IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. Proposed for filing in Case No. 113,267) NO. 308; UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 1Ngj

Transcription

1 FILED JUN HEATHER L. SMITH CLERK OF APPELLATE COURTS IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS Proposed for flng n Case No. 113,267) LUKE GANNON, et al, Plantffs, County Appealed From: Dstrct Court Shawnee County, Kansas, n the Matter of Proceedngs Before the Three- V. Judge Panel Apponted Pursuant to K. S. A. THE STATE OF KANSAS, Defendant n re School Fnance Ltgaton Dstrct Court Case No.: 2010CV1569 Proceedng Under Chapter: 60 ff Party or Partes Who Wll Appear as Appellees: UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 259; UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 308; UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 1Ngj NO. 443; and UNIFIED SCHOOL R DISTRICT NO. 500 c<fr n"?o SUPPLEMENTAL DOCKETING STATEMENT - CIVIL 1. Cvl Classfcaton: Consttutonal Law 2. Proceedngs n the Dstrct Court: a. Panel from whose decson ths appeal s taken: The Honorable Frankln R. Thes Shawnee County Dstrct Court 200 S. E. 7th Street, Room 324 Topeka, KS The Honorable Robert J. Flemng Labette County Dstrct Court 201 South Central Street Parsons, KS The Honorable Jack L. Burr Sherman Dstrct Court 813 Broadway, Room 201 Goodland, KS

2 a b. Lst any other judge who has sgned orders or conducted hearngs n ths matter: None C. Was ths case dsposed of n the dstrct court by: Bench tral and on motons d. Length of tral, measured n days ( f applcable): The orgnal tral was 16 days; the Panel declned the State' s request to present addtonal evdence. t e. State the name of each court reporter or transcrptonst who has reported or transcrbed any or all of the record for the case on appeal. Jennfer Olsen, C. S. R., R. P.R. Offcal Court Reporter Shawnee County Courthouse, Room SE 7d' Street Topeka, Kansas x Lebe Franges, RPR, CCR no longer employed wth the 3` d Judcal Dstrct; contact Jennfer Olsen) Offcal Court Reporter Shawnee County Courthouse, Dvson Seven 200 SE 7th Street Topeka, Kansas f State the legal name of all enttes that are NOT lsted n the case capton ncludng corporatons, assocatons, parent, subsdary, or afflate busness enttes) but are partes or have a drect nvolvement n the case on appeal: None. g. State the name, address, telephone number, fax number, and e- mal address of every attorney who represented a party n dstrct court f that attorney' s name does NOT appear on the certfcate of servce attached to ths docketng statement. None. 3. Jursdcton: a. Date journal entry, judgment form, or other appealable order fled: 6/ 26/ 15 b. Is the order appealed from a fnal order,.e., does t dspose of the acton as to all clams by all partes? Yes C. If the order s not a fnal dsposton as to all clams by all partes, dd the dstrct court drect the entry ofjudgment 2

3 under K.S.A ( b)? N/A d. Date any posttral moton fled: Moton and Memorandum of the State of Kansas to Alter and Amend the Panel Opnon and Order on Remand N/A Plantffs'] Moton to Alter and Amend Panel' s Prevous Judgment Regardng Equty N/A e. Date dsposton of any posttral moton fled: (State' s Moton to Alter and Amend Panel' s Opnon and Order on Remand) 3/ 11/ 2015 Plantffs' Moton to Alter and Amend Panel' s Prevous Judgment on Equty) 6/ 26/ 2015 Date notce of appeal fled n dstrct court: 6/ 26/ 15 g. Other relevant dates necessary to establsh ths court' s jursdcton to hear the appeal,.e., decsons of admnstratve agences or muncpal courts and appeals therefrom: None a h. Statutory authorty for appeal: K.S. A (b)( 1) Alternatvely K.S. A ( a)( 4). Are there any proceedngs n any other court or admnstratve agency, state or federal, whch mght mpact ths case or ths court havng jursdcton( yes or no)? See No. Dane Petrella, et al. v. Sam Brownback, Governor of Kansas, n hs Ofcal Capacty, et al., Case No. 2: 1 0- cv pendng n the Unted States Dstrct Court for the Dstrct of Kansas and, Case No( s) & on nterlocutory appeal before the Tenth Crcut Court of Appeals. In ths sut, parents and students allege a dscrete provson of the Kansas publc school fundng statutes, whch grants lmted authorty to Kansas school dstrcts to levy taxes ( K.S. A ( b), the Local Opton Budget " Cap"), s unconsttutonal. They demand njunctve relef restranng the defendant state offcals from enforcng the Local Opton Budget " Cap" on the ground that the lmtaton on the taxng authorty granted to local school dstrcts volates the Fourteenth Amendment of the Unted States Consttuton. Accordng to the Plantffs' clams n Petrella, enforcement of the Panel' s judgment n ths case would volate the Unted States Consttuton. 3

4 4. Consttutonal Challenges to Statutes or Ordnances: Was any statute or ordnance found to be unconsttutonal by the dstrct court (yes or no)? Yes If" yes," what statute or ordnance? Fundng under the School Dstrct Fnance and Qualty Performance Act(" SDFQPA"), K.S.A , et seq. and under the Classroom Learnng Assurng Student Success Act(" CLASS") adopted by 2015 House Substtute for Senate Bll 7 (" SB 7") and amended by 2015 House Substtute for Senate Bll 4 (" SB 4") and parts of 2015 Senate Substtute for HB 2353 (" HB 2353"), 2015 House Substtute for SB 112 (" SB 112"). 5. Related Cases/ Pror Appeals: a. Is there any case now pendng or about to be fled n the Kansas appellate courts whch: 1) Arses from substantally the same case as ths appeal ( yes or no)? No 2) Involves an ssue that s substantally the same as, smlar to, or related to an ssue n ths appeal (yes or no)? No b. Has there been a pror appeal nvolvng ths case or controversy ( yes or no)? Yes, Case No( s). 109, 335 and 113, Bref statement( less than one page), wthout argument, of the materal facts. Ths s an appeal from a judgment n a " school fnance" case brought only aganst " the State" generally, rather than aganst any partcular agency or offcal, by four school dstrcts U.S. D. 259 n Wchta, U.S. D. 308 n Hutchnson, U. S. D. 443 n Dodge Cty and U. S. D. 500 n Kansas Cty, Kansas. Plantffs asked a three-judge panel (" Panel"), apponted under K.S. A b03, to hold that the School Dstrct Fnance and Qualty Performance Act (" SDFQPA"), K.S.A , et seg., and the State' s assocated prmary and secondary educaton appropratons volate Artcle 6, 6 of the Kansas Consttuton. After a bench tral n the summer of 2012, the Panel rejected most of the Plantffs' clams and arguments, but concluded: ( 1) the then falure to fully fund equalzaton ad" n certan parts of the Act was unconsttutonal and ( 2) the then amount of Base State Ad Per Pupl (` BSAPP") provded under the SDFQPA was unconsttutonal. The Panel ordered full fundng of Local Opton Budget (" LOB") state equalzaton ad under K.S. A and captal outlay equalzaton state ad under K.S. A , et seq. Rather than gvng the State an opportunty to consder approprate remedes, the Panel ordered the BSAPP be funded at $ 4492 for FY2014 and adjusted afterward to account for nflaton. The State appealed and Plantffs cross- appealed assertng the BSAPP should be much hgher than $4492. On March 7, 2014 the Kansas Supreme Court ssued ts opnon. It affrmed, n part, the 4

5 Panel' s judgment concernng fundng of LOB and captal outlay ad, holdng that the Legslature F needed to address nequtes n the fundng of ths state ad. Gannon v. State, 298 Kan. 1107, x , 319 P. 3d 1196 ( 2014). However, the Kansas Supreme Court rejected the Panel' s ordered " cures." It remanded to the Panel nstructng that the State' s response to the nequtes was to " be measured by determnng whether t suffcently reduces the unreasonable, wealthbased dsparty so the dsparty becomes consttutonally acceptable, not whether the cure necessarly restores fundng to the pror levels." Id. at 1181, p The Court reversed the Panel' s judgment regardng SDFQPA' s fundng because the Panel had appled the wrong consttutonal standard concernng adequacy of fundng requred under Artcle 6. It remanded the case to the Panel for fndngs and conclusons as to " whether the State met ts duty to provde adequacy n publc educaton as requred under Artcle 6 of the Kansas Consttuton[.]" Gannon, 298 Kan. at The Court nstructed: The panel shall promptly make fndngs as approprate, consder whatever evdence t deems relevant whether presently n the record or after reopenng and apply the adequacy test artculated n ths opnon. More specfcally, the panel must assess whether the publc educaton fnancng system provded by the legslature for grades K- 12 through structure and mplementaton s reasonably calculated to have all Kansas publc educaton students meet or exceed the standards set out n Rose v. Councl for Better Educ., Inc., 790 S. W. 2d 186 Ky. 1989), and as presently codfed n K.S. A Supp Id. at After the Supreme Court' s decson, legslaton was promptly passed whch addressed the nequtes found n the fundng of captal outlay and LOB ad. The Panel conducted a hearng on June 11, At the concluson of the hearng, the Panel announced the legslaton compled wth the Supreme Court' s order regardng captal outlay and LOB ad. Plantffs fled a " Moton for Judgment on Exstng Record" regardng the " adequacy" of the present fnance of K- 12 publc educaton under Artcle 6. The State opposed ths moton. As early as June 9, 2014, the State contended that the Panel needed the latest avalable nformaton about the current system of fnance and revenues n order to make a determnaton of current adequacy. It ponted out, among other thngs, that there was no evdence at all before the Panel concernng the and school years. Nor was there evdence n the tral record about the fnancng of K- 12 publc educaton, federal funds avalable, or mones placed nto the KPERS system for the beneft of Kansas teachers for the school year. The State asked permsson to conduct dscovery and to present addtonal evdence. It noted judgment was, n fact, proper n favor of the State on Plantffs' adequacy clams f no further evdence was submtted to the Panel. If fact, on August 28, 2014, the State fled a moton for judgment, under K.S. A ( c), after Plantffs effectvely elected to not present any addtonal evdence. On November 14, 2014, the Panel sent counsel an emal statng no further hearngs or arguments were needed and that ts opnon was forthcomng. 5

6 s On December 30, 2014, the Panel released ts Memorandum Opnon and Order on Remand. It reaffrmed that the State had compled wth the Supreme Court' s order regardng captal outlay and LOB ad. However, the Panel entered a declaratory judgment that the Kansas publc educaton fnancng system provded by the Legslature for grades K- 12 through structure and mplementaton s not presently reasonably calculated to have all Kansas publc educaton students meet or exceed the Rose factors and, therefore, s unconsttutonal n volaton of Artcle 6 of the Kansas Consttuton. In the concluson of the Panel' s order, t provded an alleged " brght- lne" for requred for complance wth Artcle 6. As part of ths, the Panel concluded 2014 changes to weghtngs n the SDFQPA' s formula volated the equty part of the mandates n Artcle 6. The Panel would not dsmss the ltgaton. It stated that t retaned jursdcton " to assure a consttutonal commtment to consttutonally acceptable fundng has been reached." Remand Opnon, 12/ 30/ 14, p On January 23, 2015, the State fled a moton to alter and amend to obtan clarfcaton of the Panel' s December 30, 2014 order and addtonal fndngs of fact. It then, on January 28, 2015, tmely fled a notce of appeal. At about the same tme, t notfed the Panel that ts appeal was under K. S. A ( b)( 1) whch requres flng of a notce of appeal wthn 30 days of the entry of a decson fndng a volaton of Artcle 6 of the Kansas Consttuton. The State explaned, K.S.A ( a) ( extendng the deadlne for flng a notce of appeal by the tmely flng of motons to alter and amend or for addtonal fndngs) does not appear to apply to an appeal under K.S. A ( 6)( 1) f, as s the case here, the rulngs appealed are not fnal orders. See K.S. A ( a). The State requested a prompt decson from the Panel on ts moton. On March 11, 2015, the Panel entered a Memorandum Opnon and Order denyng the State' s Alter and Amend. On March 13, 2015, the Panel set a hearng on [ Plantffs'] Moton to Alter and Amend Panel' s Prevous Judgment Regardng Equty for May 7-8, On March 16, 2015, Plantff Dstrcts fled a Moton for Injuncton and Declaratory Relef n whch they asked the Panel to enjon 2015 House Substtute for Senate Bll 7 (" SB 7"), a law whch has substantvely changed the Kansas publc educaton fnancng system for grades K- 12. The hearng on Plantff Dstrcts' Moton to Alter and Amend Panel' s Prevous Judgment Regardng Equty was conducted on May 7 and 8, After the hearng, HB 2353, 8 and SB became law. On June 26, 2015, almost mmedately after the longest Kansas Legslatve sesson n hstory concluded, the Panel fled a " Memorandum Opnon and Order and Entry of Judgment Regardng Panel' s Prevous Judgment Regardng Equty and Plantffs' Moton for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctve Relef' ( hereafter " Order"). In the Order, the Panel reversed and wthdrew ts December 30, 2014 fndng that the State had substantally compled wth Artcle 6' s equty requrements artculated n Gannon. The Panel found SB 7, parts of 2015 House Substtute for Senate Bll 4 (" SB 4") and parts of 2015 Senate Substtute for HB 2353 (" HB 2353"), 2015 House Substtute for SB 112 (" SB 112"), each of whch amended or supplemented 6

7 z l SB 7, unconsttutonal n volaton of Art. 6, 6( b) of the Kansas Consttuton, but stayed " what would otherwse be the consequence demanded of our rulng pendng appeal," subject to a temporary restranng order." The State fled ts notce of appeal on June 26, Then, on June 29, 2015, the State fled a Moton for Stay of Operaton and Enforcement of the Panel' s Judgment. 7. Concse statement of the ssues proposed to be rased. sthe State contends that the Panel gnored or msappled the Supreme Court' s drectons g as expressed n Gannon. The Panel also exceeded the mandate ssued wth the remand. The mandate drected the Panel to make fndngs as approprate concernng complance wth the adequacy part of Artcle 6. Under the drectons suppled by the Supreme Court n Gannon, current adequacy was the queston to be resolved, and that queston was not to be determned by usng the Montoy remedy or outdated costs study estmates as a floor. The Supreme Court' s 9 drectons requred the Panel to apply the presumpton of consttutonalty to current school fnance legslaton, to recognze that the Legslature has consderable dscreton n school fnance matters, and to count all sources of fundng n makng the adequacy determnaton. Furthermore, the mandate dd not permt the Panel to evaluate Artcle 6 equty questons beyond the narrow equty ssue whch had been remanded. a5 The Panel contnues to second- guess the fscal and polcy judgments made by elected offcals. The Panel dd not properly consder the hundreds of mllons of dollars Kansas schools receved from other sources such as federal fundng and state funds that support teachers and schools n ways other than base state ad per pupl. The Panel also refused to consder the mllons of dollars that some school dstrcts held and contnue to hold n reserve funds and ther 3 decsons to not pursue addtonal local revenue as provded by law. The Panel substtuted a brght- lne for complance wth Artcle 6 for the standard artculated n Gannon that publc educaton fnancng system provded by the legslature for grades K- 12 s consttutonal f through structure and mplementaton t s reasonably calculated to have all Kansas publc educaton students meet or exceed the standards set out n Rose v. Councl for Better Educ., Inc., r, 790 S. W.2d 186 ( Ky. 1989), and as presently codfed n K.S. A Supp The Panel should have entered judgment for the State aganst Plantffs' adequacy clam. Alternatvely, t should have allowed dscovery and addtonal evdence and then followed the drectons provded by the Supreme Court. The appeal wll rase the followng ssues: a. Should judgment be entered n the State' s favor, as a matter of law, because the Plantffs have not proven and cannot prove that the presumptvely vald school fnance system volates Artcle 6 of the Kansas Consttuton, partcularly from the outdated evdence submtted at tral? b. Do the SDFQA and now the CLASS and appropratons to " make sutable provson for fnance of the educatonal nterests of the state" bear a presumpton of consttutonalty, a presumpton that cannot be overcome by the Panel' s substtuton of ts fndngs of fact n place of the Legslature' s 7

8 3 presumed fndngs whch support the Act and the Legslature' s a 4 appropratons? c. Dd the Panel err by applyng the wrong standard for revew of Legslatve actons, thereby, refusng to gve any deference and substtutng ts judgment for that of the Legslature? d. Dd the Panel err by falng to consder all sources of revenue provded to Kansas schools n determnng whether the State has made " sutable provson for the fnance of the educatonal nterests of the state"? A e. Dd the Panel err by applyng a brght-lne for Artcle 6 complance based upon mstaken legal conclusons that: ( 1) Artcle 6 of the Kansas Consttuton creates a guarantee to successful completon of an educaton satsfyng the Rose goals/ standards to almost each, f not each, student as opposed to requrng legslaton reasonably calculated to afford the opportunty for each student to receve an educaton that meets or exceed the goals/ standards set out n Rose and as presently codfed n K.S. A Supp ; and/ or 2) outdated studes amed at estmatng the cost to comply wth the then federal requrement under the No Chld Left Behnd Act and/ or hstorcal fundng levels approved n Montoy state the floor for adequate fundng, as opposed to test set out by the Supreme Court n Gannon? f. Dd the Panel err by relyng on opnon testmony whch was predcated on wtnesses' mproper legal nterpretatons concernng the State' s oblgatons under Artcle 6 of the Kansas Consttuton? g. Dd the Panel err by gnorng uncontroverted facts, ncludng the followng evdence: Bllons of tax dollars wll be spent on K- 12 educaton; the Legslature has arranged fundng for ths year' s K- 12 publc educaton that wll provde Kansas schools wth record levels of fundng overall and per student, the hghest levels of revenue n hstory; the Legslature has gven even more flexblty n how the funds are spent; the State has adopted and s mplementng natonally recognzed, rgorous academc standards, ncludng revsed accountablty measures approved by the federal government; Kansas K- 12 educaton s among the best n the country accordng to all objectve standards, and all of our schools are accredted; and there s no evdence, no k nformaton whatsoever, that local school dstrcts cannot provde the opportunty to each and every student to receve the mnmal educatonal floor outlned by the Rose goals/ standards adopted n both Gannon and by the Legslature? It. Dd the Panel err by essentally applyng a rule of no tolerance to less state captal outlay and LOB ad then t ordered before the frst Gannon appeal, rather than the test adopted by the Supreme Court n Gannon? 8

9 y 1 x. Is there substantal competent evdence to support the Panel' s purported fndngs of fact on the adequacy and/ or equty of present school fnance systems? j. Dd the Panel exceed ts jursdcton under the Supreme Court' s mandate and remand by fndng 2014 changes to weghtngs n SDFQPA' s formula volated the equty requrements n Artcle 6 of the Kansas Consttuton? k. Dd the Panel exceed ts jursdcton under the Supreme Court' s mandate and remand by fndng the CLASS unconsttutonal? s 1. Dd the Panel err by refusng to allow the State to conduct lmted dscovery and refusng to allow the State to present addtonal evdence? n. Dd the Panel err by falng to requre amended pleadngs, other due process and a tral before t ruled on the consttutonalty of the CLASS? n. Is ths case, n ts current posture, justcable and properly before the courts? a o. Was the Panel' s remedy of" temporary restranng order" proper? t p. Was the Panel' s alternate remedy of selectvely nvaldatng and rewrtng duly-enacted legslaton proper? Respectfully submtted, 4 OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL DEREK SCHMIDT BY: CXXp Derek Schmdt, KS Sup. Ct. 1-Ml Attorney General ofkansas Jeffrey A. Chanay, KS Sup. Ct. No ChefDeputy Attorney General 3 Stephen R. McAllster, KS Sup. Ct. No Solctor General ofkansas M. J. Wlloughby, KS Sup. Ct. No Assstant Attorney General Memoral Bldg., 2" d Floor 120 SW 10`h Avenue j r Topeka, Kansas Tel: ( 785) Fax: ( 785) E- mal: jeffchanay@ag.ks.gov steve. mcallster@trglaw.com mj. wlloughby@ag.ks. gov 9

10 d and HITE, FANNING & HONEYMAN, LLP Arthur S. Chalmers, KS Sup. Ct. No Gaye B. Tbbets, KS Sup. Ct. No x Jerry D. Hawkns, KS Sup. Ct. No Rachel E. Lomas, KS Sup. Ct. No North Broadway, Sute 950 Wchta, Kansas k Tel: ( 316) t Fax: ( 316) r E-mal: chalmers@htefannng.com tbbets@htefannng. com hawkns@htefannng. com lomas@htefannng.com Attorneys for the State ofkansas az CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE t t The undersgned hereby certfes that on the 29th day of June, 2015, a true and correct copy of the above and foregong was maled, postage prepad, to: r l Alan L. Rupe Jessca L. Skladzen Mark A. Kanaga LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH North Waterfront Parkway, Sute 150 Wchta, KS Alan.Rupe@lewsbrsbos. com Jessca.Skladzen@lewsbrsbos. com Mark.Kanaga@lewsbrsbos. com s John S. Robb Somers, Robb& Robb 110 East Broadway Newton, KS johnrobb@robblaw.com Attorneys for Plantffs E Trstan L. Duncan Zach Chaffee- McClure 2555 Grand Blvd. Kansas Cty, MO zmcclure@shb.com 10

11 s 1 tlduncant@shb. com Attorneys for U.S.D. 512 Steve Phllps Assstant Attorney General OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL DEREK SCHMIDT 120 S. W. 10th, 2nd Floor Topeka, KS steve.phllps@ag.ks.gov Attorney for State Treasurer Ron Estes Phlp R. Mchael 0 Danel J. Carroll. Kansas Department of Admnstraton 1000 SW Jackson, Sute 500 Topeka, KS phlp.mchael@da.ks. gov dan. carroll@da.ks.gov Attorneys for Secretary ofadmnstraton Jm Clark M.J. Wlloughby