Cal. School Bds. Assn. v. State of California
Filed 2/26/13 Cal. School Bds. Assn. v. State of California CA1/3
California Rules of Court, rule
8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not
certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule
8.1115(b). This opinion has not been
certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115
IN
THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST
APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION
THREE
CALIFORNIA
SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION et al.,
Plaintiffs and Appellants,
v.
STATE OF
CALIFORNIA et al.,
Defendants and Respondents.
A136193
(City & County
of San Francisco
Ct. No. CGC-11-514689)
In
September 2011, plaintiffs
name="_ftnref1" title="">[1]
filed a petition for writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory and
injunctive relief alleging that the calculation used by the Legislature to
appropriate funds for K-14 education in the 2011-2012 Budget Act violates
article XVI, section 8 of the California Constitution, the school funding
measure added to the Constitution by Proposition 98 in November 1988
(Proposition 98).
title="">[2]
Proposition 98 includes what is referred to as a “minimum funding guaranteeâ€
that requires the Legislature to appropriate for K-14 education “[t]he amount
which, as a percentage of General Fund revenues . . . equals the
percentage of General Fund revenues appropriated for school districts and community
college districts, respectively, in fiscal year 1986-1987.†Plaintiffs allege
that the 2011-2012 Budget Act violates the “minimum funding guarantee†by
excluding from general fund revenues, and diverting to a newly created special
fund to support the realignment of
1.0625 percent of sales and use tax revenues.
As
part of the budget process, the Legislature enacted sections 41210 and 41211 of
the Education Code, providing that the diverted funds “are not ‘general fund
revenues’ as that term is used in section 8 of Article XVI of the California
Constitution.â€
title="">[3]
The petition alleges that “the specific purpose and effect of sections 41210
and 41211 is to artificially reduce funding for K-14 education for 2011-12
below the constitutionally required minimum†without complying with the
requirements of Proposition 98 and that “[t]he Legislature’s actions represent
a direct attempt to evade the minimum funding requirements of Proposition 98.†Plaintiffs
sought a writ of mandate compelling defendants
“to recalculate the minimum funding guarantee required in 2011-12 in accordance
with article XVI, section 8 without regard to the provisions of Education Code
section 41210 and 41211 and directing [defendants] . . . to take such
steps as are necessary to implement such recalculation in a way that ensures
that K-14 schools and school districts receive no less than the
constitutionally required minimum level of funding or in accordance with a plan
to be approved by the court that holds education funding harmless for the
changes enacted in the 2011-2012 Budget Act and related legislation.â€
The
trial court denied the petition, finding that “Nothing in the language of
Proposition 98 or its ballot materials precludes the Legislature from assigning
revenue to a special fund that previously had been deposited in the general
fund.†Plaintiffs appealed.
While
this appeal was pending, on November
6, 2012, voters approved Proposition 30, which among other things
amended the state Constitution to
explicitly exclude the 1.0625 percent sales and use tax revenue from the
Proposition 98 calculation. (Cal.
Const., art. XIII, § 36, subd. (b)(1)(A).) The exclusion was made retroactive
to July 1, 2011, the start
of the 2011-2012 fiscal year. (Id., § 36, subd. (b)(2).)
In
January 2013, we granted the parties’ joint application to hold briefing in
abeyance in order to consider defendants’ motion to dismiss on the ground that
the passage of Proposition 30 has rendered the appeal moot. Having received and
considered briefs supporting and opposing the motion to dismiss, we conclude
that the appeal is moot and that the appeal should be dismissed.
Following
the passage of Proposition 30, there unquestionably is no effective relief that
can be granted. The Constitution has been amended to explicitly authorize the
exclusion of the challenged tax revenue from the Proposition 98 formula. Even
if the court should conclude that the diversion of these funds from general
fund revenues previously was inconsistent with constitutional requirements,
Proposition 30 precludes any possible order to recalculate the formula to
include those funds. Plaintiffs contend that the court should nonetheless decide
the merits of the case because “[h]istory demonstrates that the legal issues
related to potential manipulations of the funding guarantee are likely to
recur†and “the state’s obligations under Proposition 98 are a critical
component of the state’s constitutional budget responsibilities.†However,
contrary to plaintiffs’ argument, a decision on “whether Proposition 98 permits
the State to change the composition of the general fund without making the
adjustments necessary to preserve the integrity of the Proposition 98
calculations†cannot sensibly or prudently be made without reference to
specific legislative action. While the
calculation of school funding under Proposition 98 is of significant
may be likely, nothing suggests that timely review will not be available in
such a case. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the appeal.
Disposition
The
appeal is dismissed.
_________________________
Pollak,
Acting P.J.
We concur:
_________________________
Siggins, J.
_________________________
Jenkins, J.
Plaintiffs include the California School Boards Association, Association of
California School Administrators, Los Angeles
Unified School District,
San Francisco Unified
School District, and Turlock
Unified School District.
Proposition 98, entitled “The Classroom Instructional Improvement and
Accountability Act,†amended article XVI, section 8, of the Constitution. The
section was further amended by Proposition 111 in 1990.
