12:00 am
May 12, 2016
Yesterday the Joint Select Committee on Article IX Legislation met and approved its 2016 report to the state Supreme Court. Since 2012, this committee has been providing annual reports to the Court regarding the Legislature's progress toward complying with the McCleary decision.
The 2016 report argues that in enacting E2SSB 6195,
the Legislature has complied with the Court's request to provide this Court with a plan for legislative action on the remaining issue of funding for the state's program of basic education. In addition, E2SSB 6195 provides the Legislature with a mechanism to gather the remaining data needed to quantify the remaining portion of the state's salary obligation.
On funding included in the 2016 supplemental budget, the report notes that the Legislature made "strategic investments to support the state's basic education program by investing in education objectives outside the basic education formulas." (That includes spending in the capital budget.)
The Legislature has been in contempt of court since 2014 for not providing the Court a plan for fully funding education. In August 2015, the Court started fining the Legislature for the lack of a plan. According to the 2016 report, those fines will total $27.9 million on May 18. As the report notes, although the 2016 supplemental budget did not include an appropriation to pay the fines, the amount could easily be covered by reserves.
The report includes a helpful appendix providing technical information about the budget and education funding.
Will this report appease the Court? As Melissa Santos writes in The News Tribune,
Categories: Budget , Categories , Education.Between now and June 17, both the state Attorney General’s Office and the McCleary plaintiffs will file briefs with the court, arguing whether or not the court should lift the contempt sanctions. . . .
Thomas Ahearne, the attorney for the McCleary plaintiffs, said further court sanctions could include threatening to shut down the state’s school system if the Legislature doesn’t act by a certain date, or potentially invalidating tax breaks in state law to help free up money to pay for schools.