Opinion ID: 433833
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: budget review committee.

Text: 200 The settlement agreement, the district court's funding order and opinion, and this Court's opinion have established detailed guidelines for desegregating the city schools over the next four years. The agreement provides for a number of committees to assist in desegregation. They include the Desegregation Monitoring and Advisory Committee, the Magnet Review Committee, and the Voluntary Interdistrict Coordinating Council. The function of the latter committee is to coordinate and administer the student transfers, the voluntary teacher exchanges and the part-time educational programs. A Recruitment and Counseling Center has also been established. Each of these committees and the Center fulfill important functions in the desegregation process and may be continued and funded in accordance with the settlement agreement at the discretion of the district court. 201 The district court also outlined the budgeting procedures that would be followed: 202 11. For the effective and timely implementation of the Settlement Plan, as approved, the following budgeting procedure shall apply with regard to all actual and reasonable costs, except transportation costs and costs incurred for the student transfer payments made to sending and receiving districts, incurred pursuant to the approved Plan: 203 (a) each participating school district shall deliver to State defendants a proposed budget for all desegregation programs and activities intended for implementation pursuant to the Settlement Plan[.]    For    fiscal [year 1984-85 and subsequent years], the budgets shall be delivered to the State on or before March 1 of the preceding fiscal year; 204 (b) the budget for the VICC and for the Recruitment and Counseling Center (RCC) shall be filed with the Court and submitted to the State on or before    March 1 of the preceding fiscal year; 205 (c) on or before [March 15 of each preceding fiscal year], representatives of the State and of each participating district shall identify in writing their areas of agreement and disagreement relating to budgetary matters.    After completion of these efforts, the representatives may submit to the Court a joint statement of budgetary matters then remaining in dispute for the Court's consideration. 206 [T]he State shall submit in writing any objections to the budgets for the VICC and for the RCC    on or before March 15 of the preceding fiscal year. After completion of these efforts, the representatives may submit to the Court a joint statement of budgetary matters then remaining in dispute for the Court's consideration; 207 (d) the Court's financial adviser may participate in the budget meetings between the State and the various representatives, and may present comments on the budgets to the Court either in writing directly, or at any subsequent hearing that may be required; and 208 (e) for the 1983-1984 fiscal year, any budget disagreements that remain, after the required meetings and reports, will be referred to United States Magistrate David D. Noce for a hearing on or before August 5, 1983. For subsequent fiscal years, the Court will consider any remaining disputed budget issues in a manner the Court deems appropriate. 209 Liddell v. Bd. of Educ., supra, 567 F.Supp. at 1057. 210 We believe that the budgeting process is deficient in three respects: (1) it fails to require long-range budgeting; (2) it does not give the State, the principal funding source for the plan, an adequate role in the budgetary process; and (3) it fails to provide an effective method of resolving budgetary disputes before they reach the district court. As a result, that court must spend an inordinate amount of its time resolving disputes that should be resolved by the parties. 211 We direct that a small budget committee be named, consisting of two representatives of the State of Missouri, one representative from the city schools to be selected by the City Board, one representative to be jointly selected by the Liddell and Caldwell plaintiffs, and a court-appointed expert in school financing at the earliest possible date. The court-appointed expert shall serve as chairman of the committee. Its responsibilities will be determined by the district court but will include: 212 (1) Preparing, with the cooperation from the participating school districts, a budget for the 1984-85 school year through the 1987-88 school year for each element of the desegregation plan (including capital requirements and updating that budget on an annual basis). These budgets should reflect the best current estimates that can be made of the probable cost of the plan for each of the next four years. The budgets will permit the State and the City Board to anticipate the funds that will be required to fund the plan. They will also force the participants to consider at an early date the dramatic changes that will occur in the city schools' student population in the integrated and nonintegrated schools and magnet schools, and will assist in the effort to control costs. 213 (2) Receiving the annual budgets prepared by the participating school districts on the same date that the budgets are to be received by the State. The State and each participating district will identify, in writing, their areas of agreement and disagreement relating to budgetary matters at a time to be determined by the court on the recommendation of the Budget Committee. The Budget Committee will make every effort to resolve differences as to the budget in accordance with the principles set forth in the settlement agreement, the district court's order and this opinion. Any unresolved disputes will be promptly presented to the district court with the recommendations of the court-appointed expert. The district court will resolve any disputes. This resolution is not an appropriate task for a United States Magistrate. The number of disputes should be dramatically reduced if the parties participate in good faith in the procedure outlined. The district court will enter an appropriate order with respect to the funding of the Budget Committee. 214