« Environment - "Waterfront Development Tests New Jersey’s Handling of Toxic Dumps" | Main | Ind. Courts - More on: I-69 extension opponents file suit in Indiana federal court »

Tuesday, October 03, 2006

Ind. Decisions - "Court clouds schools' plans"

Two stories today about the Court of Appeals ruling in in Bruce Jones v. Martha Womacks that "The petitioning process used to determine local support for schools to borrow money through bonds is unconstitutional because it only includes property owners." (earlier quote from AP story)

"Court clouds schools' plans" is the headline from a story by Dick Kaukas in the Louisville Courier Journal. Some quotes:

Two Southern Indiana school systems are moving ahead with construction plans, despite confusion created by a recent court ruling that the current legal process for public challenges to such projects is unconstitutional.

Greater Clark County school board members have been talking about building a new Charlestown High and renovating Jeffersonville and New Washington high schools, work that could require a bond issue of $150 million.

Neither school board has approved any work yet. But administrators in both districts said they hope a decision will be made in the next few months.

If bond issues are approved, state law allows property owners living in the school district to mount a "remonstrance" campaign to reject the projects.

But in an August ruling, the state Court of Appeals said the remonstrance law is unconstitutional because only property owners are allowed to petition to challenge the bond issue and only property owners may then sign petitions in favor of or opposed to the project. The side with the most names prevails.

The court ruled that there had been no showing of a "compelling state interest" in limiting participation to property owners. It also said the next session of the state legislature should address the problem and redraft the law.

With that in mind, the court decided to delay the effective date of the ruling until the next legislative session ends in April 2007.

If the General Assembly fails to act by then, the ruling said, "our holding will then be in effect," and every remonstrance process then under way "will be subject to the holdings of this case."

The decision is final because Attorney General Steve Carter, who defended the state law before the Court of Appeals, has said he will not pursue the matter further. Carter said he will work with the legislature "to address the constitutional weaknesses of the statute."

At this point, the Greater Clark and New Albany-Floyd County school boards could vote on the proposed bond issues before the legislature convenes in January. If that happens, any remonstrance could be decided before the session is over.

Lisa Tanselle, staff attorney for the Indiana School Boards Association, said her office has been advising school systems to go ahead with construction plans, subject to the possibility of a challenge under the old law.

She acknowledged that if a remonstrance challenge is defeated by those who favor the project, the opponents might sue, contending that the process under which they lost has prospectively been ruled unconstitutional.

"But we have to operate under something" until the legislature acts, Tanselle said.

Karen Soderlund of the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette writes today:
The Northwest Allen County Schools board voted Monday to ask the Indiana Supreme Court to examine a decision by a lower court that said the current system of dueling petition drives to determine construction projects is unconstitutional.

The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled this summer that the state’s current remonstrance system is unconstitutional because it does not allow people who rent homes or apartments in a school district to participate in the process. Currently, only property owners are allowed to sign petitions.

“We are of the opinion that those folks who pay property taxes are the ones more impacted by a construction project from local school corporations, and they’re the ones that should make the decision whether they support the property tax increase or do not support the property tax increase,” Superintendent Steve Yager said.

People can file a remonstrance petition with the state when they are opposed to a construction project a school district is planning. After the opposing side gathers 100 signatures from property owners, a dueling petition drive starts and whichever side gathers more valid signatures wins.

District officials are in the midst of a petition drive to defend their proposed $64 million expansion and renovation of Carroll High School. A group of parents is remonstrating to stop the project and wants to build a separate high school in the district, which school officials have estimated will cost $118 million.

Both sides have been collecting signatures since Sept. 7, and the drive will conclude Monday.

The appellate court has handed the statute to the General Assembly for it to decide how to rework it so it is constitutional. But Northwest Allen County Schools, the Metropolitan School District of Decatur Township in Indianapolis, which is also in the midst of a remonstrance, and the Ice Miller law firm in Indianapolis plan to send a letter to the Indiana Supreme Court asking it to review the case.

“We’re the school corporations that are in the middle of this that could be impacted by the court’s decision,” Yager said.

District officials are uncertain what will happen after the Supreme Court receives their letter and are unsure how it might affect the district’s current petition drive.

Earlier ILB entries include: 8/24/06; 8/25/06; 8/28/06; and 9/13/06.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on October 3, 2006 08:26 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions