*1 concurring. 424 of Justice Summers as In all Myers, v. Association Bar Oklahoma Rehearing respects im- other the Petition for (Okl.1967) this court wherein P.2d 975 denied. of disbarment for discipline posed respon- funds of clients’
conversion respondent C.J., HARGRAVE, V.C.J., attorneys. Bishop DOOLIN, In dent guilty HODGES, WILSON, found to have been KAUGER attorney was and and SUMMERS, JJ., client to a settle- the name of his concur. forging nonprobate in connection with ment check OPALA, JJ., and LAVENDER proceeds to his depositing matter dissent. Additionally, respon- account. personal commingled to have J., also found SIMMS, disqualified. dent was probate matter separate in a funds estate funds to his converted those
and to have respon- Myers and benefit.
own use finding after a attorney was disbarred
dent commingled estate funds and he had property on the ba- encumbered estate
had probate from the of a falsified order
sis funds from the note and had used court OF FAIR SCHOOL FINANCE COUNCIL partially for secured the estate INC., OKLAHOMA, an cor respon- purposes. Myers his own al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, poration, et argument that the heir presented the dent with the “ar- the estate was satisfied Bishop Myers, in we rangements.” As Oklahoma; George Nigh, Gov STATE of proper discipline find disbarment to be the Oklahoma; Leslie of the ernor State in this case. Fisher, Superintendent of Pub R. State Bradley E. order that Kenneth We Instruction; of Edu lic State Board from the and his name stricken disbarred Mace, cation; Shackelford, Harry Jack attorneys. proceed- The costs of the roll of Sanders, Wright, Seay R.E. Dr. C.B. ing discipline in the amount $1811.09 Collins, Carleton, members and E.L. They by Bradley. are to be shall be borne Education; and Leo Board of the State opinion paid thirty days after this Winters, of Okla Treasurer State final. becomes homa, Defendants-Appellees, HARGRAVE, DOOLIN, C.J., V.C.J., HODGES, KAUGER 1 of Independent District No. School
SUMMERS, JJ., Oklahoma, al., concur. County, et Alfalfa Intervenors-Appellees.
OPALA, J., part, concurring in No. 56577. dissenting part, with whom LAVENDER, J., joins. I would hold Supreme of Oklahoma. Court plea as well as both a nolo contendere deferring 1987. expunged Nov. order judgment-and-sentence are inadmissible Nov. As Corrected proceedings. disciplinary bar WILSON, J., part, concurs in ALMA part.
dissents
SIMMS, J., disqualified. ORDER
CORRECTION Rehearing granted
Petition for correctly
limited show vote *3 Riggs, Smith,
M. David Dianne L. Wilkinson, Chapel, Riggs, Abney Messrs. & Henson, Tulsa, plaintiffs-appellants. Gen., Cartwright, Kay Atty. Jan Eric Jacobs, Nichols, Harley Judith Coleman Gen., Attys. City, Asst. de- Oklahoma fendants-appellees. Heaton, Fuller,
Joe L. Messrs. Tubb & Pomeroy, City, for Oklahoma intervenors- appellees. Woods, Jr., Grossman,
Harry A. Mark S. Dunlevy, City, Messrs. Crowe & plaintiffs-appellants. successor counsel for Woodward, Halley, successor coun- Duke intervenors-appellees. sel for OPALA, Justice. challenges constitutionality
This case financing public system of of Oklahoma’s The lit- elementary secondary schools. igation upon disparities in taxable focuses districts wealth the various school as well as the effect of those differences upon ability poorer dis- the fiscal tricts to their students with edu- opportunities compa- cational resources and rable to those of the more affluent districts. We hold that neither the United re- States nor the Oklahoma Constitution quires funding regime provides equal expenditures per child. brought class this suit as a July 1980. The
action Council, Inc., an Okla- Fair School Finance non-profit corporation homa mem- whose I bers include the boards of education of THE OKLAHOMA PUBLIC SCHOOL districts, thirty-eight school which at the FINANCING SYSTEM time this action was commenced had a total Article 1 5 of the Oklahoma Constitu- 179,669 average daily children in attend- provides tion for the establishment and ance; fifty-four children, minor school maintenance schools who reside and attend schools in State.3 Article 13 1 of the districts; forty-eight residents places obligation Constitution doing pay properties who ad valorem taxes on Legislature.4 so In its efforts to within the districts. carry duty, Legislature out this has The defendants named in the action are designed system financing public ele- Oklahoma; George Nigh, State in mentary secondary education which re- capacity his official as Governor of the primarily lies on two sources of revenue— Oklahoma; Fisher, State of Leslie R. State third, local and state sources. A minor *4 Superintendent Instruction; of Public funding source of govern- the federal Education, State Board of whose duties ment. apportioning disbursing include funds pro- to school districts under the State Aid Locally-Generated A. Revenue Shackelford, gram; Harry Mace, Seay Jack greatest local sources of revenue for Sanders, Wright, Dr. C.B. R.E. Carleton financing public education are various ad Collings, and E.L. members of the State valorem taxes levied on per- the real and Education; Winters, Board of and Leo property sonal within the school districts.
Treasurer of the State of Oklahoma. county Each levy must a tax of four mills plaintiffs sought judgment declar- on the dollar prop- valuation of all taxable ing that financing public erty county method of in the purposes. for school provided education Oklahoma Unless a different method is by violates the United law, proceeds levy States and the of this Oklahoma Constitutions. must be apportioned among the commenced, county After the school dis- ninety action was upon tricts legal average based daily school districts were allowed to intervene preceding attendance school [ADA] as additional defendants.2 These defend- year.5 ants filed a judgment motion for on the pleadings, in which the named defendants The school districts themselves also can Finding petition’s concurred. alle- levy Upon taxes. by certification of need gations, true, if any even failed to establish any board of education school district
basis which the Oklahoma school fi- may levy an additional tax of fifteen mills system might nance be declared unconstitu- on the dollar valuation of prop- all taxable tional under either the United States or erty in the Upon district.6 ap- the voters’ Constitution, the trial court ren- proval, a may district also make an emer- judgment dered for all defendants. gency levy up to five mills and a local Tulsa, largest 1. The school district was with dren of the state and free from sectarian con- 49,538 attendance; average daily trol; the smallest always and said schools shall be con- Nobletown, was with 60. Provided, English: nothing ducted in preclude teaching herein shall of other 2. The terms of 12 § O.S.1981 1653 of the Uni- languages in said schools.” Declaratory Judgments per- form Act part declaratory tinent relief is ‘‘[w]hen 1, Okl.Const., provides: 4. Article 13 § sought, persons parties all shall be made who Legislature "The shall establish and maintain any have or claim interest which would be af- of free schools wherein all the by fected the declaration ...” may children of the State be educated.” 5, Okl.Const., provide: 3. The terms of § Art. 1 9(b), 5. See Art. 10 § Okl.Const. "Provisions shall be made for the establish- system public ment and maintenance of a schools, open 9(c), which shall be to all the chil- 6. See § Art. 10 Okl.Const. support levy up per pupil to ten mills. The emer- revenue which each district can gency may only provide and local levies support raise for the of its schools. sufficient additional revenue to meet the property This variation wealth can be year district’s for the fiscal as deter- needs by comparing seen the assessed valuation Thus, by mined the local the maxi- board.7 property per among ADA the districts.8 levy mum ad valorem tax allowed law 1978-79, per For the assessed valuation general operating for a school district’s ADA for all school districts in the state thirty-five fund is mills on the value of the $11,264.42. contrast, all but five of property taxable district. plaintiff school districts had assessed Additional ad valorem taxes also per ADA valuations below the state aver- approved by the district’s voters for edu- age; average among plaintiff and the purposes. cation-related Article 10 10 of $7,780.40. districts was The effect of levy the Oklahoma Constitution allows a in property differences wealth fund, up building to five mills for a which apparent by districts becomes more erecting repairing be used comparing per the amount of local revenue buildings purchasing and for furni- pupil in ADA available to the permits ture. Article 10 26 a school dis- plaintiff All districts. of the school dis- any year trict to incur in one an indebted- levy thirty-five tricts the full mills allowed amount, including existing ness in an in- law; yet they still cannot raise as much debtedness, up percent to five of the per pupil revenue as can the wealthier dis- valuation of the taxable tricts, levy some of which at a lower rate. purposes. district for If there is an addition, *5 when this action was com- need, may absolute a district increase such menced, plaintiff all of the districts were percent indebtedness to ten levying by the full five mills law allowed sites, acquiring improving or school con- fund, building for a a and but two levied structing, repairing, remodeling equip- or sinking contrast, thirty- tax for a fund. ping buildings, acquiring or school furni- eight remaining districts had either equipment. ture or tax, mills, levying no than five were less Small local sources of revenue for financ- fund, building one for a and hundred seven- ing public schools include certain dedicated sinking ty-four districts levied no tax for a fees, fees, taxes and tuition and transfer Twenty fund. school districts no tax had proceeds and from the sale or rental of building sinking for either a fund or a property. fund. Because local sources of revenue are de- property a The level of wealth within primarily taxes, rived from ad valorem the amount of district also affects indebted- greatly amount of that revenue varies may the district incur for ac- ness which among the school districts. This variation sites, quiring improving and school con- may factors, including be caused several structing equipping buildings, and school differences assessment ratios and in the acquiring equip- and school and furniture employed methods property to establish above, ment. As stated the state constitu- greatest values. factor is the differ- prevents becoming from in- wealth, tion district ence which the based, level, though beyond tax debted a certain even is the districts. These greatly willing differences affect amount the district’s voters tax 7. Art. 10 8. The statistical information in this judgment based on data in the attached of the demurrer and serves to rial fact attached to the pleadings, exhibits. properly on the 9(d) and admits as true pleadings petition stated therein. Whatever is (d-1), test plaintiffs’ petition defendants’ motion for also stands admitted is in the nature of a Okl.Const. legal sufficiency every opinion mate- pany, Liberty Plan Resolute Insurance when a and exhibits discussion of the financial districts. pleadings Okl., demurrer 487 P.2d The statistical data in the is directed to that America, Inc., therefore treated as true Company or motion for picture Okl., Fred pleading. judgment 418 P.2d of the school and Jones v. F. Fox Com- petition our See teen, greater satisfy by way rates to such the district makes themselves at which obviously indebtedness. This limitation af- levies to finance its schools. The formula State; all school districts of the but it fects includes minimum and maximum amounts wealthy greater impact upon has a the less which the school districts receive. As ones, maximum of indebted- result, whose levels districts which otherwise would naturally ness are much smaller. Aid, Incentive qualify for or would amount, qualify for a smaller receive B. Revenue State-Generated amount; minimum at least the districts greater may whose need not receive primary The other source of revenue for more than the maximum amount. All dis- public schools is the State itself. State Aid, some Incentive tricts receive with sources of revenue include various taxes receiving only designated proceeds poorest districts about purposes, for school twice permanent from mo- as much the richest. school fund and specific programs nies for or ex- allocated to the addition monies distributed source, penditures. important The most through Aid, Foundation and Incentive Aid,9 designed State allow State large portion appropriated of the funds and the local districts to work to- grants” education are allocated to “flat gether opportu- full educational grants all school districts. These every nities for child in Oklahoma. categorical basis, purely been awarded on a program The State Aid consists of two without consideration of the fi- district’s parts, Program Foundation Aid and Incen- ability. grants nancial Some have been Program tive Aid.10 The Foundation con- through program distributed the State Aid money per sists of a certain amount of education, special vocational education pupil Legislature has determined transportation. largest allocation necessary operate pro- to be a minimum type personnel of this been has for school gram within a school district. From this salary Legislature increases. The has in- sums, amount are subtracted various grants years; creased these over the Income, Program known as Foundation percentage so the education total which are received a district cer- from funds which are allocated to the State Aid tain sources. One of these items is the net program has become smaller. *6 assessed valuation of the property within years resources In recent have be- during preceding the district the year mul- gun greater percentage to constitute a of tiplied by fifteen In theory, mills. Founda- recently school As total revenues. Program tion Income reflects a district's 1968-69, local sources accounted for more ability support wealth and A itself. by than half the revenues received the dis- transportation supplement is added to the period, figure tricts. After that time this difference between the Foundation Pro- began percentage provid- to decline and the gram Program and Foundation Income. began In ed the State to increase. of total these Foundation Aid. of their received districts 53% the 1978-79 Aid, In addition to Foundation a district from total revenues the State and 36% also receive certain funds known as from local sources. Incentive Aid.11 The Incentive Aid formula (1) purpose: has a two-fold to reflect the Federally-Generated C. Revenue property per district’s valuation ADA in average relation to the per financing valuation ADA A third source of revenue for (2) recognize within the State and government. education is the federal effort, in the exceeding granted form of mills fif- Most of these funds are on a cate- through Salary O.S.Supp.1987 O.S.1981 18-101 §§ 18-123. Incentive Aid. See 204, 81, [Okl.Sess.L.1987, p. at § 18-109.2 Ch. (repealed by 10. See 70 O.S.1971 § 18-109 Okl. 1012]. Sess.L.1981, 50). Ch. Since this action commenced, the State Aid statutes have 10, supra. 11.See footnote been amended and Incentive Aid is now called gorical specific basis and restricted uses lature has financing amended the school by federal designated law. statutes, 1978-79 and so the case does not reflect funds federal constituted of the reve- 11% current state of the and its law effect nues received plaintiffs. Second, districts. on the some of the stu- These federal funds be used to re- plaintiffs cannot graduated dent have or their fam- duce State Aid.12 districts; ilies have moved from the school plaintiffs longer because these no short, present system financing action, justiciable interest this others permits education a wide difference should be substituted for them. per the amount revenues available pupil among the several school districts. Although cognizance this court take vary primarily Local sources because of occurring during of facts pendency differences in wealth appeal adversely which affect provides districts. State Aid some addi- capacity court’s to administer effective re- support equalize tional but does not lief,13we decline to remand the case to the per total amount of funds ADA which is First, trial court for several reasons. through available both local and state challenge case involves a to the State’s sources. system financing public education and so presents great public an issue of interest
D. The Plaintiffs’ Constitutional Ar- merely rights private par- gument Second, legislative ties. amendments greatly changed have not the basic plaintiffs present system claim the funding equalized nor the amount of Equal violates the Protection Clause per revenues ADA available to each dis- Fourteenth Amendment to the United trict; and so the primary issues still exist. provisions States Constitution and several Third, if other were substituted sys- the state constitution because graduated for those who have or moved tem “equal op- fails to educational districts, given great from the school portunities” for all children in the State. involved, parents number children and it Although they phrase do not define the probable changes would continue to “equal opportunities,” educational Fourth, changes occur. have not ren- plaintiffs allege only that the educational dered the controversy moot and so have opportunities pro- are able to ability not affected our to administer effec- vide or “materially receive are inferior” to tive relief if warranted. other, those of wealthier school districts.
Thus, by “equal opportunities” educational equal per mean revenues Ill mind, ADA. With this in we next examine plaintiffs’ claims. CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO *7 OKLAHOMA’S SYSTEM ADOF
II VALOREM TAXATION At the outset we are faced with a REMAND PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO challenge to certain elements of the school considering Before the merits we finance that has been before this desirability reviewing address the in years. court recent We believe that we light case of events that have occurred should address this issue before consider appeal since the was commenced. While ing aspects plaintiffs’ other claims. consideration, the case has been under earlier, filed a motion to remand the case As stated local revenues are de- to the primarily trial court for further reconsidera rived from ad valorem taxes and First, vary greatly tion for two reasons. prop- since time because of differences commenced, Legis- erty among action was wealth the school districts. 12. 18-104(A). 13. Lawrence v. Cleveland County Home Loan O.S.1981 Auth., Okl., 626 P.2d 315 [1981]. inherently basically plaintiffs claim that these variations which is fair to all First, citizens.17 compounded by other factors. frequently property is valued less taxable Equalization Because the State Board of Second, in others. in some counties than plan compli- establish a failed to suitable employed a county assessors have not ance, we directed in Poulos II that valuing property in method in standard satisfy duty by establishing its Board Third, respective counties. different percentile equally applicable definite to all by different property are valued classes permissible counties with deviations not to methods, county. Fi- even the same percentage points exceed three above or a wide variation nally, there has often been assessment below the rate.18 imposed on the in the assessment ratios county In Cantrell we held that the as- property, value of taxable both statutorily required sessor is set as- districts them- districts and within the percentage uniformly applicable sessment selves. property county.19 to all real within the defects, alleged Because of We also held that under Article 10 8 of very claim that the foundation of property the Oklahoma Constitution real system of taxation —the the ad valorem thirty-five to be assessed at no more than property Furthermore, valuation of taxable unconsti- percent of its use value.20 —is result, any tutionally discriminatory. expressed As a we a desire that uniform stan- classifying property formula for distribution of State Aid based dards be established property application on the assessed valuation of con- in order to facilitate the of uni- problems procedures also uncon- form for tains the same and is valuation.21 stitutional. diversity Because the wide of assessment by relating procedures percentages applied county assessors
Issues
to assessment
increasing
had been
and the Board had
purposes
of ad
taxation have
valorem
continuously
equalize
failed
such assess-
They
been before this court since 1975.
ments,
finally
we
ruled in
III—in
Poulos
styled
are dealt with
three cases that are
by
accordance with recommendations
ex rel. Poulos v.
State Okl.
State Bd.
Oklahoma Tax Commission for statewide
Equal.14,
Cantrell v. Sanders.15
equalization
property subject
litigation
of this
has been to
—that
at
ad valorem taxation would be assessed
taxpayer equality through
ensure
the uni-
percent of
twelve
its taxable value with
application
governing
form
of the laws
ad
permissible inter-county deviations of not
valorem taxation.
I we held that
Poulos
percentage points
more than three
above or
(1)
Legislature’s
manifest intention was
addition,
below the mean.
we held that
assessments, (2)
equalize
ad valorem
property
the three classifications of real
equalize
which does not
ad valorem
methodology
determining
and the
throughout
assessments
the state is unfair
class,
approved
value of
in each
(3)
invidiously discriminatory
it is
apply
the Board in
should
mandatory
statutory
constitutional and
year
changed by
1982 and thereafter until
duty
Equalization
of the State Board of
Legislature.22
or the
Board
adjust
equalize
the valuation of taxable
property of the several counties in the
inequities
While we are aware of the
State.16 We also held that
the United
demonstrated
the Poulos and Cantrell
cases,
reject
plaintiffs’
States and Oklahoma Constitutions do not
nevertheless we
require precise uniformity
present
but
a rate
assertion that
these render the
Article 10 of the state constitution created for support financial system through formula, of ad valorem taxation which the State Aid the real property portion was then vitalized in 68 O.S.1981 valuations for §§ seq. allegation having et in school districts in No was made counties an as- sessment in proceeding system below that this ratio excess of as de- shall be 12% computed signed at For unconstitutional or intended to those coun- 12%.26 ties Rather, which have an inequities. create assessment ratio plaintiffs’ between and which alleged attack is directed at 9% 12% are not by violations certified to assessors, program, have a revaluation county the Oklahoma Tax real portions computed are to be Commission Equali- and the State Board of at zation, provisions 12%.27 these party none of whom is to this ac- any is to eliminate differences in assess- practices tion. If the of these officials or among ment ratios the several counties in- agencies deficient, then be sofar as these affect the distribution of challenged Moreover, in proper suit. State Aid. Those counties whose assess- there is an obvious and substantial differ- ment charged ratios are below the by level ence between such deficiencies and the re- encouraged the statute will be to raise plaintiffs lief which the seek this case. being them to penalized by avoid the for- fact that there be flaws mula. administration of the ad valorem tax does support a claim that the entire school Because all counties of the state have system finance simply unconstitutional established assessment ratios within the because some of its revenues are derived guidelines court, by set and the from those taxes. present designed State Aid formula is any minimize the effects of actual varia- support We find today’s pronounce- counties, tions in the ratios we First, ment in two other report factors. find allege have failed to by the Oklahoma Tax July, Commission in present an actionable claim that the seventy 1983 showed that of the state’s of financing public education is unconstitu- seventy-seven counties were found to be in question tional on that basis. The remains compliance guidelines with the for assess- alleged whether the other ment ratios established Poulos III.23 Of support facts sufficient to a claim under compliance those counties in the lowest ra- the United States or the Oklahoma Consti- tio was 9.01 highest and the was 13.42. tution. noncomplying counties were ordered Equalization the State Board to raise IV their property valuations24—which subsequently bring did25—in order to their CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES UN- compliance assessment ratios into with the EQUAL DER THE PROTECTION guidelines. THE CLAUSE OF FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, UNITED STATES Second, O.S.Supp.1986 18-109.1 is § CONSTITUTION designed greater equaliza- tion of respect State Aid with to determin- The plaintiffs claim that the Okla ing “chargeable financing valuation” of taxable homa school violates the 23. This information is based on 1983 25. This information is based on revised Annual July Study Findings Ratio and Recommendations of Abstract of Valuation and Assessments sub- Equalization the Oklahoma Tax Commission for of Ad Valorem Tax Assessments. mitted the six counties listed in footnote 24 supra Equalization. to the State Board of 24. This information is based on July 26. See 70 18-109.1(1). O.S.Supp.1986 Equaliza- order and notice of the State Board of Cherokee, Dewey, Major, Mayes, tion directed to 27. See 70 18-109.1(2) (3). O.S.Supp.1986 Muskogee, McCurtain and Woodward Counties. Dewey County compli- was later found to (see July ance 1983 minutes of the State Equalization). Board of
1144 practices, greatest disparities sessment of the Fourteenth Equal Protection Clause in the United States Constitu- resulted from differences the amount of Amendment to pro- property 1 of that amendment tion. Section the assessable districts. “deny any per- no state shall approximately vides that Local sources constituted equal protec- jurisdiction the son within its public the revenues of available 41% This clause is intended tion of the laws.” education. governmental safeguard quality plaintiff brought an action on behalf against arbitrary discrimina- treatment of school children who resided in districts analysis, equal protection tion.28 Under base, claiming having property a low tax ordinarily pre- legislative enactments are system’s property reliance on local presumption This dis- sumed to be valid.29 equal protection require- violated taxation statutory classification appears when the ments because of substantial inter-district impacts upon right or a a fundamental disparities per-pupil expenditures. in suspect if the rests class or classification determining appropriate In standard grounds wholly irrelevant to the purposes equal protection of review for objective.30 In of the state’s achievement analysis, Supreme the United States Court situations, scrutinizing a more review rejected scrutiny the strict test for such employed will be to determine the constitu- First, legislation. the Court held that no tionality legislation. suspect classification based wealth Supreme The United Slates Court had been shown. It is not sufficient to constitutionality financing dealt with the (1) simply burdens of establish Indepen education San Antonio paying greater for some than oth- Rodriguez,31 dent District v. School ers, (2) there are differ- relative equal protection challenge an involved quality in the of the benefits received ences financing system in Texas. Under deprivation rather than an absolute there- assistance, system, apart from federal each short, stated, In “at of. the court least school district received funds from the involved, Equal wealth is Protec- where through state and local ad valorem taxa require tion Clause does not absolute
tion. The state’s contribution under the
equality
precisely equal advantages.”32
Program”
“Minimum Foundation
was de
here do not claim that the
signed
adequate
minimal edu
having relatively
in districts
low
children
offering in
every
cational
receiving
property values are
no
assessable
addition,
pay
state.
the state made
education,
they enjoy
but rather that
specific purposes
ments to each district for
opportunities than those
fewer educational
such as teachers’ salaries. Each district
having
to children in districts
available
supplemented
through
this aid
an ad valo-
more assessable wealth.
property
rem tax on
within its boundaries.
districts,
some
the local
tax
Nor does this case involve a “fundamen-
insubstantial,
right”
contribution was
whereas
tal
the sense of one
rights
protected by
others the local share
and liberties
the federal
have exceeded
grant. Although
the total
in Rodriguez
Foundation
local
constitution.
Court
rec-
education,
part
ognized
importance
differences were
dif
ac-
attributable in
knowledging
ferences in
“perhaps
the rate of taxation or in as-
that it is
the most
28. Wilson v.
[1979].
Foster, Okl.,
595 P.2d
1329,
&
879
Sons,
184 Okl.
and Board
258,
86 P.2d
Comn’rs. v. A.C. Davis
782,
783 Maryland,
29. McGowan v. State
366 U.S.
supra.
30. See cases cited at footnote 29
424-426,
1101, 1105,
S.Ct.
The
control.
controlling authority
Rodriguez is the
that
plaintiffs
purpose
claim
of
that
in this area. But
claim that before
provide
possible
State Aid is “to
the best
application Rodriguez can be deter-
opportunities
every child”
educational
mined,
necessary
is
to
development
factual
state,
system
in the
present
and that
(1)
legitimate,
is a
ar-
show whether there
financing public education fails to achieve
purpose
ticulated state
to
Oklahoma
purpose
equalize
this
it
because
does not
(2)
any
there is
system, and
ration-
whether
expenditures
district.
per-pupil
for each
relationship
purpose
such
and
al
between
This
one
enu-
purpose is but
several
financing public
present
edu-
method of
Moreover, although
in
18-101.
merated
They
allege that
the Okla-
cation.
also
funding
equalization
be a desirable
system
un-
homa
is unconstitutional even
objective,
simply
nothing in the
there
is
this
Rodriguez
der the
standard because
necessary
suggest
that
is
statute to
this
differs
system
from that
Texas.
beyond
requirements of the Foundation
Code,
Article
of the School
70 O.S. Program.
seq., provides
18-101 et
for the
§§
also claim that local con-
present
program.
18-101
State Aid
Section
is
finance
trol
not the
the school
legislative intent,
contains “declaration
system
was raised
the defendants
but
principles”
and
relative to
arti-
policies
legitimate
to be
because it was held
pertinent part:
in
provides
cle. This section
simply
purpose Rodriguez.
in
There is
no
Legislature hereby
“The
declares that
participation and control
doubt that local
general
act is
im-
passed
this
scheme,
objective
are an
of the Oklahoma
provement
public
in
of the
schools
in
expressly
because these are
mentioned
Oklahoma;
State of
to
the best
18-101.
It
is well estab-
O.S.1981 §
possible
opportunities for ev-
educational
legislature explicitly
lished
where the
Oklahoma;
in
ery child
and
have a
to
intentions,
in-
states its
statement
public
more
ex-
beneficial use
funds
addition,
question.42 In
open
tent is
not
education;
pended for
this
and
act shall
enacted in
almost
this statute was
liberally
be
construed
attain these
years
Rodriguez
two
decision.
before
goals
purview
following
* * * "
objective of
control over
Because the
local
principles
policies:
education is one which
both constitution-
Following this text
is a
of ten
series
ally
intended
legitimate
explicitly
“principles
policies” by
pub-
which the
Legislature, there is
factual issue
not a
support system
guided.
school
should
lic
be
regard.
to be
this
determined
Among those
enumerated
18-101 are
also
that there
(1)
assert
system
designed
that the
be
system
doubt
whether the
strengthen
encourage local
as to
responsibil-
ity
education,
actually furthers local control of education.
for control of
with the
pro-
They
autonomy
responsibil-
argue
maximum
that the
does
level;
remaining
(2)
degree
flexibility ity
at the local
vide
of fiscal
the same
Okl.,
Pipeline
Stephens
ty,
42. Mid-Continent
Co. v.
312 P.2d
885 [1957].
Coun-
imposed upon
that local
could
districts and
control
themselves
full
preserved
systems
under other
that would amount of these taxes but
still
unable
great equality
result in
in educational ex-
money
to raise as much
as can wealthier
penditures.
acknowledged
The Court
districts.
arguments
Rodriguez
but found them
recognized
problem
The Court
support
insufficient to
a constitutional chal-
Rodriguez.
ceiling
Since
there did not
lenge
admitting
there. While
that reliance
any
bar
tax
any
desired
increase in
district
pro-
local taxation
school revenues
time,
at that
the Court
declined
rule on
regarding
vides less
freedom choice
ex-
constitutionality
of such limitations.44
districts,
penditures for some
the Court
doWe
not believe that these restrictions
held that
struck
not be
down
*12
present
render
financing
the
system uncon-
simply
may
because other methods
involve
stitutional. The
of the limitations
disparities.43
lesser
The relative desirabili-
incurring
require
indebtedness
ty
system,
compared
of a
to alternative
operations
school
boards
conduct their
methods,
constitutionally
is not
relevant as
on a
prevent
cash
and to
pledg-
basis
their
long as
is some
basis for
there
rational
it.
revenues;
ing future
and the United States
plaintiffs
argue
Rodriguez
The
next
that
Supreme
previously
Court
held
has
that
applicable
is not
here because of differ-
such limitations are valid.45
is also
It
rea-
systems.
ences
the Texas and Oklahoma
proper
people
sonable and
of a state
agree
Rodriguez
We
that
not
does
auto-
degree
to limit
taxation to which
matically foreclose an examination of the
they
subject
will
themselves.
financing system
Oklahoma
that
differ-
sum,
requirement
In
find no
we
under
may
ences in
system
each state’s
be con-
Equal
the Four-
Protection Clause of
sidered.
not find
sys-
We do
that the two
teenth Amendment to the United States
tems are so dissimilar that a different re-
financing
Constitution that a state’s school
sult should be reached here.
system guarantee equal expenditures per
Despite
above,
the similarities described
child.
there is a clear difference between the Tex-
systems.
as and Oklahoma
Article 10 9§
y
of the Oklahoma
limits
Constitution
amount of
valorem
may
ad
tax which
be
CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES UN-
general operat-
levied for a school district’s
DER THE VARIOUS PROVISIONS
ing fund, and Article 10
10 limits the
OF THE OKLAHOMA CONSTITU-
amount be raised
ad valorem
TION
building
addition,
taxes for a
fund.
present
also claim
that
Article 10 26 limits the
amount
indebt-
pro-
school finance
violates several
edness
which a
district
incur in
visions of
A
any
amount,
Constitution.
year
including
one
to an
exist-
finding
ing indebtedness,
does not violate the
up
percent
ten
federal
preclude
valuation of
taxable
constitution does not
re-
plaintiffs allege
they
district. The
that
view
state
under our
constitution.46
43.
44.
piro
S.Ct. at
est
fact,
employed
to review
af-
Rodriguez,
the decision
since
Conversely,
fecting
plain-
have examined school
number of courts
education.
respective
under
their
systems
finance
since
argue
tiffs
that
education
here
constitutions,
ruling
majority
with the
state
constitution,49
it is a
mentioned in our
constitutionality.47 These
favor
right,
and there-
fundamental
interest
greatly
particular
on the
courts have relied
scrutiny
applied
must be
judicial
fore strict
interpretive history of their
language and
financing public
edu-
to the method
constitutions;
respective
pro-
since
cation.
state,
do not
from state
we
visions differ
argument
education is
funda-
here.
especially helpful
find these cases
right under our state
mental interest or
argue
first
ques-
to several other
constitution leads
financing
denies them
present system
First,
question
tions.
there is
whether
Although
equal
of the laws.
protection
subject in
the mere
of a
mention
does not contain
the Oklahoma Constitution
subject
makes that
a funda-
constitution
equal
provision
protection
to the
identical
creates a
mental interest or
fundamental
constitution, it is well
clause in the federal
not,
Second,
ques-
then
right.
if it does
guarantee
a like
exists
established that
tion
terms the consti-
arises whether
its
process
constitution’s due
within our state
provision creates a
tutional
fundamental
clause.48
*13
Third, assuming
right.
that a fundamental
is not a
Although education
fundamental
right
created,
question
is
there is the
of the
right guaranteed by the
constitu-
federal
guarantee.
right or
exact
of the
nature
tion,
plaintiffs contend that it is a fun-
the
ascertained,
we
Once this has been
then
our
constitu-
interest under
state
damental
appropriate
also
stan-
must
determine
judicial scrutiny must be
tion and so strict
judicial
of
review.
dard
applied
financing system.
ar-
to the
This
there is a difference here
We believe that
gument
what the
is based
subject may be
insofar as a
mentioned
syllogism”
“Rodriguez
call
or test.
adopt
If we were to
the state constitution.
Rodriguez the Court held that education
test,
oppor-
then educational
Rodriguez
rights explicitly or im-
was not one of the
tunity arguably would be a fundamental
by
plicitly guaranteed
constitu-
federal
tion,
judi-
to
judicial
interest in
entitled
strict
scrutiny
and so strict
would
Oklahoma
47.Those
Jones v.
Mont.
Dist.
Board
W.Va.
Among
Priest,
tutional are the
McDaniel v.
212
554
City
390
376
tems as constitutional
929
Shofstall
415,
that it violation of both equal protection require children to MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON penalty for attend schools under them and THE PLEADINGS parents57 requiring their without some level, the trial the intervenors At equality support standard judgment pleadi filed on the a motion of those schools. merit Whatever such ar ngs,60 in which the named defendants con have, gument may no it avail where a *15 curred. The trial found that the court charge fairly cannot be made that is a child alleged petition, true, facts in the if even receiving basic adequate not at least a any did not establish which the basis education. system Oklahoma school finance could be plaintiffs
The also claim the that declared to have violated either the United Constitution, present school finance violates Arti States or the Oklahoma and granted cle 5 59 46 of the Oklahoma so motion. Consti The sole deci §§ agree. We do question tution. Section 59 re sive for this court’s consideration general quires allegations that laws have a pleadings uniform whether the of the 56. School 58. Barrett v. Hodge, supra chez Spearman Service 185 10-105. See Art. 13 Okl. v. Co. Melvin, Dist. v. Board note 55 at 90 Williams, Oklahoma, 4,§ Okl., No. 25 Woods P.2d Okl. Const. 418 P.2d Com’rs. supra 579; supra of 446 note 51. Kimery note Tulsa 70 O.S.1981 641 at29 County v. Public County, 1069; San v. 59. 60. See Comments to that section. Because this action was commenced longer ment on the new [1965]; 105 The motion Elias [1968] 12 pleading exists under our current O.S.Supp.1984 State v. v. City and Wilson v. pleadings code, for of Rockwell, prior judgment Tulsa, we to apply Okl., 2012, existence at that time. Foster, Okl., on the 408 P.2d the test for adoption of and Committee pleading supra 443 pleadings P.2d 517, note code. judg- 104, 520 28. no C.J., DOOLIN, together that with inferences be and SIMMS and WILSON, JJ., them, fairly dissent. deduced from when viewed plaintiffs, light to the most favorable KAUGER, J., disqualified. support legal state facts to a sufficient SIMMS, Justice, dissenting: claim.61 I respectfully must dissent. Plaintiffs judgment pleadings A motion on presented a per- substantial and testing is in the nature of a demurrer in on suasive attack the constitutionality of sufficiency pleadings presents a Oklahoma’s financing system, school question of law as to whether the facts approved however the Court has the consti- alleged are sufficient to state a cause of sufficiency tutional system although Although action.62 this motion not fa- testimony not a word of or item of evidence courts, judgment plead- vored on the presented explain had been to or defend it. ings may properly be rendered where there hearing. was There no The trial court did is no material issue of fact for trial and the any findings not make of fact or conclu- alleged support facts cannot an actionable law; pleadings sions constitute the claim.63 only record before us. plaintiffs argue petition Plaintiffs alleged present that that their raised material issues fact that were financing system contro- denies them answers, verted defendants’ and that
“equal opportunities.” educational the trial judgment court’s for defendants plaintiffs allege do not they their agree. I erroneous. completely children are an denied edu- they allege cation. Nor do that the edu- question The sole and decisive for this provide cation are able to or receive allega- Court’s consideration is whether the any way inadequate pleadings together is in an tions one. with all fact, fairly inferences that plaintiffs admit deduced from that “no school- them, light when viewed in the most favor- children this State are imminent dan- plaintiffs, able to state facts sufficient ger receiving wholly a inadequate edu- support legal Anderson, claim. Bill v. Despite this, cation.” seek Okl., (1961). P.2d strike down entire state-wide school financing system simply O’Connell, because it is un- Tooley 77 Wis. money able per pupil (1977),plaintiffs sought much as N.W.2d declaratory judgment do the wealthier districts. that Wisconsin’s stat Because we find plan financing utory that neither the schools United nor the States Okla- from ad valorem tax violated the revenues requires homa Constitution the school plaintiffs’ rights. appel constitutional funding regime guarantee equal expend- late court reversed trial court’s dismis per child, itures at least where there is no complaint grounds sal of the it any claim that the denies child a action, noting: failed cause education, basic, adequate we must decline “The have set forth constitu- judgment. to disturb the trial court’s tionally protected rights they allege *16 judgment The of the trial court is accord- infringed been upon have the defend- ingly affirmed. plaintiffs The additionally ants. ... have alleged, particularity, respects with the HARGRAVE, V.C.J., HODGES, and statutory which the scheme is constitu- SUMMERS, JJ., LAVENDER and tionally Regardless of violative. the claims, concur. merits of their constitutional it Home, Okl., 61. v. Hogan, State Guardian Funeral P. 429 63. Mires v. 79 Okl. 192 815 P.2d 735 [1967]. Home, supra 62. v. Support Appellants' State Guardian Funeral note 64. See Brief in Motion to of Remand, 61 at 735. p. at 1152 scrutiny, governmen- for no said the have constitutional
cannot be that occupies unique position controversy.” tal such a justiciable to raise a function failed heritage. in our complex the is a area and Court’s This willingness overwhelming to factual determinations fun- importance make and legal from a silent draw conclusions right and nature of the to edu- damental record, lengthen rather than probably will recognized by pointedly cation was necessary finally time to effect shorten the v. County Court in Smartt Board of problems of remedy for financial obvious Craig County, 67 Okl. 169 Com’rs of schools. the (1917), P. 1101 where we stated: creating a state out, very “The true, points as the that It is Court delegate upheld government by people the is to their other state courts have some against performance attack on vari- of certain func- financing systems thereto the grounds. safety Not one looking constitutional to the common and ous state tions a situation such welfare, necessity per- decisions involved of those and the this, financial scheme through as where a school the formance of functions grounds on constitutional because attacked subdi- agency of the state and its various disparities up- financial of state wide object its creation. visions is the sole for In Board Edu- held without trial. provided in people have the Constitu- Walter, City cation Cincinnati officers, tion a full set and for state (1979), N.E.2d Ohio St.2d separate departments and created example, the Ohio court detailed the exten- government branches of the co-ordinate upon which the factual examination sive subdivisions, municipal and and various and, turn, appellate the court trial court performance of cer- confided to each their There the on had based decision. trial mandatory tain which are duties made days of issues consisted of 78 testimo- necessary protection and because witnesses, ny the introduction of with well-being people composing of the and approximately 2400 exhibits the record controversy There has been much state. pages transcript. trial had 7530 and much among publicists and thinkers adopted findings of fact and 35 judge courts in the decisions of the as conflict conclusions law. proper necessary limitations to the are, delegated the differ- believe, powers reject I first state We of the state financing departments ent arms such as this on a an attack government, but it allowing without conceded scheme necessary attempt prove their fundamental functions trial to case. certain in or- always actively exercised must agree I the Court’s treat- cannot with of the preserve der to existence ment of the federal and state constitutional rights guar- people and secure to I im- arguments, primarily, but believe it them, among which anteed to ques- provident passing that we are life, liberty, right possession of at In the absence of evi- tions now all. pursuit happiness, property, and the dence, findings conclusions of of fact and impotent the state become so should law, merely gratuitous to it is decide discharge these func- to be unable financing deny plain- not our scheme does tions, failure of the there would result a protection laws equal tiffs of the under purposes government was es- for which Amendment, that Fourteenth Rodri- tablished. apply test does to state constitu- guez tional analysis, education not a fun- % [*] [*] [*] [*] [*] right state constitution damental under our life, protection “In to the addition financing that our scheme therefore property and the conservation liberty and security. strict need not be examined with health, peace, safety, *17 certain functions of there are other trepidation be that great It should with elementary and government which are public education sweep right to a we indestructible; example such as the away protection heightened from the of justice in administration of the courts uated unfairness the “hold harmless” 70, and the maintenance formula in found title 18-112 and of year the education the chil- revised each since By legisla- 1981. state; recognition to residing designed dren within the and tive it was to soften permit impact performance of these on projects manda- current of “favored” tory depend upon making permit to and funding duties schools to gradually be provision formula, By therefor certain subordinate withdrawn. this the legisla- municipal implicitly recognized officers would render the life ture legisla- security supplement of the state and the of the citi- tive less well funded schools 1102, precarious geographic zen indeed.” At was due to bad If luck. a child (E.A.) were schooled in a bleak ad valorem based community, legislature first recognized I pleaded believe have a cause that the ad valorem base to supple- had be allegations, of action. Their which must be to schooling” mented enable “fair in those accepted true, as were controverted and adequate counties without ad valorem raise material of fact. issues Plaintiffs set funding. based Then “hold harmless” was constitutionally protected forth rights prevent the device to favored sta- economic they allege infringed upon by were being tus from removed all at once from acting pursuant defendants to our financ- relying school districts which were cur- ing They alleged, particu- laws. also with programs. rent But phase-out contem- larity, the in which manner these laws vio- plated has never occurred. rights. late their constitutional legislation Such is the educational equiv- opinion, In my the trial court erred in sending alent of one shop child to a thrift sustaining defendants’ judg- motion for buy his neigh- school clothes while the pleadings, ment on the the majority boring child is sent the tailor to his have affirming errs in I it. would reverse and I clothes handmade. suppose say we can give this remand action and that both were clothed. opportunity prove their case. persuaded by I am not the list of authori- WILSON, Justice,
ALMA
dissenting:
ties from sister states that find their state
If
majority
patchwork
funding
holds that the
spite
schemes
in
constitutional
of legislative “planning”
inequality.
5;
which is before
Where Article
article
upholds
4;
this
original
Court
intent of the
and all of article 13 of
§§
Constitution,
framers
I
the Oklahoma Constitution concern edu-
must dissent.
majority
funding,
intimates that
cation and its
can
one
be safe
if
presented
we had been
alleging
concluding
subject
great
case
was of
funding
the school
importance
resulted in inade-
to the framers. Black’s Law
quate education,
question may
Dictionary,
Edition,
have
Fifth
defines “funda-
been
differently. Although
answered
I
law” as “The
mental
law which determines
read
cannot
the intent of
government
the framers to the constitution of
in a nation
absolutely
state,
mean
equal funding, I
prescribes
regulates
read it
or
clearly
say
it
that must
fair.
organic
be
of its
manner
exercise. The
law
state;
nation
its constitution.”
The issue is: “Does
present legisla-
rights”
Black’s defines
“fundamental
tive
carry
original
scheme
out the
intent of
origin
“Those which
their
ex-
the constitution
their provision
press
terms
the Constitution or which
schooling
all the children in the State of
necessarily
implied
from
those
If year
year
Oklahoma?”
after
there is
Citing,
Majors,
terms.”
264 Ind.
Sidle
legislatively perpetuated greater and con-
(1976).
formula Okla.Sess.Laws, 204, 81 ch.
State. 18-109.2). O.S.Supp.1986,
(amending 70 re- chapter same would 83 of that
Section grant by one- “hold harmless”
duce the 81(A) no dis- provides that
third. Section having per pupil revenue in excess
trict average percent of the hundred
of three shall re- pupil of all districts
per revenue in State Supplement Aid or any State
ceive legislation will Perhaps this new
Aid. funding making
come nearer abeyance further I hold in
fair. would legislature give the in order to
action “hold harmless” al- opportunity to remove Purcell, Appellate Public Asst. Thomas permit them to meet res- together, and to Defender, Norman, appellant. the com- duty fairly fund ponsibly their Gen., Atty. Tomilou Turpén, C. Michael Oklahoma. mon schools of Liddell, Gen., Atty. D. Gentry Asst. Sandra Intern,
Howard, City, for Legal appellee.
OPINION BUSSEY, Judge: Askrens, tried Marion was appellant, in the Dis- nonjury in a trial and convicted ASKRENS, Appellant, Marion Washington County for the Court of trict Degree Manslaughter of First crime to ten and sentenced Case No. CRF-84-100 Oklahoma, Appellee. STATE of (10) appeals. she years imprisonment, and No. F-85-220. affirm. We Appeals of April of Criminal Oklahoma. Court are that on Briefly stated the facts Tony Benton and Officer Officer 30, 1987. Nov. Wright Bartlesville Police Joseph a fe- responded to a call that Department killed in and said she had had called male at the resi- they When arrived someone. occurred, shooting dence where appellant standing outside the observed appellant told next to a car. The house it, her, I killed “I did I shot officer Benton point, Benton handcuffed her.” At that her Miranda appellant and advised her of told the officers rights. Appellant then along inside the house body gun. Wright entered with the Officer body on the and observed a woman’s house floor, re- a .44 caliber and also observed living on the room table. volver that he noticed a Benton testified Officer appellant, strong smell of alcohol