Question Submitted by: The Honorable Mike Shelton, State Representative, District 97

2014 OK AG 4
CourtOklahoma Attorney General Reports
DecidedMarch 10, 2014
StatusUnpublished

This text of 2014 OK AG 4 (Question Submitted by: The Honorable Mike Shelton, State Representative, District 97) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Oklahoma Attorney General Reports primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Question Submitted by: The Honorable Mike Shelton, State Representative, District 97, 2014 OK AG 4 (Okla. Super. Ct. 2014).

Opinion

OSCN Found Document:Question Submitted by: The Honorable Mike Shelton, State Representative, District 97
  1. Home
  2. Courts
  3. Court Dockets
  4. Legal Research
  5. Calendar
  6. Help
  1. Previous Case
  2. Top Of Index
  3. This Point in Index
  4. Citationize
  5. Next Case
  6. Print Only

Question Submitted by: The Honorable Mike Shelton, State Representative, District 97
2014 OK AG 4
Decided: 03/10/2014
Oklahoma Attorney General Opinions


Cite as: 2014 OK AG 4, __ __

¶0 This office has received your request for an Attorney General Opinion in which you ask, in effect, the following questions:
1. Does the State Board of Career and Technology Education have the authority to promulgate a rule that allows a common school district to annex to a technology center school district or to deannex from a technology center school district?
2. If legislation were enacted pursuant to Okla. Const. art. X, § 9B(H) to specifically prescribe procedures related to annexation to and deannexation from a technology center school district, would the legislation supersede the effect of the administrative rule promulgated at OAC 780:15-3-5 by the State Board of Career and Technology Education?
3. If a tax levy in a technology center school district is established through an election called for that purpose, does the State Board of Career Technology Education have the authority to promulgate a rule providing for a gradual phase-in or phase-out of the tax levy for newly annexed or deannexed schools?

¶1 The Oklahoma Constitution allows for technology center school districts to be established, including a tax levy on an ad valorem basis to support the district. Okla. Const. art. X, § 9B(A). In order to be established, the levy must be approved by a majority of the electors of the technology center school district at an election called for that purpose. Id. The levy is to be made each year until repealed by a majority of the electors in the technology center school district. Id.

¶2 The State Board of Career and Technology Education ("State Board") is granted authority to prescribe criteria and procedures for the establishment and governance of technology center school districts. Okla. Const. art. X, § 9B(G) ("districts shall be established in accordance with criteria and procedures prescribed by the State Board of Career and Technology Education"); see also 70 O.S.2011, § 14-108(A). The various technology center school districts encompass specific geographical territories, and "[t]erritory may be annexed to or detached from a technology center school district, in accordance with rules prescribed by the State Board of Career and Technology Education." Id. § 14-108(H).

¶3 Annexations may be proposed through various means, such as by the board of education of a local public school district or by the patrons and electors of that school district through a petition process. OAC 780:15-3-5(b)(1)(A)-(C) (2011). If an annexation is approved by the electors of the local school district at an election, then the local school district is incorporated into the territory of the technology center school district creating a partnership where the students of the local school district may attend the various programs and classes at the technology centers in lieu of taking classes at their regular school. These programs provide hands-on learning to explore careers in a variety of "Career Clusters" including, but not limited to: architecture, finance, health sciences, hospitality and tourism, and information technology.1 In this respect, an annexation does not refer to "taking control" of local school district or affecting the governance of the local district, but is instead the formation of a partnership between a technology center school district and a local school district to provide services to students. Finally, a similar process is also contemplated for any local school district who wishes to deannex from a technology center school district. OAC 780:15-3-5(c).

¶4 You have asked questions regarding the State Board's authority to adopt certain administrative rules relating to annexation, deannexation, and the rules' effect on tax levies. These questions are answered as follows.

I.

Does the State Board of Career and Technology Education Have the Authority to Promulgate a Rule That Allows a Common School District to Annex to a Technology Center School District or to Deannex From A Technology Center School District?

¶5 You first ask if the State Board has the authority to promulgate an administrative rule that allows a common school district to annex or deannex itself to or from a technology center school district. We initially recognize that "an agency created by statute may exercise only those powers granted and may not expand those powers by its own authority." City of Hugo v. State ex rel. Pub. Emp's Relations Bd., 886 P.2d 485, 492 (Okla. 1994). "In determining what authority may be implied from a statutory scheme, the statute as a whole is considered; and the legislative intent must be determined." Id. "The fundamental rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to legislative intent, and that intent is first sought in the language of the statute." YDF, Inc. v. Schlumar, Inc., 136 P.3d 656, 658 (Okla. 2006).

¶6 Here, we look first to the language of the Oklahoma Constitution, which provides, "Until otherwise provided for by law, technology center school districts and the government of technology center school districts shall be established in accordance with criteria and procedures prescribed by the State Board of Career and Technology Education." Okla. Const. art. X, § 9B(G). It is apparent that the State Board was granted authority and deference in areas where the law is otherwise silent on matters pertaining to the creation and governance of technology center school districts. In addition, with respect specifically to annexation and deannexation, Oklahoma statutes provide, "Territory may be annexed to or detached from a technology center school district, in accordance with rules prescribed by the State Board of Career and Technology Education." 70 O.S.2011, § 14-108(H). The State Board has been granted authority by the plain language of the Constitution and statutes to promulgate rules for establishing technology center school districts and the process by which territory may be annexed or detached from a technology center school district, and where a statute is plain and unambiguous it will receive the effect its language dictates. State ex rel. Okla. Firefighters Pension & Ret. Sys. v. City of Spencer, 237 P.3d 125, 132 (Okla. 2009).

¶7 The plain language of the Constitution and statutes give authority to the State Board to adopt rules for establishing technology center school districts and procedures for how territory may be annexed or detached from a technology center school district.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Texas Oklahoma Express v. Sorenson
1982 OK 113 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1982)
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. v. Travis
1984 OK 33 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1984)
City of Hugo v. State Ex Rel. Public Employees Relations Board
1994 OK 134 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1994)
Hoar v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.
1998 OK 95 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1998)
YDF, INC. v. Schlumar, Inc.
2006 OK 32 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2006)
Excise Board of Marshall County v. School Dist. No. 34
1932 OK 230 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1932)
Prince Co. v. St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co.
1925 OK 427 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1925)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2014 OK AG 4, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/question-submitted-by-the-honorable-mike-shelton-state-representative-oklaag-2014.