Court Opinion

ID: 9678194
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:13:51.613727+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:02.438345
License: Public Domain

Tom Glaze, Justice, concurring. I join the majority, but wish to make a point that has not been emphasized but that I think should be. Our court has made it clear that compliance with Act 57 of the Second Extraordinary Session of 2003 must be had in order for Arkansas’s educational system to be declared constitutional. However, if compliance is not achieved, this court, under Act 108 and Ark. Const, art. 14, § 1, is provided a means to enforce these matters so that compliance may be attained. All agree that the legislative, executive, and judicial branches have important roles in assuring that this State’s children have an educational system that meets constitutional muster under Ark. Const, art. 14, § 1. Our General Assembly and executive bodies are working to provide such a system, but it is obvious that this goal has eluded us so far. This is not to say our state public officials have not made strides to achieve our constitutional goal. While the General Assembly, along with the Governor and appropriate executive officials, continue to make strides toward making Arkansas’s educational system adequate under Article 14, more still needs to be done. For example, the Masters set forth the following ten areas that require further attention: • the level of foundation funding was not increased for the 2005-2006 school year; • the estimated increase in the uniform rate of taxation for foundation funding equates to a $39,000,000 reduction in state foundation funds; • there was no increase in the amount of categorical funding for the 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 school years; • no cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) was added to the foundation funding amount of $5,400 per student for the 2005-2006 school year; • unfunded mandates increased the financial burden on school districts; • an infusion of $35 million into the public school employees’ health insurance program was necessary to keep the program from collapsing, but there was no evidence that the $35 million provided any additional monies to school districts to cover their costs; • state assistance with bonded indebtedness has been reduced; • the State failed to appropriate half of the funds necessary to fund the Immediate Repair Program for schools with facilities needs; • the State failed to comply with the requirements of Act 57, which requires that interim reports, assessing the adequacy of the State’s educational system, be filed with the Speaker of the House and President of the Senate by September 1 of each year before a regular session; and • it is estimated that some $49 million in unallocated surplus remains in the Educational Adequacy Trust Fund. Although the State seems to disagree with the Masters’ Report, which lists these areas of concern, the State failed to offer any testimony, evidence, or argument to contradict the Masters’ findings on these vital issues — particularly with regard to the Masters’ conclusion that the State failed to comply with Act 57. Consequently, by staying the mandate and giving the General Assembly time to carry out its constitutional duties, our court seeks further proof of the legislature’s willingness to correct these specific issues, along with any others that may stand in the way of achieving the goal of a constitutional system of education for children in Arkansas’s public schools. Much has been said about whether the legislature has sufficiently complied with Act 57, but we trust that the legislature will work to acquire the information required by that Act. In addition, we point out the importance of the General Assembly’s good faith action when it enacted Act 108 of the Second Extraordinary Session of 2003 in an attempt to ensure compliance with this court’s directives.1 However, should the officers mandatorily charged with the performance of various tasks under Act 108 fail in their appointed duties, this court would be in a position to enforce the performance of those official duties. In addition, Article 14 of the Arkansas Constitution clothes the judiciary with the authority to enforce the constitutional requirements of an equitable and adequate school funding system, as this court noted in Lake View School District No. 25 v. Huckabee, 351 Ark. 31, 91 S.W.3d 472 (2002): We further observe that the Education Article in the Arkansas Constitution designates the State as the entity to maintain a general, suitable, and efficient system of free public schools: Intelligence and virtue being the safeguards of liberty and the bulwark of a free and good government, the State shall ever maintain a general, suitable and efficient system of free public schools and shall adopt all suitable means to secure to the people the advantages and opportunities of education. Ark. Const., art. 14, § 1. . . . [In approving the Constitution of 1874,) [t]he people of this state unquestionably wanted all departments of state government to be responsible for providing a general, suitable, and efficient system of public education to the children of this state. Lake View, 351 Ark. at 52-53 [emphasis added in original]. Our role is to evaluate the evidence in light of the provisions of Art. 14, once the General Assembly and the Governor submit their proposals intended to achieve a constitutional system of school funding. We can then properly interpret the constitutional issue in order to determine whether the State has achieved compliance.   Act 108 of the Second Extraordinary Session of2003 provides, in relevant part, that the State’s Chief Fiscal Officer “will determine, from time to time, the amount of funds required from the Educational Adequacy Fund which, when added to other resources available to the Department of Education Public School Fund Account and the Department of Education Fund Account, is needed to fulfill the financial obligation of the state to provide an adequate educational system as enacted by the Second Extraordinary Session of the 84th General Assembly and shall certify the amounts to the Treasurer of State.” Act 108 of 2003 (2d. Ex. Sess.), § 1(c)(1). Act 108 further provides that, in the event the Chief Fiscal Officer determines that the transfers from the Education Adequacy Fund are not sufficient to meet the state’s financial obligation to provide an adequate educational system,” the additional amount required shall be transferred from the other funds and fund accounts withinArkansas Code 19-5-402(a) and 19-5-404(a) based upon the proportion that each of the remaining fund and fund accounts bears to the total of the remaining funds and fund accounts inArkansas Code 19-5-402(a) and 19-5-404(a).” See Act 108 of 2003 (2d. Ex. Sess.), § 1(d).