Case Name: LAKE VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 25 of Phillips County, Arkansas, et al. (now Barton-Lexa) v. Mike HUCKABEE, Governor of the State of Arkansas, et al.,Appellees/Appellants, Rogers School District No. 30, Little Rock School District, and Pulaski County Special School District, Intervenors/Appellees
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Arkansas
Decision Date: 2006-11-30
Citations: 368 Ark. 231
Docket Number: 01-836
Parties: LAKE VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 25 of Phillips County, Arkansas, et al. (now Barton-Lexa) v. Mike HUCKABEE, Governor of the State of Arkansas, et al.,Appellees/Appellants, Rogers School District No. 30, Little Rock School District, and Pulaski County Special School District, Intervenors/Appellees
Judges: Special Justice Dalby joins.
Reporter: Arkansas Reports
Volume: 368
Pages: 231–237

Head Matter:
LAKE VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 25 of Phillips County, Arkansas, et al. (now Barton-Lexa) v. Mike HUCKABEE, Governor of the State of Arkansas, et al.,Appellees/Appellants, Rogers School District No. 30, Little Rock School District, and Pulaski County Special School District, Intervenors/Appellees
01-836
231 S.W.3d 919
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Opinion delivered November 30, 2006
Matthews, Campbell, Rhoads, McClure, Thompson & Fryauf, P.A., by: David R. Matthews, for intervenor/appellee Rogers School District No. 30.
Sharp, Beavers, Cline & Wright, by: Brad J. Beavers, for appellants/appellees Barton-Lexa and Forrest City School District, amicus.
Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates & Woodyard, P.L.L.C., by: M. Samuel Jones, III, for intervenor/appellee Pulaski County Special School District.
Friday, Eldredge & Clark, LLP, by: Christopher Heller, for intervenor/appellee Little Rock School District.
Mike Beebe, Att’y Gen., by: Timothy G. Gauger, Deputy Att’y Gen., for appellees/appellants.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Intervenors/appellees Rogers School District No. 30, Barton-Lexa School District, Little Rock School District, and Pulaski County Special School District (School Districts) move the court to defer the issuance of the mandate in this case and appoint special masters to evaluate whether the General Assembly and the Department of Education (State Defendants) have cured the constitutional deficiencies referenced in this court's opinion of December 15, 2005. See Lake View Sch. Dist. No. 25 v. Huckabee, 364 Ark. 398, 220 S.W.3d 645 (2005). In that opinion, we stayed the issuance of the mandate until December 1, 2006, in order to give the General Assembly and the Department of Education time to cure those deficiencies.
In their motion, the School Districts now contend that "no final legislative action" has been taken regarding certain aspects of academic facilities funding, that inadequate funding for English Language Learners will not be rectified until the 2007-2008 school year, that student-growth funding does not equate to foundation funding for each child, that collection-rate issues regarding local taxes remain unresolved, and that the issue of whether national school lunch aid can be used for teacher raises has not been determined.
Counsel for the State Defendants responds that the School Districts' motion is untimely in part and premature in part and that they are asking this court to act as a super legislature and assume perpetual jurisdiction over policy decisions of the General Assembly. In addition, counsel for the State Defendants urges that it is the School Districts' burden to show constitutional noncompliance rather than the State Defendants' burden to show that constitutional deficiencies have been cured.
We begin by quoting our Lake View opinion handed down on December 15, 2005:
Because we hold that the public school-funding system continues to be inadequate, we further hold that our public schools are operating under a constitutional infirmity which must be corrected immediately. We have held in the past that the General Assembly and Department of Education should have time to cure the deficiencies, and we do so again. We stay the issuance of our mandate until December 1, 2006, to allow the necessary time to correct the constitutional deficiencies.
Lake View Sch. Dist. No. 25 v. Huckabee, 364 Ark. at 415-16, 220 S.W.3d at 657.
It is clear to this court that the onus was placed on the State Defendants to cure the enumerated constitutional deficiencies. It further appears that a special session of the General Assembly was held in 2006 where action was taken and that, in addition, certain reports have been prepared regarding adequacy and facilities funding. Yet, nothing has been provided to this court concerning the action taken or how that action addressed this court's constitutional concerns. Indeed, counsel for State Defendants has made no effort to inform this court in that regard.
Without information concerning what has been done since December 15, 2005, to address the problem areas enumerated in this court's opinion, this court is loath to have the mandate issue in this matter. We, therefore, grant the School Districts' motion to defer issuance of the mandate.
We further direct counsel for the State Defendants to furnish this court with all acts of the General Assembly, promulgated regulations, relevant reports, and any other information relating to constitutional compliance within thirty days of this opinion.
We reappoint Bradley D. Jesson, former Chief Justice of the Arkansas Supreme Court, and David Newbern, a former Justice of the Arkansas Supreme Court, as Special Masters in this case. The Masters shall have the same powers and authority as set forth in Lake View School District No. 25,356 Ark. 1, 144 S.W.3d 741 (2004) (per curiam). The Masters are authorized to examine and evaluate the issues listed in this court's opinion of December 15, 2005, but also any other issue they deem relevant to constitutional compliance.
We wish to emphasize that this court is not prejudging whether constitutional compliance has occurred or not. We simply have not been provided with the necessary information to make an informed determination. We also emphasize that it is not this court's intention to monitor the 2007 session of the General Assembly. Had this court been provided with information regarding compliance much earlier, we could have commenced our evaluation well before the 2007 session.
We defer the issuance of the mandate for 180 days from the date of this opinion. This, in our judgment, will provide sufficient time for counsel for the State Defendants to file the necessary information with this court, for the Masters to evaluate the same, and for this court to determine constitutional compliance.
Special Justice Dalby joins.
Hannah, C.J., and Gunter, J., dissent.
Imber, J., not participating.