We expect many people would like to send their children to the Happy ISD. Among all of our school districts you would expect that Happy would rank right up there with Veribest and Paradise on customer satisfaction. So it’s not surprising to hear that someone might want to detach from one district and attach to Happy. That’s what Ben Bressler tried to do, but it did not work.
Mr. Bressler presented a Petition for Detachment and Annexation to the Happy school board which granted the Petition. We expect they were happy to do so. The folks in Canyon ISD, however, were not so happy about this. No one likes to lose territory. So the Canyon board voted it down.
This meant the matter was ripe for review by the Commissioner. The Education Code says that when the Commish considers such a matter, he is to “consider the educational interests of the students in the affected territory and the affected districts and the social, economic, and educational effects of the proposed boundary change.” T.E.C. 13.051(j).
However, there are certain things that have to be proved before the Commissioner gets to those issues. The petitioner has to provide 1) a metes and bounds description of the territory; and 2) evidence that a majority of the registered voters residing in the district signed the petition. Mr. Bressler presented his case to the Commissioner, but failed to produce these two critical pieces of evidence.
Canyon ISD’s lawyers presented no evidence of their own, but just made a Motion for Judgment in favor of Canyon. In this context, that’s legalese for “You left something out. WE WIN!” The Commissioner agreed and granted the Motion. Detachment and Annexation: Denied.
The case is Bressler v. Canyon ISD, decided by the Commissioner on August 25, 2016. It’s Docket No. 052-R6-07-2015. Our firm handled this one for Canyon—specifically Christine Badillo and Joey Moore. Sharp lawyers, those two, I’m happy to report.
DAWG BONE: THE PROCEDURES FOR D&A HAVE TO BE FOLLOWED CAREFULLY.
File this one under: GOVERNANCE