Opinion ID: 2633306
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The District Court's Ruling Is Based Upon Insubstantial and Inadequate Evidence.

Text: In actions tried to the court without a jury, the court shall find the facts specially. Idaho R. Civ. P. 52(a). The court's conclusion must be based on substantial evidence. The Highlands, Inc. v. Hosac, 130 Idaho 67, 936 P.2d 1309 (1997). Substantial evidence is evidence that a reasonable mind might accept to support a conclusion. Evans v. Hara's Inc., 123 Idaho 473, 849 P.2d 934 (1993). And as the State points out, appellate courts have free review over the adequacy of a lower court's findings. Raad v. Alaska State Comm'n for Human Rights, 86 P.3d 899, 904 (Alaska 2004). The district court divided its discussion of the facts into five categories: (1) structural issues; (2) fire safety; (3) drainage, plumbing, and safe drinking water; (4) other safety concerns; and (5) defects in the system of school safety inspection. Within these categories, the ruling cited conditions at only of a few of the hundreds of schools in the state. Additionally, the testimony and evidence concerning these conditions is anecdotal. The court found that the concrete aggregate provided to southeastern Idaho in the late 30's and 40's was of a lower quality and presents some ongoing concern for the structural integrity of the buildings using that concrete aggregate; one school was plagued by loose bricks and crumbling concrete; some schools had seismically hazardous buildings, or leaky roofs, or dangerous electrical systems, or useless fire escapes, or exposed steam pipes, or inadequate or defective fire alarms, or breaker switches which trip constantly; some schools had unflushable toilets; and one school had narrow stairways that prevented emergency medical technicians from administering aid to a patient, resulting in the patient's tragic death. The result is a decision about a statewide system based on bits-and-pieces testimony about a few of the worst schools that was current as of 2001. In order for the Court to hold that the current legislative means to provide funding for school facilities is unconstitutional, the evidence should be more substantial, more precise, and more current. Other courts which have ruled on the constitutionality of their states' school funding systems have based their rulings on something significantly more substantial than the kind of evidence in this record. See, e.g. Montoy v. State, 279 Kan. 817, 112 P.3d 923 (2005); State v. Campbell County Sch. Dist., 19 P.3d 518 (Wyo.2001). Additionally, extrapolating the evidence in the record  which concerned only a few schools  to conclude that the Legislature is not meeting its constitutional duty statewide was erroneous. The challenge in this case is to the statewide system of funding, not simply that as applied to a few school districts, the funding system is unconstitutional. That some schools are in severe disrepair does not compel or even support a conclusion that the statewide system of funding is unconstitutional. Without reliable information about all schools, the Legislature will be unable to ensure that any adjustment to the scheme will enable all districts to provide the kind of facilities they are required to provide under the Constitution.