Pendelton School Dist. v. State

• Jurisdiction: Oregon
• Parties: PENDLETON SCHOOL DISTRICT 16R; Eugene School District 4J; Crow-Applegate-Lorane School District 66; Coos Bay School District 9; Corvallis School District 509J; Josephine County Unit/Three Rivers School District; Astoria School District 1C; Creswell School District; Lincoln County School District; Siuslaw School District 97J; Centennial School District; Amity School District 4J; Reynolds School District # 7; Coquille School District # 8; Parkrose School District #3; Pine Eagle School District # 61; Jefferson School District; Mckenzie School District; Alexandra Kiesling and Timothy Kiesling, minors, by Amy Cuddy, their guardian ad litem; Grace Peyerwold, a minor, by David and Maria Peyerwold, her guardians ad litem; Marshall Taunton and Harrison Taunton, minors, by Tim and Wendy Taunton, their guardians ad litem; and Benjamin Sherman and Claire Sherman, minors, by Larry Sherman and Diane Nichol, their guardians ad litem, v. STATE of Oregon, Defendant-Respondent, Respondent on Review.
• Citation: 200 P.3d 133,345 Or. 596
• Docket Number: CC 0603-02980.,CA A133649.,SC S056096.
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court
• Decision Date: 23 January 2009

200 P.3d 133

345 Or. 596

PENDLETON SCHOOL DISTRICT 16R; Eugene School District 4J; Crow-Applegate-Lorane School District 66; Coos Bay School District 9; Corvallis School District 509J; Josephine County Unit/Three Rivers School District; Astoria School District 1C; Creswell School District; Lincoln County School District; Siuslaw School District 97J; Centennial School District; Amity School District 4J; Reynolds School District # 7; Coquille School District # 8; Parkrose School District #3; Pine Eagle School District # 61; Jefferson School District; Mckenzie School District; Alexandra Kiesling and Timothy Kiesling, minors, by Amy Cuddy, their guardian ad litem; Grace Peyerwold, a minor, by David and Maria Peyerwold, her guardians ad litem; Marshall Taunton and Harrison Taunton, minors, by Tim and Wendy Taunton, their guardians ad litem; and Benjamin Sherman and Claire Sherman, minors, by Larry Sherman and Diane Nichol, their guardians ad litem, v. STATE of Oregon, Defendant-Respondent, Respondent on Review.

CC 0603-02980.

CA A133649.

SC S056096.

Supreme Court of Oregon, En Banc.

Argued and Submitted October 8, 2008.

Decided January 23, 2009.

On review from the Court of Appeals.^*

James N. Westwood, Stoel Rives LLP, Portland, argued the cause for petitioners on review. With him on the brief was Robert D. Van Brocklin.

Jeff J. Payne, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent on review. With him on the brief were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General.

Michael T. Garone, and Sara Kobak, Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, P.C., Portland, filed a brief on behalf of amicus curiae Oregon Business Association.

Maureen Leonard and Charles R. Williamson, Portland, filed a brief on behalf of amicus curiae Education Justice at Education Law Center.

Rebekah R. Cook, filed a brief on behalf of amicus curiae Oregon School Boards Association.

DE MUNIZ, C.J.

Plaintiffs in this case are 18 school districts and seven public school students. They filed this action against the State of Oregon, seeking a declaratory judgment that Article VIII, section 8, of the Oregon Constitution requires that the legislature fund the Oregon public school system at a level sufficient to meet certain quality educational goals established by law and a mandatory injunction directing the legislature to appropriate the necessary funds. The trial court granted summary judgment against plaintiffs, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Pendleton School Dist. v. State of Oregon, 220 Or.App. 56, 185 P.3d 471 (2008). We allowed the plaintiffs' petition for review, and now conclude that the legislature has failed to fund the Oregon public school system at the level sufficient to meet the quality education goals established by law and that plaintiffs were entitled to a declaratory judgment to that effect. However, we also conclude that, in adopting Article VIII, section 8, Oregon voters did not intend to achieve the level of funding required in that constitutional provision through judicial enforcement. Consequently, we affirm in part and reverse in part the decision of the Court of Appeals and the judgment of the trial court.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The parties agree as to the facts. In the November 2000 general election, the voters of the state adopted Ballot Measure 1, a constitutional amendment that became Article VIII, section 8, of the Oregon Constitution. The relevant part of Article VIII, section 8, provides:

"(1) The Legislative Assembly shall appropriate in each biennium a sum of money sufficient to ensure that the state's system of public education meets quality goals established by law, and publish a report that either demonstrates the appropriation is sufficient, or identifies the reasons for the insufficiency, its extent, and its impact on the ability of the state's system of public education to meet those goals."¹

The next year, the legislature acted to comply with Article VIII, section 8. That legislation, Oregon Laws 2001, chapter 895, identified certain preexisting statutes as setting the pertinent quality goals for the public school system. Id. at § 5 (codified as amended at ORS 327.506). The legislation also established a Quality Education Commission (QEC) to determine the amount of funding needed to ensure that the public school system met those goals. Id. at §§ 1, 2 (codified at ORS 327.497 and codified as amended at ORS 327.500).²

In accordance with the reporting requirement of Article VIII, section 8, the legislature also directed that a report be prepared every biennium. Or. Laws 2001, ch. 895, § 7 (codified as amended at ORS 171.857). ORS 171.857 provides that the report shall "[d]emonstrate that the amount" appropriated for the public school system "is the amount of moneys as determined by the Quality Education Commission * * * that is sufficient to meet the quality goals." ORS 171.857(4)(a). Alternatively, the report shall

"[i]dentify the reasons that the amount appropriated for the state's system of kindergarten through grade 12 public education is not sufficient, the extent of the insufficiency and the impact of the insufficiency on the ability of the state's system of kindergarten through grade 12 public education to meet the quality goals."

ORS 171.857(4)(b).

Historically, the legislature never has appropriated the amounts designated by the QEC. For the 2003-05 biennium, the QEC concluded that $6.995 billion was needed to meet the quality goals established by law; the legislature ultimately appropriated $4.9 billion. For the 2005-07 biennium, the QEC concluded that $7.035 billion was needed to meet the quality goals established by law; the legislature appropriated just over $5.2 billion.³

In March 2006, plaintiffs filed this action against the state. Plaintiffs' amended complaint alleged that Article VIII, section 8, required the legislature to appropriate enough money in each biennium to ensure that the state's public school system met the quality goals established by law. The first claim for relief alleged that the legislature had failed to appropriate that sum of money for the 2005-07 biennium and that plaintiffs were entitled to a declaratory judgment that that failure violated Article VIII, section 8.

A second claim for relief in plaintiffs' complaint also sought a declaratory judgment, but under a different provision of the Oregon Constitution—Article VIII, section 3. That section provides:

"The Legislative Assembly shall provide by law for the establishment of a uniform, and general system of Common schools."

Plaintiffs contended that Article VIII, section 3, required the legislature to "appropriate funds sufficient to maintain an adequate system of K-12 public schools," but the legislature had not appropriated sufficient funds for the 2005-07 biennium.

In a third claim for relief, plaintiffs sought a mandatory injunction "requiring defendants to appropriate for the current biennium funding sufficient to provide the Required Service Levels, i.e., the service levels that the [QEC] determined were necessary to achieve quality goals established by law."

The state moved for summary judgment, contending that neither Article VIII, section 8, nor Article VIII, section 3, required the legislature to appropriate more funds for the public school system than already had been appropriated. The state argued that the legislature could comply with Article VIII, section 8, either by funding the public school system sufficient to meet the quality goals or by explaining in a report the reasons for the insufficient funding, the extent of the insufficiency, and the effect that the insufficiency might be expected to have on educational goals. The state further contended that plaintiffs' claim under Article VIII, section 3, was foreclosed by precedent from this court and the Court of Appeals.

Plaintiffs opposed the state's motion for summary judgment and responded with their own motion for partial summary judgment. Plaintiffs contended that Article VIII, section 8, unambiguously requires the legislature to provide the level of funding that the public school system needs to meet the quality educational goals established by law because Article VIII, section 8, used the word "shall" in setting out that requirement. The reporting requirement, plaintiffs argued, was a separate obligation, independent of the mandatory duty to fund the public school system at the level specified in the provision. Plaintiffs asserted that the state's interpretation of Article VIII, section 8, which would allow the legislature to fund the public school system below the specified level if it published an appropriate report, thereby rendering Article VIII, section 8, meaningless. As for Article VIII, section 3, plaintiffs maintained that this court in construing that provision had recognized an educational adequacy requirement in Olsen v. State ex rel Johnson, 276 Or. 9, 554 P.2d 139 (1976), and they therefore were entitled to a mandatory injunction under that provision, as well.

After hearing argument, the trial court granted the state's motion for summary judgment and denied plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment.

Plaintiffs appealed. In the Court of Appeals, the state responded to plaintiffs' arguments on the merits, but it also contended that the case was no longer justiciable. The state asserted that the courts cannot enter a declaratory judgment that has the effect of enjoining the legislature from passing unconstitutional legislation in the future, citing Tillamook Co. v. State Board of Forestry, 302 Or. 404, 730 P.2d 1214 (1986). The state also argued that plaintiffs' claim for injunctive relief had become moot with the end of the 2005-07 biennium.

The Court of Appeals first addressed the state's justiciability argument. Pendleton School Dist., 220 Or.App. at 63-67, 185 P.3d 471. The court concluded that Tillamook was distinguishable because that case had involved only...