*1 is restrained hereby Thompson Frederick Ordered that his period law during from practicing enjoined suspension. ROBINSON, AND INFANT BY HIS PARENT AN

KENNETH ROBINSON, LITEM, ET AD ERNESTINE GUARDIAN PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, ALS., T. v. WILLIAM JERSEY, CAHILL, OF NEW OF STATE GOVERNOR THE ALS., ET DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

January 23, 1975.

ORDER J.N. 3, (62 1973 this court filed its opinion On April its cause constituted captioned (which the above 473) R. 2 :11-3 Su judgment, judgment (b)) modifying Court, affirming Law perior Division, County Hudson held said as so modified. judgment opinion generally Said that present system pub maintaining supporting lic state elementary and school education in this secondary is unconstitutional because it does not conform to the VIII, 4, state’s Art. 1 of the obligation imposed by par. § New The court Constitution. reserved decision on subject remedies and sought the further views same, After it parties. receiving filed a further opinion 19, on June (63 J. 196), concluding as follows: * * * statutory is our view It Court disturb not Legislature enact, by 31, scheme unless the fails 1974, December legislation compatible with our decision in this case and effective no 1, ruling upon question later than 1975. We withhold whether, legislation adopted, if such may not so the Court order appropriated moneys the distribution toward a constitutional ob- jective notwithstanding legislative directions. jurisdiction. party Any may We retain appropriate relief, move 31, 1974, before or after December if new circumstances so warrant. enacted, December

No such was legislation said date. efforts to end continued although through *2 ordering matter therefore now this court for returns to original court’s remedies to effectuate the appropriate decision. sundry

The above have been filed numbered motions to, objects. injunctions respect Some seek and/or ap- be of, may all funds as redistribution some or of such aid as various of state forms propriated by Legislature commencing local districts year school for school others been (hone yet appropriated); have amici curiae to or to as participate seek leave to intervene action on present their views thereon and still others seek matters. miscellaneous consideration of all motions and the briefs

Upon said documents, of Jan- day it is on this accompanying as uary, determined and follows: ordered motion of New Jer- defendants The President sey and the New a Senate Senate for rehearing (M-475) the case is denied. The motion of defendants Speaker of General Assembly Assembly the General for in (M-521) order aid of is denied. judgment 2. The motions of petitioners Christiansen, et als. “for an extension of time thirty (30) days to allow petitioners to' intervene and to file a petition (M-453 rehearing” denied. 454) are.

3. All must, school districts even under recent legislation extending dates, timetable commence within very few days process adopting budgets the school year 1975-76, arranging elections and to other attending matters relevant thereto and be must advised prior thereto of the amount of state aid funds of various es- categories timated to be received said during school year. in- Any junction against the distribution of said funds, or part thereof, any redistribution of the same, on a different and/or than basis now prescribed law, while benefitting local tax property situation in some municipalities, would in the the amount increase radically others many case reduction of substantial local taxation or require raised no will be. The fact there program. the educational cer- with the court’s decision became compatible legislation considers it only very short time and the court ago tain many he school and, indeed, would chaotic inequitable 1975-76 school effect financial changes districts to Therefore, notice. on such short at late date and year this statutory changes present will order no court defendant Commis- scheme 1975-76 and year for the dis- sioner of advise all school Education may immediately for said tricts of amount aid funds of estimated state based on year present law. al- Consequently, plaintiff’s motion for (M-448), *3 mo-

ternate motion for relief and second alternate (M-449) tion for relief motion of defendant are denied and (M-450) Governor Brendan T. to Wil- (successor defendant Byrne is (M-452) in judgment liam T. aid of order Cahill) by any filed further need he denied. No motions relief denied party. (M-451) Plaintiffs’ for discovery motion becomes without to matter subject renewal if prejudice the relevant a at later date.

5. The will court oral on March hear argument at 10:00 a.m. to on the as related following subjects 1, 1976 to the school respect year commencing and years thereafter:

a. The method of of of the definition determination schools,” of “a free system public efficient of thorough of definition into financial terms the translation thereof whether such defini- application (including be each district administratively tion should to applied of on char- separately, groups districts based particular or all). acteristics equally

b. The extent of the the court power of to order relief in, or from, statutory the scheme changes present financing aon or basis in order to assure temporary permanent the such implement system the state’s obligation

meeting as defined. what particular ways

c. what extent in the court To should exercise such power. master,

d. Whether court appoint special the those hear the views of the especially parties, including of Education and defendant Commissioner defendant State and the amici curiae and receive Education, .Board relevant, from make the evidence deemed and to parties any as to recommendations the court said definition and its court, exercise, and its in order application, power that a final as may determination to remedies be made by may the court sufficient school district time every know will October 1975 what the aid situation state it, as far as to as 1976-77. practicable, year the school 6. In order that argument said oral bemay manageable in view of proportions number large parties curiae, movants for amici intervention or participation will court hear oral on behalf of the fol- argument only : lowing i, e.,

a. the named parties, attorney; plaintiffs by one the Governor se pro his President of attorney; the Senate and the by one Senate attorney; Speaker the General Assembly and the at- Assembly General one ; torney the Attorney General of Educa- Commissioner tion, Department of Education and State Board of Education;

b. those amici curiae who have previously .participated *4 in oral herein who argument may wish to be heard and so Clerk; advise the

c. the following present petitioners who are hereby granted permission as amici participate curiae: (1) Jersey Association, by New School Boards one attor- ;

ney (M-463) New (2) Jersey Association, Education als., et by one at-

torney (M-476); claim- municipalities districts following The (3) redistribution any by substantially injured ing (M- of Livingston Township aid funds: of state Town- Chatham Berkeley Heights, Montclair, 470); Rumson, Sandyston-Walpack Providence, New ship, Avon- (M-498); Millburn (M-474); and Summit and Englewood (M-499); Belmar by-the-Sea and Dis- Morris School (M 511); City Englewood — Mendham (M-514); trict Lyndhurst (M-512); Borough of the Mayor and Township (M-522), by be selected attorney one by (M-523), Carlstadt absence (in districts for said attorneys, on' argument oral will be no there agreement, such districts). of such behalf in named entities and persons, organizations 7. All the all on file and serve desired, if may, 6 hereof paragraph to those additional amici curiae briefs and parties other subjects to the 24, but limited by February on file already thereto briefs in Any reply 5 hereof. forth in paragraph set March 3. and served similarly shall be filed or General of the Senate or members Any member coun- taken position in Assembly disagreement file attorney, se or may, pro through bodies sel those date, the same serve the same upon persons his, upon her or their views briefs statements 7 hereof. all subjects, same in accordance paragraph ais. Russo, motions of et petitioners (M-513) to such extent. et ais. are Greenberg, (M-515) granted only The motions the extent following, curiae, amici are granted, allowance participation forth limited of briefs on same as set filing basis (M-432); hereof: Newark Pleasant- City paragraph New Association, ville et ais. Taxpayers (M-469); Education Reform Project of the Greater Newark Urban Coalition (M-471). *5 All

10. motions intervene as or otherwise party par- extent ticipate except are denied hereinbefore set forth. No further for intervention applications or participa-

tion will be considered.

Eor the Court: P Justice disagrees with certain ashman portions decretal part above order and is a memoran- filing dum his stating views.

P ashman, J. (dissenting). The character of exceptional this case my strong disagreement the majority me to impels take the extraordinary step formal filing dissenting opinion from the memorandum order insofar Court as that order denies all relief for the 1975- 76 school I year. do so reluctantly with full appre- ciation of the desirability of consensus among the mem- bers of the Court when it acts matters of great public import.

I disagree paragraph the order of Court in that it fails to set out with specificity issues to which the parties' to address their ought arguments. With- out limit freedom of said intending parties issues deem am present any they I proper, those listing I matters which think should have been included in order: seek Should the Court its remedial orders to im- or,

plement directly education clause alternatively, seek to induce the so? Legislature to do *6 2. Can the Court enjoin of all payment some or State funds as aid appropriated to education until the Legis- lature complies ? the constitutional If mandate it can, should it do so? a

3. Can the Court injunction issue specific mandatory to the Legislature ordering with the education compliance can, If clause? it should it do so?

4. What does the constitutional mandate that the State maintain a of thorough system and efficient free public schools mean? What does it as to the financing require of said system? If the Court decides education to implement

clause in action, the absence should legislative of who devise the working for of plan allocation revenues?

6. Can the Court or all moneys redistribute some ap- as propriated can, State it aid schools? If public should it do so?

7. Can the Court a tax? State-wide impose property If it can, should it do so?

8. Can the raised lo- Court or all taxes require some cally educational Court to into the purposes paid (or State can, Treasury) If should redistribution? it it so? do districts

9. Can Court some all school require to tax to increase local to additional funds provide rates to sys- achieve a and efficient thorough be redistributed can, of If tem education State? it throughout it do so?

10. Can the Court order of dis- consolidation to tricts assessed valuation in each dis- equalize per pupil can, If trict? it should it do so?

11. Who should administer by ordered ? Court 12. The of the Court State propriety allowing the d

achieve a compliance the education clause over perio years. up five is, course, not intended of these issues

The posing ultimate resolution. as their prejudgment indicate deci- our initial after 1973, months two 19, On June intention declared our matter, we publicly in this sion compliance plan implementation obtain clause of the education with the requirements the State Art. (1947), J. Const. 1947, N. Constitution Cahill, 63 v. Robinson VIII, 1, July 1, § ¶ more time seemed This (1973). J. period injustice of the magnitude view of the than ample their this State suffered the children being sys- existing the result of the inequities parents *7 that be noted of finance. It should tem educational January on been notice since already had Legislature in this 1972, when his opinion Botter announced Judge Cahill, Robinson Div. matter, Super. (L. v. 118 N. J. 1972),1 that system probably finance was of educational unconstitutional as well unfair. as being or to justify unable we I am abandon that

Today goal. in it. decision, join excuse this I cannot and The relief fears that the affirmative majority any of grant for this year budgetary school create in the would chaos a in local school districts. It is undeniable that process grant of affirmative Court for would by year this complicate the process budgets of of local school approval this spring. That various process provi is governed by sions of J. S. A. :22, 18A a which out timetable sets formulation budgets. of these adoption Legisla ture, however, has the timetable back already pushed c. Even year. this L. this revised schedule by further either compression, not so tight preclude judicial possible 1Indeed, warnings first unconstitution ality system of the New of finance came earlier educational Regional Sills, West Morris Board v. 58 N. J. still. 464, Education of (1971). 477 n. 7 action, or, in of legislative the absence the Legislature,2 mid- scheduled Oral could be the Court itself. arguments thereafter. shortly a decision announced and- Eebruary of dis- deal great A amount of confusion certain can be The first result. undoubtedly satisfaction -would of- local on State part diligence ameliorated inevitable, accompani- discordant second, ficials. The decision. no in our play part ment to change, possible Court, consistently The real is: this Can question Constitution, its to enforce the obligations uphold hundreds of trade the constitutionally guaranteed rights thousands children3 an educational opportunity equal meeting some difficulties in possibility avoiding local I this do not how budget-making ques deadlines. see tion can be answered in but way negative. in the any

I am Court could should attempt not proposing root and branch reform by its remedial orders achieve Rather, school finance system I am some convinced that we can make well-con- significant, year sidered remedial to the responses this constitutional have an problems we identified. We have affirmative duty to do so.

It is no judical inaction ground that some measures proposed may unpopular. Ridgefield Park v. Bergen Taxation, Board County 31 N. J. 420, 431 It (1960). is no ground there may be resistance to the orders of *8 Court, whether in local government or in the halls of 2Newspaper report legislative accounts this week leaders are contemplating budget further modification of deadlines. precise 3The number of children affected cannot be determined on present state the record. testimony The court below received while, per 1972, $1,200 effect that pupil ap he an would propriate money amount spend, 372,189 a school district attending public children expending were schools in districts less than per pupil. Super. $900 118 N. J. at 246. expenditure per I pupil only part note that prob- is equal opportunities. lem of educational Aaron, 1, 78 Ct. v. U. S. S. Cooper Legislature. fer

1401, 3 L. 2d It is no (1958). ground Ed. can excuses tile find or invent imagination plausible Bodine, 44 J. 312 This delay. See Jackman v. (1965). Court has identified violation of the Constitu profound tion. It has the coordinate branch of given government action. possesses take corrective It ample opportunity violation. process remedying capacity begin at this date to become To fail to do so late party which the Court de wrongs the very the' perpetuation two years ago. nounced CARUSO, SR., CORNELIUS W. THE OF

IN MATTER AT LAW. AN ATTORNEY Argued February March 1975 Decided Frederick C. Mr. argued the cause for Essex Vonhof County Ethics Committee. William O.

Mr. Barnes the cause for argued respondent.