Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/30870411/Montgomery-Schools-Draft-Suit
Timestamp: 2017-01-17 03:39:59
Document Index: 204520143

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§5', '§5', '§5', '§5', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§5', '§5', '§5', '§5', '§5', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 47', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 47', '§ 57', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5']

BrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksArticlesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoin﻿05/03/2010 MON 15:43 FAX1dI001/011 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND * BOARD OF EDUCA nON OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY Plaintiff * v. * * MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND Defendant * * * * * * * * * * * * * MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVl<: RELIEF I. INTRODUCTION The Board of Education of Montgomery County (the "School Board") seeks injunctive relief directing the Montgomery County Council (the "Council") to comply with the provisions of § 5-102 of the Annotated Code of Maryland, Education Article ("ED"). Section 5-102 sets forth a clear and unambiguous process for the development of the School Board's annual budget. In contravention of § 5-102, the Council has made reductions to the annual budget proposed for the School Board by the County Executive. As the Council is not authorized to make these reductions, injunctive relief is warranted. II. OVERVIEW OF THE BUDGET PROCESS AND REQUIRED FUNDING The Education Article prescribes the process by which the annual budgets for county board's of education are developed. That process is straightforward. The Education Article also prescribes the minimum funding levels for the county boards' annual budgets. That 05/03/2010 4:47PM (GMT-04:00) 05/03/2010 MON 15:44 FAX 1dI002/011 computation is more complex and the Maryland Office of the Attorney General has recently issued an opinion which succinctly describes that computation. First, the budget process. A. The Budget Process The School Board, with the advice of its Superintendent, develops a recommended annual budget containing the statutorily required information organized by categories. ED § 5-101. The School Board then submits its proposed budget to the County Executive. ED § 5- 1 02(b). The County Executive may deny or reduce in part major categories of the School Board's proposed budget, in which event the County Executive must provide a written explanation detailing the reason for the denial or reduction. ED § 5-1 02( c )(2). See also, Board ofEducation ofMontgomery County v. A1ontgomery County, Maryland, 237 Md. 191, 205 A.2d 202 (1964). Thereafter, the Council "may restore any denial or reduction made by the county executive in the annual budget submitted by the county board." ED § 5-102(c)(3). B. Maintenance of Effort (MOE) Funding Requirements The amount requested by the School Board in its annual budget must contain at least the same level of funding that the School Board received from local sources the prior fiscal year. ED § 5-1 03(a) and § 5-202. As stated in a recent opinion from the Attorney General: A county government's power to reduce a local school board's budget is limited by the State "foundation program" and the MOE requirements in the State education law. See 64 Opinions ofthe Attorney General S 1,53 (1979) (requirement to levy taxes to raise sufficient funds for the minimum county share ~ what is now called the foundation program 0_ is mandatory); 76 Opinions ofthe Attorney Genera! 153, 162 (1991) (failure of county to meet its MOE requirement would result in forfeit of increase in State aid otherwise due the local board). The foundation program is essentially a computation based on pupil enrollment and a dollar amount per pupil. See ED §5-202(a)(5). -2- 05/03/2010 4:47PM (GMT-04:00) 05/03/2010 MON 15:44 FAX 1dI003/011 Responsibility for funding the foundation amount in each jurisdiction is divided between the State and the county according to a complex fOl111Ula that takes into account the relative wealth of each jurisdiction. ED §5-202(a); see also COMAR 13A.02.06.03. In order to recei ve the fllli State share of the foundation program for the local school system, a county must satisfy certain conditions. In particular, the county governing body must levy an annual tax sufficient to fund the local share of the foundation program. ED §5-202(d)(J)(I). In addition, it must appropriate local funds for the school operating budget "in an amount no less than the product of the county's full-time equivalent enrollment for the current flscal year and the local appropriation on a per pupil basis for the prior fiscal year." ED §5-202(d)(1)(ii). Because the latter provision requires the county to maintain at least the same level of per-pupil funding as in the previous year, it is sometimes referred to as the "maintenance of effort" requirement. 94 Opinions of the Attorney General 177, 181 (2009) (emphasis supplied). The School Board may request, and the Council may appropriate, funds in excess of the MOE level. ED § 5-103(a), (b). See also, 94 Opinions of the Attorney General 177, 183 (2009). Thus, the Council's "local appropriation for its school system is made up of the local foundational share, additional amounts necessary to satisfy the MOE requirement, and any amount in excess of the MOE level that the county cbooses to appropriate." Id. If the county's fiscal condition "significantly impedes" the county's ability to meet the MOE level, the county may request that the State Board of Education grant a temporary or partial waiver of the MOE requirement. ED § 5-202(d)(7); 94 Opinions of the Attorney Genera! 177, 184 (2009). If the county does not meet its MOE funding obligation and does not obtain a waiver of that obligation, a penalty is imposed on the school system: Enforcement of the MOE requirement is assigned to the State Board. if the State Superintendent finds that a county is out of compliance, the Superintendent is to notify the county of its noncompliance. ED §5-213(b)(J). The county may dispute that finding before the State Board, which makes a final determination as to the county's compliance. ED §5-213(b)(2). A -3- 05/03/2010 4:47PM (GMT-04:00) 05/03/2010 MON 15:45 FAX 1dI004/011 certification of noncompliance is sent to the State Comptroller, who is to withhold a portion of the local board's State aid. ED §5-213(b)(3). The penalty is defined as the amount by which "the State's aid due the county in the current fiscal year [under ED §5-202] exceeds the amount which the county received in the prior fiscal year." Id.; see also 76 Opinions ofthe Attorney General at 161-62; Letter of Assistant Attorney General Bonnie A. Kirkland to Senator Richard S. Madaleno, Jr. (May 20, 2(09). 94 Opinions ofthe Attorney Genera! 177, 184 (2009). Ill. FACTUAL BACKGROUND On December 9,2009, the Superintendent of the Montgomery Count Public Schools (MCPS) submitted to the School Board a proposed annual budget for Fiscal Year 2011 (FY 2011). The Superintendent's proposed budget for FY 2011 was $2,226,134,843. Of that amount, it was estimated that $1,553,968,214 would be derived from county funds. Exhibit A. In February 2010, the School Board adopted a Fiscal Year 2011 annual budget in the amount of $2,263,286,41 0. Of that amount, it was estimated that $1,553,934,287 would be derived from county funds. This proposed budget was submitted by the School Board to the County Executive and the Council on February 26, 2010. Exhibit B. The County Executive, as authorized by statute, recommended reductions to the School Board's proposed annual budget for FY 2011. The County Executive's recommended budget for the School Board was $2,125,542,225. Of that amount, $1,415,085,344 would be derived from county funds. Exhibit C. Because this amount of county funding was less than was budgeted by the Council for the School Board the prior fiscal year, and thus failed to satisfy the MOE requirement, the Counci I and the County Executive submitted a request to the State Board of Education on March 31,2010, seeking a waiver of the MOE requirement for FY 2011. Exhibit C. On ----, the State Board of Education approved/denied the request 05/03/2010 4:47PM (GMT-04:00) 05/03/2010 MON 15:46 FAX 1dI005/011 for a MOE waiver. Thereafter, on ----, the Counei I approved a FY 2011 annual budget for the School Board in the amount of $---------. Of that amount. $------ is derived from county funds. This amount was $----- lower than was recommended by the County Executive. In so doing, the Council exceeded its legal authority. IV. DISCUSSION A. The Standard For Injunctive Relief The grant or denial of injunctive is governed by consideration of the following factors: (1) the likelihood that the plaintiff will succeed on the merits; (2) the "balance of convenience" determined by whether greater injury would be done to the defendant by granting the injunction than would result from its refusal; (3) whether the plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury unless the injunction is granted; and; (4) the public interest. Ehrlich v. Perez, 394 Md. 691, 708, 908 A.2d 1220, 1230 (2006); State Dep't v. Baltimore County, 281 Md. 548, 554-57,383 A.2d 51 (1977). As set forth in the following section, the School Board has demonstrated a high likelihood that it will succeed on the merits of its claim, i.e., that the Council was without authority to make reductions to the FY 2011 budget proposed for the School Board by the County Executive. The School Board need only show that it has a "real probability" of prevailing on the merits, as opposed to a "remote possibility." Fogle v. H & G Restaurant, Inc., 337 Md. 441, 456, 654 A.2d 449, 456-57 ([995). As to the "balance of convenience" factor, the injury to the School Board if the -5- 05/03/2010 4:47PM (GMT-04:00) 05/03/2010 MON 15:47 FAX 1dI006/011 injunction is not granted is far greater than the injury to the Council if the injunction is granted. Given that the County Executive has proposed a comprehensive budget for the county (which subsumes the budget for the School Board) that enables the county to perform its necessary functions, the Council is hard-pressed to argue that it will be injured if the injunction is granted. Conversely, the County Executive has recommended a budget for the School Board for FY 2011 that fails to satisfy MOE funding levels. On top of that reduction to the prior fiscal year's level of funding, the Council has now instituted yet another reduction to the level of funding for the School Board. I The "balance of convenience" clearly favors the School Board's position. The School Board will be irreparably harmed if the injunction does not issue. Through its ultra vires action, the Council has reduced the School Board's annual budget in the amount of $-----------. Irreparable harm "need not be beyond all possibility of compensation in damages, nor need it be very great. Thus, it has been held that irreparable injury is suffered whenever monetary damages are difficult to ascertain or are otherwise inadequate." Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission v. Washington National Arena, 282 Md. 588,615-16,386 A.2e! 12 J 6 (1978) (internal citations omitted). The monetary damages here can be ascertained and they are great. Further, a delayed restoration of the School Board's budget is otherwise inadequate as the school system will be immediately impacted by the Council's unauthorized budgetary reduction. Schools are scheduled to open for students on Monday August 30, 2010. Teachers return on Monday August 23, 20 J O. I Additionally, because the State Board of Education did not grant the Council's request for a MOE waiver, the School Board is subject to a substantial financial penalty. ED §5-213. -6- 05/03/2010 4:47PM (GMT-04:00) 05/03/2010 MON 15:47 FAX 1dI007/011 Between now and then, teachers must be hired (or laid off) and class schedules developed for over 140,000 students. Delay in funding will wreak havoc on the public school children of this county. As to the public interest factor, such is furthered when the Council is prohibited from usurping the authority of the County Executive to the School Board's detriment. The grant of the injunction, which would restore the School Board's funding to the level determined by the County Executive, also "ensures that State policy decisions to improve public education are not defeated by local funding decisions." 94 Opinions ofthe Attorney General 177, 184 (2009). Further, as noted, because the County Executive was able to develop a county-wide budget that enables the county to perform its necessary functions, it is difficult for the Counci I to maintain that the issuance of the injunction would be against the public interest B. The Council Improperly Reduced The School Board's Annual Budget The budget provisions in the Education Article are "part of a carefully conceived legislative structure in which the respective powers and limitations oflocal school boards, the State Board of Education and county governments are delineated and balanced," Board of Education ofMontgomery County v. Montgomery County, Maryland, 237 Md. 191,205 A.2d 202 (1964). Section 5-102 of the Education Article sets forth a clear and unambiguous process for the development and approval of the School Board's annual budget. It provides, in relevant part, as follows: (b) Submission. (I) Each county board shall submit an annual school budget in writing to the county commissioners, county council, or the county executive. (2) The budget shall be submitted not less than 45 days before the date for levying local taxes or on an earlier date on or after March 1 as may be requested by the county -7- 05/03/2010 4:47PM (GMT-04:00) 05/03/2010 MON 15:48 FAX 1dI008/011 fiscal authority. (c) Reduction b)' COl/ill]' executive. (I) This subsection applies only to a county that has a county governing body that consists of a county executive and county council. (2) The county executive shall indicate in writing which major categories of the annual budget of the county board have been denied in whole or reduced in part and the reason for the denial or reduction. (3) ~Ib.(;.S9Jlt1ty council may restore any denial or reduction made by the county executive in the annual budget submitted by the county board. (Emphasis supplied.) As § 5-1 02( c) makes clear, the authority to deny or reduce the annual budget submitted by the School Board rests solely with the County Executive. The Council is not granted authority in this provision to make such denials or reductions. Rather, the authority of the Council is limited to restoring any denial or reduction made by the County Executive. Thus, the budget proposed by the County Executive for the School Board sets the funding tloor for what ultimately must be approved by the Council. Accordingly, while the Council may provide the School Board with additional funding by restoring the County Executive's proposed denials or reductions to the School Board's budget, it may not usurp the County Executive's role by itself making those denials or reductions. The language of § 5-1 02( c )(3) is clear. Under that provision, the Council's role in the approval of the School Board's annual budget is limited to either 1) approving the budget proposed by the County Executive, or 2) restoring "any denial or reduction made by the County Executive in the annual budget submitted by the county board." This limitation on the Council necessarily means that the Councillacks authority to deny or reduce the annual -8- 05/03/2010 4:47PM (GMT-04:00) 05/03/2010 MON 15:49 FAX 1dI009/011 budget proposed by the County Executive.' First, this authority is expressly granted to the County Executive in § 5-102(c)(2). No such authority is granted to the Council. If the General Assembly intended the Counci I to have this authority, it could have easily done so in the statute. Under the statutory construction doctrine of ex pressi a linitis est exclusio alterius, the specific grant of this authority to the County Executive (and to no other) reflects the exclusion of this authority to all others. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius is defined as: A canon of construction holding that to express or include one thing implies the exclusion of the other, or of the alternative. For example, the rule that "each citizen is entitled to vote" implies that noncitizens are not entitled to vote. Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004). "Maryland has long recognized this basic rule. Gay Investment Co. C Comi, 231 Md. 433,438, ] 87 A.2d 463, 466 (1963); Johns v. Hodges, 62 Md. 525, 538 (1884)." Biggus v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 328 Md.IS8, 613 A.2d 986 (1992) ("This is in keeping with the familiar maxim of statutory construction that 'expressio unius est exclusio alterius' - the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another.") Ref erring to this doctrine, the Court of Appeals opined: Stated another way, when a statute designates the parties granted a right, only such parties as are designated have the right and all omissions should be understood as exclusive. American Sec. & Trust Co. v. New Amsterdam Cas. Co., 246 Md. 36,41,227 A.2d 214,216-17 (1967); Thanhauser v, Savins, 44 Md. 410,414 (1876); 2A, Sutherland,StatulOlY Construction, § 47.23 163 (4th ed. C. Sands 1973). 2 If the budget proposed by the County Executive contains additional funds beyond those necessary to meet the MOE funding level, the Council may reduce those additional funds. ED § 5-1 03( c). This provision is inapplicable here because the County Executive did not propose an annual budget for the School Board which satisfied the MOE funding requirements. -9- 05/03/2010 4:47PM (GMT-04:00) 05/03/2010 MON 15:49 FAX 1dI010/011 MOJllgomCiY v. State, 292 Md. 155,162-163,438 A.2d 490, 493 (I981)(emphasis supplied), superseded b.v statute on other grounds as stated in In re Ryan S., 369 Md. 26, 797 A.2d 39 (2002). As noted, the statute applicable here, § 5-I02(c) of the Education Article, grants authority to deny or reduce the annual budget proposed by the School Board to the County Executive only. Accordingly, other parties, such as the Council, lack such authority. Similarly, in Office & Professional Employees International Union v. Mass Transit Administration, the Court of Appeals slated that: It is a settled principle of statutory construction that the Legislature's enumeration of one item, purpose, etc. ordinarily implies the exclusion of all others. Slate Insurance v. Nationwide, 241 Md. 108,117,215 A.2d 749 (1966); Trust Co. '0.'. Ward Baking Corp., 177 Md. 2 I 2,220, 9 A.2d 228 (1939); Railroad Co. v. Lichtenberg, 176 Md. 383, 390, 4 A.2d 734, appeal dismissed, 308 U.S. 525,60 S.Ct. 297, 84 L.Ed. 444 (1939); Vanderford v. Farmers' Bank, 105 Md. 164, 168, 66 A. 47 (1907) (tithe express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of another"); 2A Sutherland, Statutory Construction, §§ 47.23, 47.24 (4th ed, 1973). The principle is often expressed as the latin maxim "expressio unius est exclusio alterius." Gay Investment v. Comi, 230 Md. 433,438,187 A.2d 463 (1963). A related principle is that where a statute authorizes or permits a person or agency to take a certain type of action in a particular manner, such manner becomes a mandatory limitation, and the action must be taken in conformity with it. Trust Co. v. Ward Baking Corp., supra, 177 Md. at 220 (!I'A statute that directs a thing to be done in a particular manner ordinarily implies that it shall not be done otherwise."'); 2A Sutherland, supra, §§ 57.14-57.18. Mass Transit Administration, 295 Mel. At 96,453 A.2d at 1195 (I 982) (emphasis supplied). Again, § 5-102(c)(2) empowers the County Executive to reduce the School Board's proposed budget and, pursuant to the foregoing, "it shall not be done otherwise" by the Council. ld. By the same token, § 5-1 02( c)(3) limits the authority of the Council to restoring "any denial or reduction made by the County Executive in the annual budget submitted by the -10- 05/03/2010 4:47PM (GMT-04:00) o 51 0 3/2 0 1 0 MON 1 5: 50 FAX 1dI011/011 county board." In keeping with the canon expressio linitis est exclusio alterius, the expression of this authority to restore denial s or reductions to the budget reflects the exclusion of the additional authority to deny or reduce the budget proposed by the County Executive. In sum, by reducing the FY 20 II budget proposed for the School Board by the County Executive, the Council has usurped the authority of the County Executive and gone beyond the limited authority granted it by ED § 5-1 02(c)(3). Accordingly, injunctive relief directing the Council to return this unauthorized reduction is warranted. V. CONCLUSION For all of the foregoing reasons, the School Board respectfully requests that the Court issue an injunction directing the Council to fund the School Board's FY 2011 budget at the level proposed by the County Executive in accordance with ED § 5-102. Judith S, Bresler CARNEY, KELEHAN, BRESLER BENNETT & SCHERR, LLP 10715 Charter Drive Columbia, Maryland 21044 410- 740-4600 Attorney for Plaintiff Board of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I IIEREBY CERTIFY on this __ day of __ 20 I 0, a copy of the foregoing was mailed, first class postage prepaid, to: -------------------------, Judith S. Bresler -11- 05/03/2010 4:47PM (GMT-04:00) More From This UserDavid BratLeggett reform responseRoadsideMontgomery Council Legal ResponseSpeed Camera Report From Montgomery Office of Legislative OversightMarylandAdvanceDirectiveIdeas For Cuts
Montgomery Schools Draft Suit by mikelaris666 viewsEmbedDownloadRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentMore informationShow less
RelatedDavid Bratby mikelarisLeggett reform responseby mikelarisRoadsideby mikelarisMontgomery Council Legal Responseby mikelarisMore from mikelarisDavid BratLeggett reform responseRoadsideMontgomery Council Legal ResponseSpeed Camera Report From Montgomery Office of Legislative OversightMarylandAdvanceDirectiveIdeas For Cuts