Durant v. State
Decision Date | 23 August 2002 |
Docket Number | Docket No. 230859. |
Citation | 251 Mich. App. 297,650 N.W.2d 380 |
Parties | Donald S. DURANT, et al, Plaintiffs, v. STATE of Michigan, Department of Education, State of Michigan, Department of Management and Budget, and Treasurer of the State of Michigan, Defendants. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Pollard & Albertson, P.C. (by Dennis R. Pollard and Richard E. Kroopnick), Bloomfield Hills, for the plaintiffs.
Jennifer M. Granholm, Attorney General, Thomas L. Casey, Solicitor General, Jane O. Wilensky, Edith C. Harsh, Deborah Anne Devine, Gary L. Hicks, Matthew H. Rick, and Darrin F. Fowler, Assistant Attorneys General, for the defendants.
White, Schneider, Baird, Young & Chiodini, P.C. (by James A. White and Kathleen Corkin Boyle), Okemos, for Michigan Education Association.
Before: NEFF, P.J., and SAWYER and FITZGERALD, JJ.
This original action,1 commonly referred to as "Durant III," requires this Court to revisit and reexamine the interplay between Const 1963, art 9, § 29 (the Headlee Amendment), Const 1963, art 9, § 11 (Proposal A), and the State School Aid Act, M.C.L. § 388.1601 et seq., 2000 PA 297, as well as to expand on this Court's Durant II decision, Durant v. Michigan (On Remand), 238 Mich.App. 185, 605 N.W.2d 66 (1999), vacated in part on other grounds and remanded, reconsideration den 462 Mich. 882, 613 N.W.2d 722 (2000).
In response to this Court's decision in Durant II, the Legislature enacted 2000 PA 297. Plaintiffs now challenge the constitutionality of that act. For the reasons expressed below, we conclude that 2000 PA 297 is constitutional.
2000 PA 297 creates a tripartite funding scheme the parties refer to as either the "three bucket" or the "three pot" approach. The state provides an overview of this approach in its brief in opposition to plaintiffs' motion for summary disposition as follows:
Sum of former appropriation sections — 22a appropriation (Proposal A obligation) — 51c appropriation (Headlee Amendment obligation) _________________________ = 22b appropriation.
A more detailed explanation of this three-bucket funding method is set forth in a February 6, 2001, Department of Education Bulletin as follows:
Section 51c allocates an amount to meet the Headlee obligation equal to 28.6138% of a district's special education costs plus 70.4165% of the district's special education transportation costs.
The practical effect of this three-bucket approach is that, although subsection 20(1) of 2000 PA 297 sets the basic foundation allowance at $5,700 per membership pupil for 1999-2000, at $6,000 per membership pupil for 2000-01, at $6,300 per membership pupil for 2001-02, and at $6,700 per membership pupil for 2002-03, the state is calculating and funding its obligation under art 9, § 11 at a level not less than "the 1994-95 total state and local per pupil revenue for school operating purposes" for each particular school district. The per membership pupil amount for the 1994-95 fiscal year was $5,000. Although the parties are less than clear on this point, it appears that the funds that compose the difference between the 1994-95 foundation allowance and the basic foundation allowances specified in subsection 20(1) of 2000 PA 297, other than the Headlee obligation allocation, are poured into the discretionary funds bucket.
This leads us to the current litigation. Plaintiffs are 458 taxpayers, 423 school districts, and 33 intermediate school districts, who have commenced this original action pursuant to Const 1963, art 9, § 32, MCR 2.605, and MCR 7.216(A)(7), seeking both a judgment declaring that the state has underfunded its constitutional obligation under art 9, § 29 and a money judgment in the amount of this underfunding. The gravamen of plaintiffs' claim is set forth in paragraphs 23 and 24 of count I of their second amended complaint:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Adair v. State, Docket No. 121536, Calendar No. 5.
...882, 617 N.W.2d 329 (2000). A year later, similar plaintiffs returned to file two suits. In the first, Durant v. Michigan, 251 Mich.App. 297, 650 N.W.2d 380 (2002) (Durant III), the plaintiffs alleged that 2000 P.A. 297, which had been enacted in response to Durant II to cure the deficienci......
-
Taxpayers for Mich. Constitutional Gov't v. State, 334663
...level it provided in fiscal year 1994-1995, or approximately $5,000 per pupil. Const. 1963, art. 9, § 11 ; Durant v. State of Michigan , 251 Mich. App. 297, 308, 650 N.W.2d 380 (2002). The limited-purpose designation is also conferred in § 3 of the School Aid Act, MCL 388.1601 et seq . MCL ......
-
Adair v. State
...decisions in Durant v. Michigan (On Remand), 238 Mich.App. 185, 605 N.W.2d 66 (1999)( Durant II ), and Durant v. Michigan, 251 Mich.App. 297, 650 N.W.2d 380 (2002)( Durant III ) require us to reject plaintiffs' challenge to the constitutionality of the funding scheme employed by the Legisla......
-
Adair v. State
...he was required to do so because this Court had "definitively rejected" the arguments advanced by plaintiffs in Durant v. Michigan, 251 Mich.App. 297, 650 N.W.2d 380 (2002), and Durant v. Michigan (On Remand), 238 Mich.App. 185, 605 N.W.2d 66 (1999). In subsequent proceedings, the special m......
-
HOW DO JUDGES DECIDE SCHOOL FINANCE CASES?
...MD 1983 458 A.2d 758 Court of last resort ME 1995 659 A.2d 854 Court of last resort MI 1997 566 N.W.2d 272 Court of last resort MI 2002 650 N.W.2d 380 Intermediate Court MI 1973 212N.W.2d 711 Court of last resort ML 1972 203 N.W.2d 457 Court of last resort MN 2015 [Unreported] Trial court M......