Thomas Jefferson Classical Acad. v. the Rutherford County Bd. of Educ., COA10–1121.
| Citation | 715 S.E.2d 625,272 Ed. Law Rep. 669 |
| Decision Date | 20 September 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. COA10–1121.,COA10–1121. |
| Parties | THOMAS JEFFERSON CLASSICAL ACADEMY, d/b/a Thomas Jefferson Classical Academy Charter School, Plaintiff,v.The RUTHERFORD COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, d/b/a Rutherford County Schools, Defendant. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of North Carolina (US) |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeals by plaintiff and defendant from order of summary judgment entered 9 July 2010 by Judge A. Robinson Hassell in Rutherford County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 9 February 2011.
Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson, P.A., by Richard A. Vinroot, and A. Ward McKeithen, Charlotte, for plaintiff.
Campbell Shatley, PLLC, by Christopher Z. Campbell and Chad R. Donnahoo, Asheville, for defendant.Allison B. Schafer, Kathleen C. Boyd, Raleigh, and Katherine J. Brooks, for North Carolina School Boards Association, amicus curiae.
Funds restricted as to their use, but placed into a school board's “local current expense fund” must be considered in the computation of monies due to a charter school pursuant to N.C. Gen.Stat. § 115C–238.29H(b) (2009). The trial court correctly determined that a purported amendment to the 2008–09 budget of the county schools, adopted over five months after the end of the fiscal year and after the funds had been expended, was of no legal effect. Under our prior holdings in Sugar Creek I and II, the county schools can place restricted funds in accounts other than the “local current expense fund.”
In 1995, the General Assembly provided for the creation of charter schools, defined as “deregulated schools under public control.” Charter Schools Act of 1996, ch. 731, House Bill 955, 1995 N.C. Sess. Laws. The General Assembly required that the local school administrative unit in which each charter school student resides “transfer to the charter school an amount equal to the per pupil local current expense appropriation to the local school administrative unit....” N.C. Gen.Stat. § 115C–238.29H(b).
Plaintiff, Thomas Jefferson Classical Academy (TJCA), is a charter school. On 15 January 2010, TJCA filed a complaint against the Rutherford County Board of Education (RCS) in the Superior Court of Rutherford County. TJCA's amended complaint (filed 26 March 2010) asserted two claims: (1) for a declaratory judgment that RCS must apportion monies to TJCA in accordance with the applicable state statutes and the prior decisions of the North Carolina Court of Appeals; and (2) that TJCA recover from RCS the amount which it underfunded TJCA from 2006–2010 in at least the amount of $903,707. On 28 April 2010, RCS filed an answer and counterclaims seeking: (1) a declaration that TJCA was not entitled to share in revenues restricted to specific purposes by state or federal law or to provide voluntary services to populations outside of its obligation to provide basic education; (2) a declaration that it was entitled to amend its budget resolutions for the 2009 and 2010 fiscal years; and (3) for appointment of a referee to provide an accounting of the number of students involved and the applicable revenues involved in the controversy. On 4 June 2010, both TJCA and RCS moved for summary judgment pursuant to North Carolina Rule of Civil Procedure 56.
On 9 July 2010, the trial court entered judgment holding that there were no genuine issues of material fact, and entering judgment as a matter of law resolving all of TJCA's claims and RCS' counterclaims. The trial court ruled that: (1) RCS' budget amendment for the 2008–09 fiscal year was “without legal effect;” (2) that RCS underfunded TJCA during the fiscal years 2006–07, 2007–08, and 2008–09 in the amount of $730,889 and ordered that sum to be paid by RCS to TJCA, without interest; (3) RCS' budget amendment for the fiscal year 2009–10 was upheld, so that certain monies were not to be included in the computation of sums due to TJCA for the 2009–10 fiscal year; (4) that RCS must comply with the Funding and Budget Statutes in determining monies to be included in its “local current expense fund” for the fiscal year 2009–10, and in the future; and (5) each party was to bear its own costs, including attorney's fees.
TJCA appeals the portions of the judgment upholding the budget amendment for the 2009–10 fiscal year and holding that certain monies were not to be included in the computations. RCS appeals the portions of the judgment declaring its 2008–09 budget amendment to be invalid and holding that certain restricted revenues should be included in the computation.
Neither party asserts that there are genuine issues of material fact in this case. As such, our review is limited to the correctness of the trial court's legal determinations. See Showalter v. N.C. Dep't. of Crime Control & Pub. Safety, 183 N.C.App. 132, 134, 643 S.E.2d 649, 651 (2007). This review is de novo. Id.
The basis of both appeals is a question of statutory interpretation. “Questions of statutory interpretation are questions of law,” which we review de novo. State v. Largent, 197 N.C.App. 614, 617, 677 S.E.2d 514, 517 (2009) (quoting In re Proposed Assessments v. Jefferson–Pilot Life Ins. Co., 161 N.C.App. 558, 559–60, 589 S.E.2d 179, 180–81 (2003)). We are to give the statute the effect intended by the legislature. Id. “Where the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous there is no room for judicial construction and the courts must give it its plain and definite meaning....” Begley v. Employment Security Comm., 50 N.C.App. 432, 436, 274 S.E.2d 370, 373 (1981). However, “when the meaning of a statute is unclear, ‘[t]he spirit and intent of an act controls its interpretation.’ ” Wake Cares, Inc. v. Wake Cty. Bd. of Educ., 363 N.C. 165, 180, 675 S.E.2d 345, 355 (2009) (Martin, J., dissenting) (alteration in original) (quoting Lithium Corp. of Am. v. Town of Bessemer City, 261 N.C. 532, 536, 135 S.E.2d 574, 577 (1964)).
This case continues the series of cases brought before this Court in which a local charter school disputes the amount of funding allocated to it by the local school board pursuant to N.C. Gen.Stat. § 115C–238.29H.
A. Charter School Funding
Chapter 731 of the North Carolina General Assembly 1995 Session Laws authorized the creation and funding of charter schools as “deregulated schools under public control.” Subsection (a) of N.C. Gen.Stat. § 115C–238.29H sets forth the funding to be provided to each charter school by the State Board of Education. Subsection (b) of N.C. Gen.Stat. § 115C–238.29H sets forth the funding to be provided to each charter school by the local school administrative unit, stating “[i]f a student attends a charter school, the local school administrative unit in which the child resides shall transfer to the charter school an amount equal to the per pupil local current expense appropriation to the local school administrative unit for the fiscal year....”
In Francine Delany New School for Children, Inc. v. Asheville City Bd. of Educ., 150 N.C.App. 338, 346, 563 S.E.2d 92, 97 (2002), disc. review denied, 356 N.C. 670, 577 S.E.2d 117 (2003), this Court held that there is no material distinction between the term “local current expense appropriation” as found in N.C. Gen.Stat. § 115C–238.29H, and the term “local current expense fund” as found in N.C. Gen.Stat. § 115C–426(e). The statute defines this fund as follows:
(e) The local current expense fund shall include appropriations sufficient, when added to appropriations from the State Public School Fund, for the current operating expense of the public school system in conformity with the educational goals and policies of the State and the local board of education, within the financial resources and consistent with the fiscal policies of the board of county commissioners. These appropriations shall be funded by revenues accruing to the local school administrative unit by virtue of Article IX, Sec. 7 of the Constitution, moneys made available to the local school administrative unit by the board of county commissioners, supplemental taxes levied by or on behalf of the local school administrative unit pursuant to a local act or G.S. 115C–501 to 115C–511, State money disbursed directly to the local school administrative unit, and other moneys made available or accruing to the local school administrative unit for the current operating expenses of the public school system.
N.C. Gen.Stat. § 115C–426(e) (2009).
Under the provisions of N.C. Gen.Stat. § 115C–426, local school administrative units are required to operate under a uniform budget format. Subsection (c) of that statute mandates the following:
The uniform budget format shall require the following funds:
(1) The State Public School Fund.
(2) The local current expense fund.
(3) The capital outlay fund.
In addition, other funds may be required to account for trust funds, federal grants restricted as to use, and special programs. Each local school administrative unit shall maintain those funds shown in the uniform budget format that are applicable to its operations.1
The 2008 case of Sugar Creek Charter School, Inc. v. Charlotte–Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 188 N.C.App. 454, 655 S.E.2d 850 ( Sugar Creek I) , disc. review denied, 362 N.C. 481, 665 S.E.2d 738 (2008), dealt with whether funds deposited in the “local current expense fund” given to the local school administrative unit for “Bright Beginnings,” a special program for “at-risk,” “pre-kindergarten” children, and for a High School Challenge Grant should be included as part of the “local current expense fund” for purposes of computing the per pupil amount due to the charter school. This Court held that even assuming that “Bright Beginnings” was a “special program” under N.C. Gen.Stat. § 115C–426(c), the local school administrative unit failed to place it in a special fund. Since it was placed in the “local current expense fund,” and the charter school was entitled to a pro rata share of that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Charter Day Sch., Inc. v. New Hanover Cnty. Bd. of Educ. & Tim Markley
...earmarked funds included in the local current expense fund). As this Court noted in Thomas Jefferson Classical Academy v. Rutherford County Bd. of Educ., 215 N.C.App. 530, 537, 715 S.E.2d 625, 630 (2011), appeal dismissed and disc. review denied,––– N.C. ––––, 724 S.E.2d 531 (2012), “[t]he ......
-
Thomas Jefferson Classical Acad. Charter Sch. v. Cleveland Cnty. Bd. of Educ., COA13–893–2.
...administrative unit be placed into the ‘local current expense fund’ (Fund Two)." Thomas Jefferson Classical Academy v. Rutherford County Bd. of Educ., 215 N.C.App. 530, 543, 715 S.E.2d 625, 633 (2011), disc. rev. denied and app. dismissed, – –– N.C. ––––, –––– 724 S.E.2d 531 (2012). "Restri......
-
Union Acad v. Union Cnty. Pub. Sch.
...is contrary to this Court's subsequent decision in Thomas Jefferson Classical Acad. v. Rutherford Cnty. Bd. of Educ., ––– N.C.App. ––––, 715 S.E.2d 625 (2011), disc. review denied,––– N.C. ––––, 724 S.E.2d 531 (2012). Because the trial court's reasoning cannot be reconciled with Thomas Jeff......
-
Thomas Jefferson Classical Acad. Charter Sch. v. Cleveland Cnty. Bd. of Educ.
...unit be placed into the ‘local current expense fund [.]’ " Thomas Jefferson Classical Acad. Charter Sch. v. Rutherford Cnty. Bd. of Educ. (Thomas Jefferson I), 215 N.C.App. 530, 543, 715 S.E.2d 625, 633 (2011), disc. review denied and appeal dismissed, – –– N.C. ––––, 724 S.E.2d 531 (2012).......