School Consolidation: Sylvania Grade School – Part II

Following the failure of a second bond issue proposal to expand the older Lockwood elementary school and close then still-new Sylvania grade school, the Lockwood R-I school district board of education adopted a new policy: the district would only hold elections at three polling locations: the Lockwood school, the Sylvania school, and the former Freedom School building. This was ostensibly to save money on the cost of the elections, as the county charged the district about $30 per polling place, or about $278 adjusted for inflation. That would decrease the expense of holding elections from $180 to $90, or from about $1,670 to about $834 in 2021 dollars.

A few residents of the Sylvania area didn’t see it that way, and following the results of the next election, filed a lawsuit that went all the way to the Missouri Supreme Court.

In the suit, under the header of Montgomery V. Reorganized School District No. 1 (1960), a number of Sylvania area residents argued that the Lockwood R-I board of education was acting in bad faith, and had shown an intent to minimize voting in areas of the school district that had been opposed to the previous bond issues: voters in Lockwood and at the former Freedom school polling places had approved of the proposal by over 50 percent, while voters at the other four polling locations had been opposed by significant margins. On that basis, they asserted that any election results held under those conditions should be considered to be “fraudulent and void.”

In examining the assertion that the school board had acted in bad faith, in its decision the court enumerated all of the various steps taken, and not taken, by the board and by those opposed to closing the Sylvania school.

After being dismissed by the Dade County Circuit Court, the Sylvania school supporters appealed the dismissal to the Missouri Court of Appeals. In their analysis, the appellate court noted that the president of the school board in 1957 testified that the action was taken to reduce the expenses of future elections, within its purview of fiduciary responsibility. Also, the polling locations remaining could still be considered to be reasonable under the relevant law of the time, with the Lockwood High School serving the central portion of the district, the Sylvania school the northern, and the former Freedom school the southern.

“As far as shown by the record no question was raised or protest made concerning this procedure. When the school board called the election now being challenged the only polling places designated by the board were the same three used in the two preceding annual school elections, and again, as far as shown by the record, no question was raised or protest made prior to the filing of this suit for an injunction,” continued the court in their assessment.

The board of education called a mass meeting at Lockwood High School in June 1959 to “to ascertain public opinion concerning the proposal to build an additional school building,” and in announcing the meeting had 500 printed for distribution announcing the meeting and its purpose. Following the mass meeting and calling for the election, six official notices of election were posted: one at the front door of the high school, another at the front door of the high school music room, one at the front door of the Sylvania school, another in the front window of the Lockwood Luminary newspaper office, one at the former Freedom schoolhouse, and a final one at Haubein’s General Store in Meinert.

As three of the six notices were posted on school district property, the Sylvania school supporters argued that the notices had not been posted in five public places as required by state law, and accessing certain of the notices to read them, particularly the notice on the music room door, could in fact be considered trespassing. The court, however, held that as public property, a school building is inherently a public place, and the posting of the notice is considered to be an invitation onto school grounds. (Contrast that with today’s school security conditions.)

In addition to the six notices, the board also published notice of the election in two editions of the Lockwood Luminary, which at the time had about 1,000 subscribers with the school district. A further 1,000 copies of a brochure stating the date of the election and detailing plans for the new school building were also printed, with 700 mailed to residents of the Lockwood area via rural free delivery, and another 89 copies individually addressed and mailed to district residents on RFD from other post offices, including Jerico Springs, Lamar, Golden City, Greenfield and South Greenfield. The remaining copies were divided up to be distributed at various locations and businesses in the school district, including the general stores at Cedarville, Kings Point, Meinert, and Sylvania store, March Implement Company west of Lockwood, the Farmers State Bank, and the post office. The court stated that the Lockwood superintendent of schools testified that he placed copies of the brochure in "every available place" and that he made certain that he "didn't miss a one."

In upholding the dismissal of the lawsuit (and by extension, the results of the election), the court noted that at the time, there was no requirement of a minimum number of polling places for a school district holding a special election.

“No mandatory provision of the Constitution or statutes regulating the designation of voting places has been violated, and appellants do not claim such a violation occurred,” wrote the court. “We are not able to find any evidence from which it reasonably may be concluded that the school board reduced the number of voting places for the purpose of minimizing the vote in areas where in previous years the vote on bond proposals had been adverse.”

The court also noted that the total number of votes in the contested 1959 election were 95 votes higher than the first election in 1957 and 95 votes lower than the second.

“We find no merit to the contention of appellants that the designation by the school board of but three voting places in the school district constituted fraud in the conduct of the election,” stated the court. “…. We do not agree with appellants' statement in their brief that ‘no publicity was given in those areas where the votes were shown by the two past elections to be opposed to the bonds.’ We find it difficult to visualize how the school board reasonably could have given a wider and more complete coverage of the publicity it gratuitously provided.”

Following the appellate court’s upholding of the dismissal of the Sylvania school supporters lawsuit, the Missouri Supreme Court declined to review the case, meaning the dismissal of the lawsuit by the Dade County Circuit Court would stand. The fate of the Sylvania school, in use for less than a decade, was sealed.

Note: Available sources are conflicting as to whether the Sylvania school was opened in time for the beginning of the 1953-54 school year or whether it opened at some point during the 1954 calendar year. Anyone having updated information is welcome to contact Articles Editor James McNary at news@greenfieldvedette.com.