Court Opinion

ID: 9593949
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:25:49.273568+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:04:48.994174
License: Public Domain

Cavanagh, J.
(concurring in part and dissenting in part). I agree with the general conclusion of the majority that the Court of Appeals majority incorrectly focused solely on the fact that 1993 PA 362 does not require that a public body select the board of directors for each public school academy. Accordingly, I concur in the judgment that 1993 PA 362 is constitutionally valid. I write separately, however, because of my concern that the majority can be read as an undue aggrandizement of the power of the Legislature vis-a-vis the body in which plenary and overarching authority over public education is vested by our constitution: the State Board of Education.
i
The majority does acknowledge the authority of the State Board of Education. Ante, pp 583-585. However, *588certain emphasis in its analysis compels me to focus on the board’s ultimate authority.
The majority states: “Our constitution does not mandate exclusive control, it requires that ‘[t]he legislature shall maintain and support a system of free public elementary and secondary schools . . . Ante, p 572. In my view, this confuses the concept of “control” with that of “maintenance] and support.” The term “control” is synonymous with the constitutional phrase “[leadership and general supervision,” Const 1963, art 8, § 3, in the context of public education. The constitutional mandate that “[t]he legislature shall maintain and support a system of free public elementary and secondary schools,” Const 1963, art 8, § 2, primarily imposes an obligation to fund — rather than a responsibility to lead, supervise, or control— public schools.
I wish to emphasize that I do not read the majority as an attempt to overstate the scope of the Legislature’s authority with regard to public education. I do think, however, that the majority is susceptible to such a reading, and therefore write separately to foreclose such a possibility.
As the majority concludes, 1993 PA 362 provides for sufficient control of public school academies by public bodies. Accordingly, I concur in its judgment with regard to the constitutionality of 1993 PA 362.1
*589n
I also write separately to express my disagreement with the majority’s review of the repealer provision of 1994 PA 416. As a threshold matter, it is undisputed that none of the parties has challenged the constitutionality of either 1994 PA 416 or 1995 PA 289. In my opinion, therefore, we are not required to resolve this nebulous question, and I would hold that leave was improvidently granted on this issue.
Regarding the merits of the majority’s analysis of the argument that the repealer provision is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority, I would note that the fact that “[t]he Legislature has conditioned other acts on voter action,” ante, p 586, does not answer the question whether the Legislature can make the ultimate content of a legislative enactment solely contingent on judicial action. The obvious difference is that voters expressly share in the legislative power, as evidenced by the initiative and the referendum. See Const 1963, art 2, § 9.

 I am satisfied this is so as evidenced by the Legislature’s pronouncement of its intent in 1995 PA 289. Under § 1278(1) of the 1995 act, in order for a public school to be accredited, the public schools must meet core academic curriculum requirements. Furthermore, under § 1531, public school teachers must possess a teaching certificate. As previously noted by the majority, under § 501(1) a public school academy is a public school. Therefore, public school academies are under significant control of public bodies.