Educational Adequacy Report of 2006 (Act 57 of 2nd Extraordinary Session of 2003)
Here's your 161-page draft report (click here) that is to be our roadmap to get us out of the Lake View litigation (e-mailed to members yesterday). Recommended legislation is at the end, and it's blank.We have two objectives here. The smaller objective, and just as important to me at this stage, is to satisfy the Court that the legislature has achieved and satisfied its constitutional requirement to provide an adequate public educational system pursuant to Article 14, Section 1 (and please read section 4) of the Arkansas Constitution. The legislature can no longer sulk that the Supreme Court has accepted jurisdiction over the matter. They have oversight, and our job now is to satisfy our obligations.
Briefly, the funding matrix provided by Picus includes a change in calculation. Whether that change is acceptable to school districts in all corners of the state will be the $64 million question. Foundation and categorical funding increases will also certainly be addressed, and it's my position is that a review of the expansion of NSLA categories would be beneficial. I'm leaning on those closer to the facilities issue to educate me, but I am in favor of using a portion of the current revenue surplus to satisfy some one-time expenses there (Gov. Beebe's seeking up to $400MM).
As a lawyer, my concern, and my thoughts as to the thinking of the Supreme Court, is that the legislature has never provided a benchmark definition for "adequacy." We have yet to give them a target to judge as to whether we have satisfied our constitutional obligation. I do not think that the Court would ever tinker with our definition so long as one is provided -- at that point, I think there would be a true problem with the separation of powers and a problem with Article 14, Section 4. Upon the implementation of a definition, they have a standard by which to determine whether or not we have provided an adequate educational system.
More on this throughout the session.
posted by Steve Harrelson @ 1/18/2007 12:14:00 PM | Permalink |
17 Comments:
So, the 1st objective is satisfy the court. What's the 2nd? Do it as cheaply as possible so we can pass tax cuts?
Nope -- I said the "smaller" objective is to satisfy the Court.
The first objective, of course, is to fund education "first" and to begin our crawl out of the high 40s as far as state rankings go in education.
Any chance we'll see that definition of adequacy?
The legislature can no longer sulk that the Supreme Court has accepted jurisdiction over the matter. They have oversight, and our job now is to satisfy our obligations.
Why can't they sulk Representative? What basis do you have for the claim that "they have oversight"? Surely your ultimate "obligations" are to your constituients, not the courts.
Not even the Chief Justice of the Court believes that the courts acted within their jurisdiction when they retained oversight.
Mark: Please call me Steve.
I'm a lurker on your site, and I know where you are on this issue. I held that same view until I realized the best thing for the ledge to do is accept the project -- because everyone recognizes that while we're on the right track, more can be done to improve our plight here on the various issues surrounding Lake View.
I think the committee also came to the realization that they have jurisdiction because they had the votes -- even though the Chief hasn't been one of those votes re: jurisdiction. I'm as big a believer in SOP as anyone, and if I were on that bench, I'd have sided with the minority, but short of a federal injunction (not even sure that would work), this thing is not going away until we appease the Masters (and the Sup Ct en banc).
Let's not forget that the Lakeview case was also about EQUAL education. Some economically disadvantaged schools need more funding to overcome additional obstacles they face. The same is true of schools that have many students that speak Spanish as their first or only language.
That is very gracious of you.
I held that same view until I realized the best thing for the ledge to do is accept the project -- because everyone recognizes that while we're on the right track, more can be done to improve our plight here on the various issues surrounding Lake View.
So "more can be done" on these issues? Is that the reason to accept the principle of court oversight? The Constitution CLEARLY (in 14:4, the section you referenced even) gives the General Assembly and officers of THEIR choosing supervision of the schools. Yet you seem anxious to cede supervision to COURT appointed "special masters".
IMHO that is a dangerous precedent that turns the legislature into a rubber stamp of the courts rather than a servant of the people.
I think the committee also came to the realization that they have jurisdiction because they had the votes -- even though the Chief hasn't been one of those votes
They have the jurisdiction because they have the votes? But does the CONSTITUTION give them the jurisdiction? Clearly not by 14-4.
Can courts order legislatures to spend more tax dollars? Who has the power of the purse strings? Is it not the legislature? Is not our government founded on the idea of separation of powers? The Chief Justice seemed to think so. Do five State Supreme Court votes overide the legislature and the Constitution itself? How can such a doctrine prevent the courts from becoming a despotic oligarchy?
but short of a federal injunction (not even sure that would work), this thing is not going away until we appease the Masters (and the Sup Ct en banc)
I am constantly amazed at legislators who think that the legislative branch is at the mercy of the judicial. How can it be that the clear tools which you have in your power to check a runaway judiciary lie unused?
You can impeach usurpacious judges. You can refer a constitutional amendment to the people that clearly takes ordering spending increases out of the power of the judiciary (though such an amendment would not have been necessary through most of our nation's history when we were more constitutionally literate. It is already in the constitution as written.)
You can refer an amendment to change the way judges are disciplined to put in more in your hands. You are the legislature. You do not have to roll over and do their bidding- unless you want to.
Anon 5:55 is right -- equity and adequacy issues are created because equalization funds are not able to balance the revenues available for local districts due to range of property values at the local level.
Residents in districts with extremely low property values cannot provide adequate revenues, regardless of the tax burden they place upon themselves. Kids in disadvantaged areas can't help where they were born, and I think that's one reason that the expansion of NSLA categories will help on that issue. Opponents of that believe that they shouldn't have to send more of their hard earned money to other areas. It's a never ending argument.
Mark, I hear you man. While I don't agree with the Court's ruling on jurisdiction, I don't quite see it as a clear overstepping of their scope sufficient to seek redress in the manner(s) you stated. There are those here who agree with you, however. They, like us, are elected and are accountable to the people.
The funding argument may be never ending, and is not the one I want to have tonight. My focus tonight is on who is supposed to have jurisdiction over our schools according to the Constitution vs. who is actually calling the shots.
Those are two separate issues. The ledge can address the funding issue while at the same time rejecting the court's intrusion. I am curious. You say that you agree that they overstepped, but don't see this as rising to the level where action to check and balance the courts should be taken.
So, can you give us an example of a situation where you WOULD seek reddress? I mean, if "reddress" is to be anything more than vapors there must be SOME circumstances where the ledge would decide to seek it. Can you give us some examples of some things the courts might do that would make you say it is time to seek redress?
Using Mark's logic, the Judicial Branch would have no part in our balance of powers. The constitution requires equitable and adequate schools, the court's role is to determine whether that requirement has been met, and if not, it's the Legislature's duty to fix it. Mark, quit concocting bogus constitutional arguments in your quest to deprive children of educational opportunity. The court has been very careful to not tell the Legislature how to fix it; they respect the Legislature's constitutional authority. You and the Ledge should do likewise.
Testing from my Blackberry (don't have internet service up here outside the capitol, and they booted me out of the chamber at 7:00). Gotta read bills. I'll check in tomorrow.
Steve said, "Residents in districts with extremely low property values cannot provide adequate revenues, regardless of the tax burden they place upon themselves."
What about those in districts that get special property assessment breaks (plantations and industrial timber holdings) that starve public schools by slashing the local tax contributions? Does the Farm Bureau Amendment for Shamefully Low Property tax Assessments conflict with the equal and adequate requirement? Or should the rest of the state not expect the landed classes and corporations to pay equal and adequate taxes?
Hey Anon 8:32, I am right here if you want to talk to me.
I simply wanted to know if there were ANY circumstances or scenario that the Majority Leader could envision in which he would feel like the legislature should take one of the checking and balancing actions at their disposal. So far, no insights on that one.
You said, "Using Mark's logic, the Judicial Branch would have no part in our balance of powers. The constitution requires equitable and adequate schools, the court's role is to determine whether that requirement has been met
No wonder you won't put your name on it. Where do I start?
You are incorrect in your assertion that the judcial branch would lose all power to check and balance under "my logic". The judicial branch would still have the power to declare laws unconstitutional, just not the power to tell the legislatue that more money must be spent on something- unless that dollar amount is explicitly stated in the Constitution.
The court's balancing power when in the negative promotes freedom for the individual citizen. For example the legislature may want to pass a law against anonymous posts critical of legislators. The executive may arrest and prosecute someone under that law, but the judge can check and balance that by throwing out the case on the basis that the law is unconstitutional.
That is a check via NULLIFICATION, and it is good for liberty. Not so a POSITIVE power of the court to appoint "special masters" over the ledge until the "constitutional amount" of money is spent on something. That leads to more ways the state can get in the taxpayer's pockets with a resultant loss of liberty.
I am all for the proper exercise of judicial checks on the other branches. One of my fears is that liberal judges will lose all there credibility with the populace- the source of all political power- by over-reaching on "gay marriage", ten commandments monuments, and educational control. Then when they really need their legitimate authority to check an aggressive executive that wants to push the envelope on civil rights (like our current one) they don't have the clout needed to face them down.
An example is your assertion, repeated from the judges, that "The constitution requires equitable and adequate schools". I would urge you to pick up an actual state constitution and turn to amendment 14 (education). "Equitable and adequate" are not even the words used in the Amendment. Instead it is "General, Suitable, and Efficient". To wedge "equitable" in there the judges had to cut and paste from other parts of the document.
Here is the other distinction I want you to get: It is up to the legislature to define what "suitable" means, the court's job is to then interpret their definition in case law.
The courts can require the ledge to define "suitable", but they should not be able to write their own definition, or keep the ledge guessing until they come up with one that fits the judge's pre-concieved notions. That is not their call, but they think it is.
You may think you want to debate this with me, but you don't. I don't want to debate you either. I just want to know what would be an example of a circumstance where the Majority Leader recognizes that the ledge would have a duty to check the courts.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mark, were you sober when you wrote that last post? Are you seeing black helicopters out your window? Do you live at one of those survivalist camps in western Arkansas?
Yes. No (but it is overcast). No.
Very good sharing this.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home