Court Opinion

ID: 9778271
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 20:57:48.188322+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:06.393006
License: Public Domain

PRICE, Judge,
dissenting.
I dissent from the majority opinion for three reasons. First, the opinion ignores the language of Section 21 of the Hancock Amendment. Second, the opinion ignores Missouri’s Rules of Civil Procedure requiring fact pleading. Third, the consequences of the opinion will either be devastating to the State of Missouri in its sacrifice of necessary *924services or antithetical to the Hancock Amendment by requiring a never-ending spiral of increased spending.
I.
The fiction engaged in by the majority is obvious. A mere reading of its holding shows that it has ignored the actual language of Section 21 of the Hancock Amendment and substituted in its place language more to the suiting of the majority. The opinion states:
We hold, therefore, that Section 21 requires the state to maintain the same proportion of the costs of financing special education in school districts as existed in fiscal year 1980-1981.
(Emphasis supplied.) The language of art. X, Section 21 of our constitution, however, reads:
The state is hereby prohibited from reducing the state financed portion of the cost of any existing activity or services required of counties and other political subdivisions ....
By replacing a prohibition against reduction of the state’s proportion of spending with a requirement to maintain a proportion of funding, the majority materially changes the content of the Hancock Amendment.
The actual language of Section 21 does not impose any affirmative duty on the state. Instead, it merely prohibits the state from passing down to local governmental entities the cost of required activities by affirmatively reducing the portion of costs borne by the state. The majority opinion, however, now imposes upon the state an affirmative duty to match increases in local spending.
The difference could not be more dramatically shown than here. State spending for special education was $60,569,270 in 1981. By 1992-1993, state spending on special education had more than doubled to $140,946,-607. Admittedly, local school districts allowed their expenses for special education to increase at an even faster pace, but there is no allegation in the pleadings or proof offered, whatsoever, that the school districts’ increase in spending was required by or had anything to do with the state.
II.
The majority also ignores the requirements of Rule 55.05. M.R.C.P. The rule provides that a petition “contain a short and plain statement of the facts showing that the pleader is entitled to relief’. This requirement was extensively discussed in ITT Commercial Finance v. Mid-America Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371 (Mo. banc 1993).
The operative allegations of plaintiffs’ first amended petition are that:
23. In 1980-81, the year the Hancock Amendment became effective, the state financed 42.8% of the costs of special education in the Fort Zumwalt School District through categorical aid. In 1990-91, the state financed only 38.9% of the costs of special education in the Fort Zumwalt School District through categorical aid. In 1991-92, the state financed only 33.7% of said costs in that district through categorical aid. As a result, in 1990-91 and 1991-92, the Fort Zumwalt School District was forced to offset this deficiency in categorical aid for special education by the use of local tax monies and/or unrestricted state aid.
24. In 1980-81, the state financed 41.4% of the costs of special education in the Francis Howell School District through categorical aid. In 1989-90, the state financed only 40.8% of the costs of special education in the Francis Howell School District through categorical aid. In 1990-91, the state financed only 35.9% of said costs in that district through categorical aid. In 1991-92, the state financed only 32.4% of said costs in that district through categorical aid. As a result, in 1989-90, 1990-91 and 1991-92, the Francis Howell School District was forced to offset this deficiency in categorical aid for special education by the use of local tax monies and/or unrestricted state aid.
25. In 1980-81, the state financed 41% of the costs of special education in the St. Charles School District through categorical aid. In 1989-90, the state financed only 37.4% of the costs of special education in the St. Charles School District through *925categorical aid. In 1990-91, the state financed only 36.2% of said costs in that district through categorical aid. In 1991-92, the state financed only 28% of said costs in that district through categorical aid. As a result, in 1989-90, 1990-91 and 1991-92, the St. Charles School District was forced to offset this deficiency in categorical aid for special education by the use of local tax monies and/or unrestricted state aid.
26. In 1980-81, the state financed 45.1% of the costs of special education in the Wentzville School District through categorical aid. In 1989-90, the state financed only 86.5% of the costs of special education in the Wentzville School District through categorical aid. In 1990-91, the state financed only 36.8% of said costs in that district through categorical aid. In 1991-92, the state financed only 24.6% of said costs in that district through categorical aid. As a result, in 1989-90, 1990-91 and 1991-92, the Wentzville School District was forced to offset this deficiency in categorical aid for special education by the use of local tax monies and/or unrestricted state aid.
27. The state violated Article X, Sections 16 and 21 of the Missouri Constitution in 1989-90, 1990-91 and 1991-92, by reducing the state financed proportion of the costs of special education services funded through categorical aid from the proportion provided to plaintiff school districts in 1980-81. Such reduction amounts to an unconstitutional shifting of the tax burden away from the state and onto local school districts and taxpayers.
As to these allegations, the majority correctly notes that:
Plaintiffs are mistaken that establishment of the Section 21 proportions requires no more than comparing 1980-81 and subsequent year costs with the state’s contribution to special education in those years.
Although generally discussing the need for “sophisticated budgetary evidence and economic expertise” that might separate out “mandated” expenditures from “discretionary” expenditures, and even giving an exam-pie of “greater-than-required salary increases”, the majority never outlines what facts are required to state a cause of action. The school districts have made no allegations of what increases in expenditures were “mandated” by the state, what increases were beyond the state’s or the school districts’ control, or what increases were “discretionary” by the school districts. Neither have they made any attempt to plead that the change in the ratio of spending resulted from an affirmative act of the state to reduce its proportion of the expense of special education programs. As anyone can see by reading the pleadings here, plaintiffs have merely alleged a 1980-1981 state/school district expenditure ratio and corresponding ratios for the 1989-1990, 1990-1991, and 1991-1992 school years, numbers the majority apparently believes are inadequate to state a claim.
Nevertheless, the majority condones this failure in pleading that would have required dismissal against any other party. ITT Commercial Finance, 854 S.W.2d at 379. Aside from being inconsistent with our application of Rule 55.05 to all others, the problem now posed for plaintiffs, defendants, and the courts is clear. Despite the fact that plaintiffs have survived a motion for summary judgment, no one knows what facts or elements are essential for the school districts to prevail. Nor do they even know what facts the school districts will attempt to prove.
III.
Finally, the majority opinion will result in either a horrendous loss of governmental services to the people of Missouri or a never-ending spiral of increased government spending. The majority opinion will require the state legislature to annually evaluate local spending in all programs where the state and a local governmental entity share funding responsibilities. If the state is unable to match local increases, the program can no longer be required. The consequence in many instances would be the forfeiture of massive amounts of federal matching funds upon which so many of our state services depend, such as schools, highways, and *926health care. Surely, the majority cannot reasonably expect this to occur.
Instead, the reality of the majority’s opinion will be that year after year the legislature will be forced to continually adjust its spending, ever upward, to match school district by school district and county by county spending, benefiting our richer counties at the expense of our poorer ones. In short, despite its rhetoric, the majority has transformed the Hancock Amendment from a shield to protect the people of Missouri from the increasing growth of government and taxation into a sword mandating continued increases in spending.
I cannot believe this was the intention of those who drafted the Hancock Amendment or the voters who passed it.