Printer-friendly Version

Fingerprinting And Curriculum Laws May Mean 'Durant V'
MIRS, May 22, 2006
For more articles like this visit http://www.bridges4kids.org. 

 
The 460 taxpayer groups and school districts heading up the Headlee Amendment case against the state known as Adair or "Durant IV" are looking into the possibility of going after the state again. This time, the plaintiffs are looking into suing the state over the recent law that requires background checks for all school employees and another that sets up a statewide curriculum.

In both cases, the group believes the state may have imposed unfunded mandates onto schools, which would be a direct violation of the Headlee Amendment, according to the group's attorney Dennis POLLARD.

The School Safety Package signed into law Sept. 29 required schools to run criminal background checks on all school employees to weed out those with crimes against children. While the House put $3.7 million in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 budget to reimburse public school employees for fingerprinting costs, the Adair folks said these costs only deal with the fingerprint checks done after the state botched the first round earlier this year.

Pollard said a bill in the Legislature that would set up a consistent pot of money for the new requirement hasn't gone anywhere and without that bill, the state is once again passing an unfunded mandate onto locals.

"It does have cost implications," he said. "I don't know if they are concerned about their Headlee obligation or not. They didn't do anything with the bill that would have fixed the problem allegedly because they didn't have the money, but somehow local school districts are supposed to have it."

The School Safety legislation was signed as an 18-bill package aimed at protecting children from sexual predators while at school or day care (See "Granholm Signs Student Safety Package," 9/28/05). Under the state's statute of limitations argument, Adair attorneys would need to file something before the end of September, exactly within a year of the bills becoming law.

If that happens, it would be the fifth case in which school districts have gone after the state for passing down alleged unfunded mandates. In the first Durant case, the state ended up paying a combined $1 billion in past, present and future costs after the state allegedly asked for additional accommodations for special education students without paying the locals anything for it, Pollard said. The court ordered $211 million for the clients.

The plaintiffs were not as successful in Durant II and Durant III, but this latest case involving the state's data collection requirements as part of the Center for Education Performance Standards (CEPI) is back in front of the Court of Appeals.

The other question is whether the Adair folks go after the state for the new curriculum requirements signed into law (See "Granholm Signs Curriculum Bills …" 4/20/06). The Legislature is looking at setting aside $100,000 in the Department of Education budget for additional support with the state department to implement the graduation requirements.

Pollard said the groups had not set a dollar amount on the exact cost to schools of both the background check and curriculum requirements, but that through the legal avenue they may pursue, an initial estimate is not required. The key will be proving that the Legislature violated the Headlee amendment and an accompanying state law (PA 101, Section 5, of 1979) that the Legislature needs to include a funding mechanism for any new requirement it passes along to other units of government.

"It's very clear on what they were supposed to do," Pollard said. "It was put into law as a self-enforcement mechanism for the Legislature, but it's never happened in the history of the Legislature."

Michigan Legislative Education Panel Agenda Causes Stir
MIRS, May 22, 2006

Among the bills the House Education Committee is taking up this week is legislation that would allow school districts to create sinking funds created from bonds or borrowed money that could be used for any reason.

It's well established that the Michigan Chamber of Commerce does not like the idea of expanding school districts' spending options in the sinking fund arena.

To some, the idea that bills such as HB 4575, sponsored by Rep. Barbara VANDER VEEN (R-Allendale, and HB 5709, sponsored by Rep. Tom CASPERSON (R-Escanaba), would see the light of day in a GOP-controlled House, especially in an election year, prompted the question, "What's going on?"

But according to House Education Committee Chair Brian PALMER (R-Romeo), what's going on is just open discussion.

"This is for testimony only," Palmer told MIRS. "In this time of limited funding we need to look at anything that could involve more efficient use of taxpayer dollars. I promised I'd bring these up for discussion, but we were so busy with the MEAP issue and the curriculum issue that this is the first chance we've had. I'm keeping my promise. It just makes sense to talk about these things now, especially in light of the K-16 ballot proposal."

Palmer pointed out that the committee agenda also includes HB 4828 and HB 4975.

HB 4975 is the somewhat well publicized legislation, sponsored by Rep. Jack HOOGENDYK (R-Kalamazoo), which would require at least 65 cents of every dollar spent on education to go to the classrooms.

HB 4828, sponsored by Rep. Phil LaJOY (R-Canton), would increase a school district's foundation allowance if the Department of Education determined that the district met certain criteria.

MIRS asked if there would be a second hearing on the Vander Veen and/or Casperson legislation and whether there might ultimately be a vote on it.

"We'll be playing it by ear," Palmer said. "But the Chamber knows me and it knows the Education Committee. I'm not the sort of chair who only allows discussion on bills that I support. Would I be sponsoring something like this (the sinking fund legislation)? No, I wouldn't. But I think it's important that members of the caucus get to have their bills discussed. And what I'm really interested in is looking at the whole issue of accountability. That's where the K-16 proposal fails. It just says give the money each year regardless of whether we're being accountable or not."

Palmer said that getting debate and discussion on the record through legislative hearing testimony could give future lawmakers something to look back upon and help them understand why some ideas may not be good ideas, especially in a term-limited environment.

"It's when nobody has said anything about an issue that it may suddenly pop up and happen some day," Palmer said. "I don't think stifling debate would be a good idea."

bridges4kids does not necessarily agree with the content or subject matter of all articles nor do we endorse any specific argument.  Direct any comments on articles to deb@bridges4kids.org.