Siegelman v. Alabama Ass'n of School Bds.
| Citation | 819 So.2d 568 |
| Parties | Governor Don SIEGELMAN, etc., et al. v. ALABAMA ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL BOARDS et al. |
| Decision Date | 29 June 2001 |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
William F. Gardner and Joseph V. Musso of Cabaniss, Johnston, Gardner, Dumas & O'Neal, Birmingham, for Jacksonville State University, University of Montevallo, University of North Alabama, University of South Alabama, Troy State University System, and University of West Alabama.
Samuel H. Franklin, William H. King III, S. Andrew Kelly, and David R. Pruet III of Lightfoot, Franklin & White, L.L.C., Birmingham; and Lee F. Armstrong, Office of General Counsel, Auburn University, for Auburn University.
Henry E. Simpson and David W. Spurlock of Lange, Simpson, Robinson & Somerville, L.L.P., Birmingham; C. Glenn Powell and Hattie E. Kaufman, Office of Counsel, University of Alabama System; and Kenneth J. Mendelsohn of Jemison & Mendelsohn, Montgomery, for the Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama.
Richard S. Manley of Manley, Traeger, Perry & Stapp, Demopolis, for the Joint Fiscal Committee of the Alabama Legislature.
Roderic G. Steakley and William R. Lunsford of Sirote & Permutt, P.C., Huntsville; and Braxton Schell, Jr., Birmingham, for Alabama A&M University.
Kenneth Thomas and Robert M. Weinberg of Thomas, Means, Gillis, Devlin, Robinson & Seay, Montgomery, for Alabama State University. Bill Pryor, atty. gen.; Edward A. Hosp, Governor's Legal Advisor; Margaret L. Fleming, Charles B. Campbell, Scott L. Rouse, and Troy R. King, asst. attys. gen.; and Michael R. White, Alabama Department of Education for Governor Don Siegelman, State Finance Director Henry Mabry, and State Comptroller Robert Childree.
Robert A. Huffaker of Rushton, Stakely, Johnston & Garrett, P.A., Montgomery, for Alabama Association of School Boards, Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County, and Pike County Board of Education.
Robert C. Campbell III of Sintz, Campbell, Duke & Taylor, Mobile, for Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County.
Roger L. Bates, I. Ripon Britton, Jr., and E. Shane Black of Hand Arendall, L.L.C., Birmingham, for Alabama Coalition for Equity, Inc.
Robert D. Segall of Copeland, Franco, Screws & Gill, P.A., Montgomery; and Mark Sabel of Sabel & Sabel, Montgomery, for Mary Harper, suing for next friend of Deion Harper and Kerry Phillips.
Paul J. Dezenberg and James A. Tucker, Tuscaloosa; and Martha Morgan, University of Alabama School of Law, for Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program.
William C. Honey, Montgomery, for amicus curiae Alabama Council of University Faculty Presidents, in support of the appellants.
Ray Ward and Thomas W. Powe, Jr., of Ray, Oliver & Ward, L.L.C., Tuscaloosa, for amicus curiae Alabama Council of School Board Attorneys.
J. Russell Gibson III and Jinny M. Ray Phelps, Jenkins, Gibson & Fowler, L.L.P., Tuscaloosa, for amicus curiae Lee County Board of Education.
Larry T. Menefee, Montgomery, for amici curiae Professor Wayne Flynt; a group of Alabama Law Professors; and other University Professors.
James R. Seale of Hill, Hill, Carter, Franco, Cole & Black, P.C., Montgomery, for amicus curiae Alabama Institute for the Deaf and Blind.
These consolidated appeals arise out of an action commenced by (1) the Alabama Association of School Boards ("AASB"); (2) the Pike County Board of Education; (3) the Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County; and (4) the Alabama Coalition for Equity, Inc. ("ACE"), against (a) Governor Don Siegelman, (b) State Finance Director Henry Mabry (the "Director"), and (c) State Comptroller Robert Childree (the "Comptroller").
The underlying dispute began on February 2, 2001, when the Director addressed a letter to Governor Siegelman, stating:
That same day, the Governor addressed a letter to the Director, stating:
Thereafter, on February 7, 2001, a complaint was filed by the AASB, the Pike County Board of Education, the Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County, and the ACE, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the Governor, the Director, and the Comptroller (collectively, the "Executive Parties"). The complaint alleged that "the declaration of proration by [Governor] Siegelman on February 2, 2001, under the auspices of § 41-4-90 was an absolute, across the board proration of all funding for K-12 education [kindergarten through grade 12]." It sought a judgment declaring that Governor Siegelman's proration order violated various statutory provisions and constitutional guarantees and could not be implemented to prorate the funding of (1) the "Foundation Program" benefiting grades K-12;2 (2) "transportation services"; or (3) "Special Schools," namely, the Alabama High School of Mathematics and Science, the Alabama School of Fine Arts, the Alabama School for the Blind and Deaf, and "K-12 programs provided by the Alabama Department of Youth Services" (collectively the "Programs"). In the alternative, it sought a declaration that the Governor's order could not "be applied to prorate funds allocable to [K-12] salaries." The complaint also sought an order enjoining the Executive Parties from prorating funding of the Programs, or, in the alternative, from prorating funding "for payment of salaries and benefits" for grades K-12.
Subsequently, various individuals and entities were allowed to intervene. Intervening as plaintiffs were Mary Harper, "suing as next friend of Deion Harper and Kerry Phillips" ("Harper"); and the Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program ("ADAP").3
One intervenor on the defendants' side was the Joint Fiscal Committee of the Alabama Legislature (the "Joint Committee"). Also intervening as defendants were entities representing post-secondary education in various alignments or groupings. One group was composed of Jacksonville State University, the University of Montevallo, the University of North Alabama, the University of South Alabama, the Troy State University System, and the University of West Alabama (the "Regional Universities"). Another group was composed of Auburn University and the Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama. A third group was composed of Alabama State University and Alabama Agricultural and Mechanical University. Throughout this opinion, the term "Universities" will be used to designate these three groups collectively.
Additionally, the Universities filed cross-claims for a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. More specifically, they sought a judgment declaring that "the Executive Parties could not implement proration... in a manner which would treat them differently than [the institutions involved in K-12 education] or which would result in a percentage reduction of their appropriations exceeding 6.2%." They sought an order "enjoining the Executive Parties ... from exempting funds appropriated for K-12 salaries prior to calculating proration and/or implementing proration in a manner which would cause the Universities to suffer a higher percentage reduction in appropriations than other agencies or entities including K-12."
On February 22, 2001, following a hearing, the trial court entered an order holding that the Constitution of Alabama guarantees "an equitable and adequate education to every child in Alabama," and that the implementation of the Governor's February 2, 2001, proration order would be inconsistent with that guarantee. Consequently, it preliminarily enjoined the Executive Parties from "implementing the February 2, 2001, proration order as applicable to funding of the [Programs]." The injunction was to become effective at 5:00 p.m. on February 27, 2001. The trial court delayed the implementation of the injunction in order to give the Legislature, which had been called into a special session by the Governor, time to address the proration/school funding issues. From that order, the Executive Parties, the Universities, and the Joint Committee appealed. Those appeals are represented by cases no. 1000951, 1000952, 1000953, 1000954, 1000959, 1000995, and 1000998.
On February 27, 2001, this Court stayed the order pending appeals of the cause. That same day, Governor Siegelman requested an advisory opinion of the Attorney General regarding the possible applicability of certain statutes, namely, Ala. Code 1975, § 16-6B-9, and Ala.Code 1975, § 16-13-144, in the context of proration ordered pursuant to § 41-4-90. His request stated in pertinent part:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Simple Helix, LLC v. Relus Techs., LLC
...U.C.C. rights in favor of a third party such as Simple Helix accords with Article 4A's stated purpose. See Siegelman v. Ala. Ass'n of Sch. Bds. , 819 So. 2d 568, 579 (Ala. 2001) ("The intent of the Legislature is the polestar of statutory construction."). "In the drafting of [Article 4A's] ......
-
Ex parte James
...before us by parties— some of whom were parties in the Equity Funding Case—as a defense to proration in Siegelman v. Alabama Association of School Boards, 819 So.2d 568 (Ala.2001). In our review of the Siegelman case, we discovered that there may in fact be a jurisdictional problem relating......
-
Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. Williams, 2160823
...construction:"We note that ‘[t]he intent of the Legislature is the polestar of statutory construction.’ Siegelman v. Alabama Ass'n of School Bds., 819 So.2d 568, 579 (Ala. 2001). See also Richardson v. PSB Armor, Inc., 682 So.2d 438, 440 (Ala. 1996) ; Jones v. Conradi, 673 So.2d 389, 394 (A......
-
Perdue v. Green
...year of the period are sufficient to pay all of the appropriations for such year in full.”As explained in Siegelman v. Alabama Association of School Boards, 819 So.2d 568 (Ala.2001): “ ‘[Section 41–4–90] recognizes that the Legislature can make appropriations in such amounts as it deems pro......