« Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 3 today (and 9 NFP) | Main | Ind. Decisions - More on: Judge denies State claim that districts, led by Hamilton Southeastern Schools, have no standing to sue »

Monday, November 29, 2010

Ind. Decisions - Judge denies State claim that districts, led by Hamilton Southeastern Schools, have no standing to sue

First the background. This ILB entry from Feb. 24, 2010 is headed "Districts' lawsuit may spark political fireworks" and quotes both the Indianapolis Star from that date, plus a 2009 Fort Wayne Journal Gazette story that began:

If the state is to continue demanding accountability for school dollars, as it must, lawmakers must also ensure those dollars are distributed equitably, without the last-minute gimmicks that make a mockery of any formula.

That’s what seemingly occurred with the restoration grant. It was devised to ensure school districts received, at minimum, the amount they received in 2009.

See also this Oct. 18, 2009 ILB entry.

This ILB entry from June 11, 2010 quotes a Star story that began:

Three school districts suing the state for more funding are expected to respond today to the state's motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

The state argues that the districts, led by Hamilton Southeastern Schools, have no standing to sue.

Political subdivisions such as school corporations have no sovereign authority, so they cannot challenge the constitutionality of state law, according to an e-mail from Bryan Corbin, spokesman for the attorney general's office.

Slightly after noon today Bill McCleery of the Star reported under the heading "Judge allows school-funding lawsuit to proceed." Some quotes:
A Hamilton County judge has denied a motion by Gov. Mitch Daniels to dismiss a lawsuit brought against the state by Hamilton Southeastern Schools and two other districts alleging that the state's funding formula for local schools lacks uniformity and therefore is unconstitutional.

State attorneys had cited five premises on which they believed the schools' case should be dismissed, and Hamilton Superior Court Judge Steven Nation rejected all five premises.

The school corporations bringing the lawsuit argue that the state's funding formula unfairly penalizes growing school districts "by not allowing funding to follow the students."

The state countered by asking a judge to dismiss the case, because it says the schools have no standing to sue. * * *

Nation's ruling means that the lawsuit will proceed to trial barring an out-of-court settlement or a successful appeal by the state to a higher court on getting the lawsuit dismissed.

The Attorney General has issued a press release, stating:
We respect the court's ruling but are disappointed and will review our litigation options.

I recognize the budget difficulties school corporations face and the frustration of parents who believe their children's schools receive insufficient state funding. But as the state's lawyer defending state statutes from legal challenge, my position is that public school districts do not have the legal standing to challenge the constitutionality of state laws that provide their funding, and that in any event only the Indiana General Assembly has the authority to change the formula to fund schools.

This public policy debate belongs in the budget session of the Legislature, not in court.

I have also proposed that legislators prohibit school corporations from using state dollars to sue the state," Zoeller said.

ILB: Some readers will recall that this "restoration grant," like a number of other items, was a "special session surprise," language slipped into the budget bill in the conference committee report. As Karen Francisco, editorial writer at the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette, wrote over a year ago:
To a long list of last-minute legislative sleights-of-hand, add the mysterious “restoration grant.”

This never-before-seen calculation emerged in the school-funding formula in the final hours of the General Assembly last June, enriching some Indiana school districts and ignoring others.

Another 2009 "special session surprise" gave the State Dept. of Public Welfare, rather than the trial court, the final say over the placement of juveniles in a home or facility located outside Indiana. A challenge to that legislative change is now pending bbefore the Supreme Court.

On Nov. 15, 2010, the ILB posted this entry headed "The separation of powers, the one subject requirement, and the budget bill, or 'Will the Court revamp the process and force the genie back into the bottle?'" making the case that these last minute "surprises", and indeed much of the non-appropriating language which it has recently become the practice to pack into the end of the "budget" bill, may well violate the Indiana Constitution.

The ILB would like to post Judge Nation's ruling - please contact me if you can help.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on November 29, 2010 04:04 PM
Posted to Ind. Trial Ct. Decisions