In the Matter of the Proposed Closing of Rollingstone Community School.

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2018).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A18-0799

In the Matter of the
Proposed Closing of Rollingstone Community School.

Filed April 15, 2019
Affirmed; motion denied
Jesson, Judge

Independent School District No. 861

Gregory L. Richard, Winona, Minnesota; and

Lucas J. Thompson, Thompson Horst, PLLC, Edina, Minnesota (for relator Save Our
Schools Committee)

Christian R. Shafer, Nathan B. Shepherd, Ratwik, Roszak & Maloney, P.A., Minneapolis,
Minnesota (for respondent Independent School District No. 861)

Considered and decided by Ro ss, Presiding Judge; Johnson, Judg e ; a n d J e s s o n ,
Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
JESSON, Judge
By writ of certiorari, relator Save Our Schools Committee chal lenges the decision
by the school board of respondent Independent School District N o. 861 to close two
elementary schools. Because substantial evidence supports the school board’s decision to

2
close the elementary schools, th e role of the superintendent di d not violate due process,
and the decision was not arbitrary or capricious, we affirm.
FACTS
Respondent Independent School Di s t r i c t N o . 8 6 1 ( t h e d i s t r i c t ) encompasses the
Winona Area Public Schools, which, prior to the school closings at issue, consisted of five
elementary schools, one middle sc hool, one high school, and one former school building
used by the district for offices and community education. Unti l recently, Madison
Elementary School, built in 1940, housed 196 students from kind ergarten through fourth
grade. Rollingstone Community S chool, constructed in 1996, hou sed 74 students from
pre-kindergarten through fourth grade. Facing declining enrollment, looming maintenance
needs for several facilities, and a budget shortfall, the distr ict began exploring options to
reduce its budget.
In late 2016, the district esta blished a task force on faciliti es to help the district
determine the best course of ac tion regarding the maintenance a nd upgrade needs of its
properties. The task force reviewed a facilities analysis report prepared by an outside firm
that identified and prioritized maintenance needs. The report recognized $7,385,708 in
costs for Madison, and $1,597,630 for those same costs at Rolli ngstone. Based on this
analysis and concerns about the district’s facilities, approxim ately two-thirds of the task
force members expressed support for a plan that involved closin g Madison and
Rollingstone elementary schools.
In early 2017, the district established a Budget Reduction Com mittee tasked with
considering options to reduce the district’s budget by $1,500,000 for the 2017-2018 school

3
year. That committee considered 2 38 suggestions for achieving the budget reduction,
including closing Madison and/or Rollingstone. Members of that committee indicated
support for closing both schools.
In February 2018, the district convened another Budget Reductio n Committee
charged with providing the school board with prioritized rankings of options for reducing
the district’s budget. This committee again considered the option to close the two schools.
Of the 31 committee members, 19 supported closing both schools, 21 supported closing
Rollingstone, and 25 supported closing Madison.
Based on input from these committees, the school board schedul ed a public hearing
regarding closing the schools, a nd the district provided notice of the meeting. 1 At the
public hearing, the superintendent presented information about the district’s plan to reduce
its budget, and several members of the community voiced their o pinions regarding the
proposed closing of the two schools. The next day, the school board held a listening session
and also heard public comments, but nearly all of the public fe edback focused on
preventing cuts to art and music programs. The school board also heard public comments
at its March 22 and March 29 meetings.
At the March 29 board meeting, the school board adopted the fi ndings and
conclusions proposed by the district. The adopted factual find ings included that both
schools were operating under enrollment capacity and that K-12 enrollment in the district
had declined. Further, the sc hool board adopted findings that closing Madison and

1 The public hearing was originally scheduled for February 20, 2018, but was rescheduled
to March 19, 2018, after the original hearing was cancelled due to a snow storm.

4
Rollingstone would result in $189,854.23 in savings for building operating costs, $22,050
in annual savings as a result of streamlined transportation, and $541,852.26 savings in costs
related to staffing. After noting that it considered the comments from the public, the school
board determined that it was necessary and practicable to close both schools. Relator Save
Our Schools Committee 2 (Save Our Schools) appealed, s eeking reversal of the school
board’s decision and reopening o f the schools, but has subseque ntly dismissed its appeal
as to Rollingstone.3
D E C I S I O N
Minnesota law governs the requi red process for closing a school . By statute, a
school board may “establish and organize and alter and discontinue such grades or schools
as it may deem advisable.” Minn. Stat. § 123B.02, subd. 2 (2018). But because the closure
of a school is a significant event in a community, school board s are required to hold a
public hearing about the necessity and practicability of a prop osed school closing before
making the decision to close a school. Minn. Stat. § 123B.51, subd. 5 (2018); W. Area Bus.

2 Save Our Schools Committee is an unincorporated organization of individuals who reside
in Independent School District No. 861.
3 Save Our Schools previously asked this court to stay the sale of the school buildings, but
this court denied that motion beca use Save Our Schools failed t o first seek a stay of the
sale of the schools from the district. The district subsequent ly sold both school buildings
and filed a motion seeking dismissal of this appeal as moot, wh ich we deny because we
reach the merits of the case. See Dean v. City of Winona , 868 N.W.2d 1, 4 (Minn. 2015)
(describing mootness not as “a mechanical rule” but as a “flexible discretionary doctrine”).
After oral arguments, Save Our Schools filed a notice stating t hat it “no longer [sought] a
reversal of the sale of the real property upon which Rollingsto ne Community School was
operated.” And this court issued an order partially dismissing this appeal as it relates to
Rollingstone. Although the remai nder of this opinion focuses o n Madison, we note that
the overall analysis and conclusion applies to Rollingstone as well.

5
& Civic Club v. Duluth Sch. Bd. Indep. Dist. No. 709, 324 N.W.2d 361, 364 (Minn. 1982).
School boards must publish notice of the public hearing for two weeks in the official
newspaper of the district desc ribing the time, place, and purpo se of the meeting, and
members of the public must be allowed to provide comments for and against the proposal.
Minn. Stat. § 123B.51, subd. 5.
Once a school board has made the decision to close a school, that decision is entitled
to judicial deference and this court does not substitute its ju dgment for that of the school
board. 834 VOICE v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 834, 893 N.W.2d 649, 652 (Minn. App. 2017).
We only review a school board’s decision to determine whether i t was “fraudulent,
arbitrary, unreasonable or not supported by substantial evidence on the record; not within
its jurisdiction; or based on a n erroneous theory of law.” Foesch v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No.
646, 223 N.W.2d 371, 375 (Minn. 1974).
Save Our Schools challenges the closure of Madison on three grounds. First, Save
Our Schools argues that the decision to close Madison was not s upported by substantial
evidence. Second, Save Our School s contends that the role of t he superintendent during
the school-closing process violated due process. Finally, Save Our Schools asserts that the
school-closing decision was arbitrary, capricious, and not in good faith. We address each
argument in turn.
I. Substantial evidence supporte d the school board’s decision to close the school.

Save Our Schools contends that the school board’s decision was not supported by
substantial evidence in the record. In the context of school-closing cases, substantial
evidence requires “relevant evidence . . . a reasonable mind mi ght accept as adequate to

6
support a conclusion,” which must be more than a scintilla, some, or any evidence, and that
evidence is “considered in its entirety.” Kelly v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 623 , 380 N.W.2d
833, 836 (Minn. App. 1986). We consider whether the record supports closing a particular
school, and “[g]eneral data that only supports closing a school will be considered
insufficient.” 834 VOICE , 893 N.W.2d at 655. And we will affirm a school board’s
decision when data provides a basis for the board’s action, par ticularly in cases where a
question “requires board members t o exercise their administrati ve judgment.” Id.
(quotation omitted).
Here, the school board considered a plethora of data, including : K-12 enrollment
data, data from the Budget Reduction Committee, a prioritized l ist of ways to reduce the
budget, a financial savings summary, and data about deferred ma intenance costs from an
analysis completed by an outside architecture firm. Further, t he school board considered
enrollment statistics and boundary-line information for scenarios where either school was
closed or if both schools were closed. Based on this data, the school board concluded that
K-12 enrollment had declined in the district and that Madison w as operating under
capacity. Additionally, the school board found that closing Madison would save the district
$106,799.54 in operating costs and $397,320.98 in costs related to staffing. The school
board found that additional bene fits of closing the school incl uded a reduction in travel
time for support staff who were travelling between schools, and that all programming
currently available to families would be available to them at their new schools. Based on
this information, the school board determined that it was necessary and practicable to close
Madison. That decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record. See W. Area

7
Bus., 324 N.W.2d at 365 (concluding that a school board’s decision was supported by
substantial evidence where the r ecord reflected that the board considered budgetary data,
long-range planning information, demographic studies, building evaluations, and public
input).
But Save Our Schools argues that the school board’s enrollment and capacity
determinations are incorrect and that the school board’s findin gs did not include
information about why the district was operating at a deficit. With respect to enrollment,
Save Our Schools contends that the findings adopted by the school board referenced K-12
enrollment, rather than K-4 elementary enrollment, thereby presenting misleading statistics
about whether elementary enrollment was declining. But althoug h the findings reference
K-12 enrollment, evidence in the record specifically demonstrat ed that K-4 enrollment
declined from 2006 to 2016 and that K-4 enrollment was expected to show a 12% decline
by the 2021-2022 school year. In terms of capacity, the record contains information
regarding available classroom space and enrollment numbers at the remaining elementary
schools in the event that both sc hools were closed. Finally, w ith respect to the argument
that the findings did not include information about why the school district was operating at
a deficit, there is no legal requirement that the school board include that information in its
determination. What the school board did consider—significant data regarding enrollment,
capacity, maintenance needs, and other options for reducing the b u d g e t — l e d t o t h e
determination that closing Madison was necessary and practicable.
Additionally, Save Our Schools analogizes this case to Kelly, arguing that while
data may have supported closing a school, it did not specifically support closing Madison.

8
But Kelly is distinguishable. In Kelly, a case involving the decision to close one of two
high schools in a school district, this court noted that the data did not present any obvious
reason for closing one school rather than the other and that the school board recognized the
equality of physical factors between facilities. 380 N.W.2d at 837. Further, this court
noted that the record in that cas e was “practically devoid of a ny articulated standards or
reflective findings.” Id. That is not the case here. The record contains substantial
evidence—including enrollment a nd capacity statistics, rankings from the Budget
Reduction Committee, a financial savings summary and a deferred maintenance report—
that supports the school board’s decision to close Madison. Ac cordingly, based on the
record, substantial evidence supported the school board’s decision to close Madison. See
834 VOICE, 893 N.W.2d at 656-58 (determi ning that school board’s decisio n based on
declining enrollment, schools operating below capacity, inequitable learning experiences,
and budgetary constraints was supported by substantial evidence).
II. The superintendent’s role in the school-closing process did n o t v i o l a t e d u e
process.

Save Our Schools contends that its members’ due-process rights were violated by
the superintendent serving as an advocate, witness, and advisor during the school-closing
process.
The requirements of due process ar e measured based on the gover nment function
involved and whether private interests are directly affected. In re N. Metro Harness, Inc.,
711 N.W.2d 129, 136 (Minn. App. 2006), review denied (Minn. June 20, 2006). In
quasi-judicial proceedings, like a school board’s decision to c lose a school, “the full

9
panoply of procedures required in regular judicial proceedings” are not required. Id.
Rather, the due-process rights required in a quasi-judicial pro ceeding are “reasonable
notice of a hearing and a reasonable opportunity to be heard.” Id. (citing Barton
Contracting Co., Inc. v. City of Afton, 268 N.W.2d 712, 716 (Minn. 1978)). Both happened
here. And this court has prev iously declined to impose additio nal due-process
requirements on school-closing hearings. See Bena Parent Ass’n v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No.
115, 381 N.W.2d 517, 521 (Minn. App . 1986) (declining to impose a requirement that a
hearing officer must conduct school-closing cases).
Although Save Our Schools does not challenge the fact that the district provided
notice of the public hearing and allowed individuals the opportunity to be heard—which is
all that due process requires in the school-closing context—Sav e Our Schools contends
that the superintendent violate d due process by serving both as an advisor and advocate
during the proceedings. Save Our Schools asserts that Schmidt v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 1,
349 N.W.2d 563 (Minn. App. 1984), a case involving the termination of a teacher, supports
the claim that combining the roles of advisor and advocate viol ates due process. But this
court later explicitly stated that a school board’s role and ra nge of discretion differs in
teacher-termination cases and school-closing cases. Bena, 3 8 1 N . W . 2 d a t 5 2 1 . I n
concluding that there is not the same potential for arbitrary action against an individual in
school-closing cases, this court declined to impose any additio nal due-process
requirements in school-closing cases. 4 Id. Here, the district satisfied the required due

4 Additionally, Save Our Schools cites Richview Nursing Home v. Minn. Dep’t of Pub.
Welfare, 354 N.W.2d 445 (Minn. App. 1984), review denied (Minn. Oct. 30, 1984), a case

10
process for a school closing by providing notice of a public hearing and an opportunity for
individuals to be heard. Accordingly, we conclude that the school-closing process did not
violate due process.
III. The school board’s decision to close Madison was not arbitrary or capricious.

Finally, Save Our Schools maintains that the decision to close Madison w as
arbitrary and capricious. In s upport of this argument, Save Ou r Schools points to two
commentaries written by two school board members expressing the ir beliefs that school
closures were necessary for the financial well-being of the district and their intent to vote
for the school closures.
In the context of administrative decisions, this court has dete rmined that “an
agency’s decision is arbitrary or capricious if the agency (a) relied on factors the legislature
never intended it to consider, (b) entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the
problem, (c) offered an explana tion for the decision that runs counter to the evidence, or
(d) rendered a decision so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view
or the result of agency expertise.” Watab Twp. Citizen All. v. Benton Cty. Bd. of Comm’rs,
728 N.W.2d 82, 89 (Minn. App. 2007), review denied (Minn. May 15, 2007).
Here, Save Our Schools does not appear to contend that any of the above factors are
applicable. Nor do we discern any evidence to suggest that the school board considered

where this court concluded that, although a prosecuting attorney general reviewed a draft
order for form, due process was not offended because the decisi on-maker remained
unbiased. But that proceeding, better characterized as a contested administrative hearing,
is different in function from the school-closing proceeding here.

11
inappropriate factors when deciding to close the school or that it ignored an important
aspect of the school-closing decision. Further, the school board’s decision is not contrary
to the evidence and the ultimate result was not implausible.
Still, Save Our Schools contends t hat because two school board members wrote
opinion pieces, they “pre-judged” the issue, rendering the process arbitrary and capricious
and denying Save Our Schools a fair tribunal. 5 Examination of the record demonstrates
otherwise. One school board member who authored a commentary r ecused himself and
did not vote on the school closing. And the other school board member’s opinion piece
did not express how she intended to vote on the school-closing matter. Accordingly, the
record suggests that the school board properly considered the d ata and differing options
before it ultimately chose to close the school.
In closing, we acknowledge the significance of a school closure on a close-knit
community. 834 VOICE, 893 N.W.2d at 652. By nature, the decision to close a school is
difficult—and an inherently political decision. Id. As such, these local decisions are

5 In support of its position, Save Our Schools cites to an unpublished case where this court
determined that a city council member’s participation in an adv ocacy group opposing a
project, before voting against that project in her capacity as a city council member, led to
a determination that the city c ouncil’s decision was arbitrary and capricious. See Cont’l
Prop. Grp., Inc. v. City of Minneapolis , No. A10-1072, 2011 WL 1642510, at *6 (Minn.
App. May 3, 2011). But in reaching that decision, this court determined that the record in
that case established that the city council relied on factors it was not permitted to consider,
at least in part as a result of the council member’s advocacy a ctivities. Id. Here, there is
nothing in the record suggesting that the school board relied o n the editorials written by
the board members or considered a ny inappropriate factors when reaching its decision.
Further, unpublished cases from this court are not precedential . Minn. Stat. § 480A.08,
subd. 3(c) (2018).

12
entitled to our deference. We “decline to substitute [our] jud gment for the judgment of
locally elected officials, who are both most familiar with the community’s issues and most
directly accountable to the voters.” Id. Accordingly, we conclude that sufficient evidence
supported the closing of Madison , that the school-closing proce dures did not violate due
process, and that the decision was not arbitrary or capricious.
Affirmed; motion denied.