts as part of the Hamlin reorganization, but its minutes did not contain a separate resolution accepting or jointly acting on the Kingsbury release. When the Hamlin County Master Plan later failed at the ballot box, the Kingsbury County Board revoked its February 1958 release, again unilaterally.
The question put to the AG was whether the school districts had actually moved to Hamlin County. The AG said no. Both SDC 1960 Supp. 15.2006 and 15.2007(4) required joint action by the county boards of education of all counties containing territory in a reorganization. A resolution by only one county did not satisfy the statute. And the Hamlin master plan's reference to the released districts, without any record of a Hamlin board resolution actually approving the Kingsbury release, did not constitute joint action either.
Practically, that meant the Kingsbury resolution had never moved the districts. They had remained in Kingsbury County all along, which matched what the County Auditor had been doing. Kingsbury's later revocation of the release was unnecessary because there had been nothing to revoke.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1967. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here. The SDC 1960 sections cited here were superseded by the modern Title 13 (Education) chapters on school district reorganization, and the rural county-board-of-education governance structure described in the opinion has been substantially restructured by South Dakota's post-1970 school consolidation legislation. Inter-district transfer mechanics today are governed by different statutory provisions than those at issue here.
What the opinion meant at the time
For county boards of education, the opinion underscored that releasing or accepting school district territory required documented joint action, not parallel one-sided resolutions. A clean record needed minutes from each affected county showing the release and the corresponding acceptance, each tied to the same described territory. If those minutes did not exist, the release had not happened, no matter how long both counties had operated as if it had.
For county auditors and treasurers, the opinion validated continuing to levy and collect taxes in the territory under the original county's school structure when joint board action was not on the books. The Kingsbury County Auditor's nearly decade-long practice of treating Districts 16 and 17 as Kingsbury territory was the right call.
For school district patrons, the opinion meant their district's identity depended on what the records actually showed, not on what either county board had assumed. If a patron believed their district had been released but later learned that the receiving county had never acted on the release, the patron's district was still where it had always been.
For school attorneys advising on reorganization disputes, the opinion was a reminder to demand actual minutes of the joint action rather than relying on master plan recitals or parallel resolutions that referenced each other without crossing paths.
Common questions
Q: What counts as "joint action" under SDC 15.2006?
A: At a minimum, identifiable resolutions from each county's board of education addressing the same territory and the same release. A joint meeting of the two boards adopting a single resolution would obviously satisfy the requirement. Separate resolutions taken at separate meetings might satisfy it if each clearly approved the release of the specific territory at issue.
Q: Did the Hamlin County master plan's listing of the released districts count as accepting the release?
A: The AG said no, at least not on the record provided. The master plan was a county-wide reorganization document that incidentally mentioned the released territory; it was not a discrete resolution acknowledging the Kingsbury release. The AG indicated that more specific information of Hamlin's approval might change the analysis.
Q: What was the effect on the patrons of Districts 16 and 17?
A: Their districts remained in the Kingsbury County system for tax, governance, and reorganization purposes until proper joint action occurred. Children continued to attend whichever school the Kingsbury system assigned or contracted them to attend.
Q: Why did Kingsbury's later attempt to revoke the release matter?
A: Under the AG's reasoning, the revocation was not strictly necessary because the original release had never become effective. But the revocation made the record cleaner: it confirmed that Kingsbury was not relying on the 1958 resolution to move the territory.
Q: Could the two counties cure the problem retroactively?
A: The opinion did not address curing. The natural reading is that the counties could take joint action going forward to release the districts if both boards still wanted that result, but they could not retroactively validate the 1958 release without going through the joint process now.
Q: Did the opinion address what happens to a master plan that turns out to have been built on a defective release?
A: Not directly. The Hamlin master plan had already failed at the ballot box, so the underlying question was academic. If a master plan had passed while assuming a defective release, the implementing reorganization would presumably be vulnerable to challenge on the same grounds the AG identified.
Background and statutory framework
South Dakota in the 1960s was working through a long-running consolidation of small rural school districts. The 1960s reorganization laws (codified in SDC 1960 Supp. 15.2006 and the surrounding provisions) gave county boards of education the authority to draw up master plans, hold elections on those plans, and reorganize the school districts within their borders. When district lines crossed county lines, the legislature required joint action so neither county could unilaterally pull territory out of the other.
SDC 1960 Supp. 15.2006, as amended by Chapter 40 of the Session Laws of 1966, expressly addressed joint districts: any power or duty involving reorganization had to be performed jointly by all county boards involved, except that once an area of one county had been released to another by joint action, additional action could be taken by the receiving county alone. SDC 1960 Supp. 15.2007(4) reinforced the requirement by mandating that any plan involving territory in two or more counties be prepared by joint action of the boards involved.
The Kingsbury/Hamlin situation tested both provisions. Kingsbury had passed a resolution describing a release. Hamlin had drafted a master plan listing the released districts. Neither had documented a joint act of release. The AG concluded that the statute meant what it said: the joint act was a precondition, and absent specific evidence of it, the release had not happened.
The opinion cited an official opinion issued to a Mr. Archie R. Moore, dated December 23, 1966, reported as 1965-66 AGR 40, as additional support. The Moore opinion presumably addressed the same general issue of joint reorganization action.
Citations and references
Statutes:
- SDC 1960 Supp. 15.2006 (as amended by Chapter 40, Session Laws of 1966) (joint action requirement for cross-county school district reorganization)
- SDC 1960 Supp. 15.2007(4) (master plans involving two-or-more-county territory require joint action)
Prior AG opinions:
- 1965-66 AGR 40 (opinion issued to Archie R. Moore, dated December 23, 1966)
Source
Original opinion text
Schools and school districts. Joint action required for release of school districts to another county.
You have requested an opinion on the following information:
"Pursuant to our phone conversation of last week, I called in regard to the minutes of the County Board of Education as published by the Hamlin County Board of Education which reads as follows:
"'L.R. Fredrickson made a motion to pass a resolution to attach all of Kingsbury Common School District No. 16 of Kingsbury County to Lake Norden Independent No. 1 of Hamlin County after calling Mr. James Schooler of the State Dept. of Public Instruction to inquire as to the responsibility of the Hamlin County Board of Education, as this District is part of Hamlin County's Master Plan. The Board will consider all petitions brought in for a change of District. Seconded by Donald Little. Motion carried.'"
"As I stated previously, I would request all minutes from the Superintendent of Schools, who is the Secretary for the Kingsbury County Board of Education. I have done this and enclose the original sheets I have received from her in this regard. You will note from the contents thereof that originally School District Nos. 16, 17, and 58 of Kingsbury County were permitted to be included in the Hamlin County Master Plan for the purpose of voting on said plan only. When the plan failed, i.e., the Hamlin County Master Plan for adoption, then a reconsideration of the release was given, and when Doris Boadwin, County Superintendent of Schools and Clerk of the Hamlin County Board, requested a copy of the resolution ceding the subject districts to Hamlin County on February 3, 1958, she was advised that in view of the Hamlin County Master Plan failing, that it was unanimously voted upon by the Kingsbury County Board that the original release for Master plan only was revoked. Subsequent to that time and at all periods herein, the County Auditor assessed a levy, collected the funds and treated all of these districts as a part of the Kingsbury County System. They have never been attached to the Lake Norden system, the tax was never remitted to that Independent School System or to the Hamlin County District.
"There have been no joint meetings between the counties authorizing the release of School District No. 16 to Lake Norden or the Hamlin County District; all responsibility has remained with the Kingsbury County Board. It now appears that over 95 percent of the valuation has indicated a preference to be attached to districts of Kingsbury County, South Dakota. There has never been an election that has passed to dissolve these districts and attach them to Lake Norden. In fact, the one vote to dissolve and attach to Lake Norden was voted down something like 16 to 4 or 5 votes. You can, therefore, see that to attach this district to the Lake Norden District is opposed by the constituents of said district, and upon seeing the minutes of the County Board of Education from Hamlin County, they immediately protested to the Kingsbury County Board of Education. We request your opinion in this regard."
SDC 1960 Supp. 15.2006, as last amended by Chapter 40, Session Laws of 1966 reads in part 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, or except as hereinafter provided..."
SDC 1960 Supp. 15.2007(4) reads in part as follows:
"(4) It is recognized that local communities may extend beyond county boundaries in many instances. Where this is the case county boards of education of the counties affected must work jointly in the preparation of master plans. Any plan for the reorganization of school districts involving territory in two or more counties shall be prepared by joint action of the respective county boards..."
From information furnished, the minutes of the Kingsbury County Board of Education shows the following:
"Be it resolved inasmuch as Common School Districts No. 16 and No. 17 were being served by Lake Norden, that the Kingsbury County Board of Education release the Common School Districts No. 16 and 17 to become a part of the Lake Norden School District in Hamlin County, according to the Hamlin County Master Plan. Carried unanimously..."
The above action was taken by the Kingsbury County Board of Education at their meeting February 3, 1958. It is my opinion that the above action by the Kingsbury County Board of Education was sufficient to release Common School Districts No. 16 and 17 to Hamlin County and such was an unconditional release, provided, joint action was accomplished on such release by the Hamlin County Board of Education.
It is my opinion that the above statutes require joint action by the County boards of Education before such a release becomes official and binding. See 1965-66 AGR 40 an official opinion issued to Mr. Archie R. Moore, dated December 23, 1966.
I have not been furnished with any minutes of the Hamlin County Board of Education which indicates that the Hamlin County Board of Education acted on, approved or agreed to the action taken by the Kingsbury County Board of Education on February 3, 1958.
The Hamlin County Board of Education minutes of their meeting January 4, 1960 reads in part as follows:
"'A' moved and 'B' seconded, that a master plan be adopted to extend to county lines plus areas included in the Hazel Ind. School District in Codington County, the Estelline Ind. School District in Deuel County and the released Common School Districts No. 16 and No. 17 in Kingsbury County. Motion carried with unanimous vote."
It is my opinion that the above action by the Hamlin County Board of Education on January 4, 1960 does not constitute joint action of the resolution adopted by the Kingsbury County Board of Education on February 3, 1958 and until this office is furnished with more specific information of joint approval of the resolution adopted by the Kingsbury County Board of Education on February 3, 1958 by the Hamlin County Board of Education, it is my opinion that there was no actual release of Common Districts No. 16 and No. 17 of Kingsbury County to Hamlin County.