Opinion ID: 1843606
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Wrongful Exclusion and Remedy Plan

Text: The Pinto intervenors argue that a reversal of a denial of intervention relates back to the time of application for intervention. Brief of Pinto Appellants, at 12. They further contend that there should be broad participation in the development of the [Remedy] plan (including the presentation of expert testimony) in order to avoid omission or violation of rights, and they hope to see removed some of the Remedy plan provisions that violate the rights of unrepresented students and parents. Id. at 16. They conclude that [t]he circuit court's refusal to vacate the remedy orders denied the Pinto Appellants due process of law [guaranteed] under the United States and Alabama Constitutions. Id. This argument is undermined by the fact that the Remedy Plan is still interlocutory in nature. See Pinto, 662 So.2d at 899. It envisions an ongoing process, 662 So.2d at 900, namely, the process of convert[ing] a system that failed to `offer equitable and adequate educational opportunities to the schoolchildren of the state ' ... into a system that succeeds in doing so. Id. at 899 (emphasis in Pinto ). The implementation of such a Remedy Plan would necessarily require  perennial revision and reassessment of the progress of [that] process. Id. (emphasis in Pinto ). That this process is ongoing and that it is long-term were, in fact, significant factors in our determination that the process could only benefit from the full party-participation of the Pinto intervenors. Id. at 900. We perceive no reason they cannot enjoy precisely the broad participation they seek in the development of the [Remedy] plan. Brief of Pinto Appellants, at 12. Certainly, they, like any other party, are entitled to present expert testimony as to aspects of the Plan they deem objectionable. Thus, Harper is correct when she argues: [T]he proper procedure in resolving the substantive objections of the Pinto intervenors is not to vacate the entire remedy order, including the portions to which all parties agree, without any evidence being heard. The proper procedure is for the Pinto intervenors to identify any particular section with which they disagree, for all parties to present evidence on that section, for the trial court to rule, and for [this Court to review that ruling pursuant to the proper procedural device]. This is also the answer to the Pinto intervenors' procedural objections that they have not been heard. They can still be heard. Harper Brief, at 17-18 (emphasis added). This appeal does not involve such a challenge, that is, a challenge to any particular provision of the Remedy Plan, and we are unpersuaded by the arguments that the Remedy Plan is invalid in toto. The judgment of the trial court as it concerns the Remedy Plan is, however, vacated, and this cause is remanded with directions to stay the action while retaining jurisdiction for one year from the date of this Court's certificate of judgment.