|
Opinion in PDF Format
Supreme Court of the State of Washington
Opinion Information Sheet
SOURCE OF APPEAL
----------------
JUSTICES
--------
COUNSEL OF RECORD
-----------------
View the Opinion in PDF Format
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
No. 80943-7
FEDERAL WAY SCHOOL )
DISTRICT NO. 210, a municipal )
corporation; ED BARNEY; )
CYNTHIA BLACK; EVELYN )
CASTELLAR; GINGER )
CORNWELL; CHARLES HOFF; )
DAVID LARSON, individually and ) No. 80943-7
as guardian for ANDREW LARSON )
and JOSHUA LARSON; THOMAS ) En Banc
MADDEN, individually and as )
guardian for BRYCE MADDEN; ) Filed November 12, 2009
SHANNON RASMUSSEN; )
SANDRA RENGSTORFF, )
individually and as guardian for )
TAYLOR RENGSTORFF and KALI )
RENGSTORFF, )
)
Respondents, )
)
v. )
)
THE STATE OF WASHINGTON; )
CHRISTINE GREGOIRE, in her )
capacity as Governor of the State of )
Washington; TERRY BERGESON, )
in her capacity as Superintendent of )
Public Instruction; BRAD OWEN, in )
his capacity as President of the )
Senate and principal legislative )
authority of the State of Washington; )
FRANK CHOPP, in his capacity as )
Speaker of the House of )
Representatives and principal )
legislative authority of the State of )
Washington, )
)
Petitioners. )2
_____________________________ )
No. 80943-7
J.M. JOHNSON, J. -- In The Washington Basic Education Act of
1977,1 the legislature began a system of funding to school districts that
improved all salaries but still allowed local teacher salary variation. By 2007,
the gap between the highest and lowest average school salary figures had
been narrowed considerably. Federal Way School District No. 210 receives
the lowest salary funding level from the State. The school district, along with
individual teacher, parent, and student plaintiffs, sought a court declaration
that the State's continued use of the disparate salary figures in its funding
formulas violated article IX, sections 1 and 2 and article I, sections 3 and 12
of the Washington Constitution. The trial court granted summary judgment
for the school district and the individual respondents. We hold that the
legislature's funding and formulas do not violate the Washington Constitution
and reverse.
Facts and Procedural History
This is an appeal from a grant of summary judgment for Federal Way
School District and several individual student, teacher, and parent
1 RCW 28A.150.200, amended by Laws of 2009, ch. 548, § 101 (effective until Sept. 1,
2011).
3
No. 80943-7
respondents. The facts presented in this action, while complex, are
essentially undisputed.
A. Recent History of Basic Education Funding
Since before statehood, financial resources to fund local schools varied
widely, as did local costs of living. Washington Constitution article IX,
section 1 declares it is "the paramount duty of the state to make ample
provision for the education of all children residing within its borders . . . ."
See Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. State, 90 Wn.2d 476, 511-12, 585 P.2d 71
(1978) (analyzing article IX, section 1). Article IX, section 2 states, "[t]he
legislature shall provide for a general and uniform system of public schools."
Prior to 1977, state operational funding to school districts was determined
through a formula in which a minimum funding guaranty per student was
enhanced by weighting factors. The school districts are locally elected and
districts paid varying salaries to teachers, administrators, and classified staff.
This variation was due to collective bargaining contracts, staff experience
levels, and local school levies passed by voters.
The legislature replaced the weighted student formula when it passed
4
No. 80943-7
The Washington Basic Education Act of 1977. Laws of 1977, 1st Ex. Sess.,
ch. 359, §§ 4, 5 (codified at ch. 28A.150 RCW), amended by Laws of 2009,
ch. 548. The act sets forth a three part program: (1) educational system
goals, (2) educational program requirements, and (3) a new funding
mechanism, called the staff unit allocation system. RCW 28A.150.200,
amended by Laws of 2009, ch. 548, § 101 (effective until Sept. 1, 2011).
The staff unit allocation system consisted of staff to student ratios and
funding allocation formulas,2 including a formula to allocate funding for
certificated school staff (administrators and teachers) and classified school
staff salaries. 3 See Laws of 1977, 1st Ex. Sess., ch. 359, § 5. The system did
not create a uniform statewide salary schedule; the legislature was aware that
2 The distribution formula is for determining total funding amounts only and is not
intended to prescribe how any individual employee is paid or the number of staff a district
may hire. See RCW 28A.150.260(2)(c) (formula "shall not be construed as mandating
specific operational functions of local school districts . . ."), amended by Laws of 2009,
ch. 548, § 106 (effective until Sept. 1, 2011).
3 "Certificated staff" initially included administrative staff and instructional staff, which
includes teachers, counselors, librarians, and other nonsupervisory certificated positions.
Classified staff included all noncertificated positions. See Laws of 1977, 1st Ex. Sess., ch.
359, § 5. In 1987, the legislature made administrative staff a separate group. The initial
figures used for average administrator salary allocations were based on actual average
salaries paid during the 1986-87 school year. Consequently, like the average salary
amounts adopted in 1977, average salary amounts for administrators varied widely
between districts.
5
No. 80943-7
total salary equalization would upset political and economic expectations and
disregard local variation in cost of living.4 To account for the variance in
existing school district salaries, the initial formula used amounts based on the
existing average salaries paid by districts in the 1976-77 school year. See
Laws of 1977, 1st Ex. Sess., ch. 339, § 97(1)(e)(i). Consequently, initial staff
unit-based allocations varied widely.
The legislature continued to narrow the gap over time. Accordingly,
from 1977 to 1989, it enacted a series of weighted salary increases while
imposing salary controls on higher salary school districts.5 Although not all
of the legislature's efforts were equally effective, the end result was that
4 Among the groups opposing a uniform statewide salary schedule was the teachers'
union, which supported local salary bargaining.
5 Salary controls, first enacted in 1981, prevented school districts from paying salary
increases greater than those authorized in the legislature's funding formula. In 1987, the
legislature lifted controls on administrator and classified staff salaries but left teacher
salary controls in place. The salary cap amount is taken from the salary tables contained in
LEAP Document 2 (LEAP 2), Clerk's Papers (CP) at 266-73; therefore, lower salary
allocation figures effectively act as a lower salary cap. See RCW 28A.400.200(3)(a).
LEAP 2 is created by a legislative agency called the "Legislative Evaluation and
Accountability Program Committee" (RCW 44.48.010), which is "the Legislature's
independent source of information and technology for developing budgets, communicating
budget decisions, and tracking revenue, expenditure, and staffing activity." Wash. State
Legislative Evaluation & Accountability Program Comm., An Independent Source of
Information Technology and a Resource for Fiscal Information, available at
http://leap.leg.wa.gov/leap/overview/default.asp (last visited Nov. 4, 2009).
6
No. 80943-7
education salary allocations were increased in each biennium from 1977 to
1989, and the allocation gap was reduced in each year except 1983. By
1989, only 34 out of 295 school districts statewide were allocated higher
teacher base salaries than the others.
After the 1987-89 biennium, the legislature shifted its focus to
increasing salaries for all educational staff. In 1989 and 1991, the legislature
boosted teacher salaries, with the biggest increases going to the lowest paid
teachers and those with master's degrees. Other staff received uniform
increases.6 From 1995 to 1999, the legislature increased all salary allocations
to school districts uniformly for all three classes of staff. In 1999, the
legislature again raised teacher salaries, with larger increases for beginning
teachers.
In 2000, voters passed Initiative 732 (I-732) mandating uniform yearly
cost of living increases without regard to salary differences (but providing no
funding source). RCW 28A.400.205, amended by Laws of 2009, ch. 573
(effective July 1, 2009). In 2003 and 2004, the legislature enacted and
6 Federal Way School District correctly notes that uniform percentage increases had the
effect of widening average salary gaps between school districts if calculated in dollars.
7
No. 80943-7
funded measures to narrow the gap between the lowest paid teachers and
those with more experience. In the 2005 biennium, the legislature again
adopted uniform salary increases. In the 2007 biennial budget, the legislature
appropriated funds for uniform cost of living increases for all three classes of
employees as well as funds to narrow the differences in the salary schedules
between school districts. Laws of 2007, ch. 522, § 503.
Thus, between 1977 and 2007, the legislature not only enacted
numerous uniform salary increases but also narrowed the salary allocation
gap repeatedly. This was especially true for teacher salaries. Under the 1977
budget, the highest teacher average base salary was more than 150 percent
greater than the lowest. By the 2008-09 school year, that gap had been
reduced to 4.9 percent. LEAP 2, Clerk's Papers (CP) at 266-73; see also
supra note 5.
B. Current Allocations7
7 On May 19, 2009, the governor signed Engrossed Substitute House Bill (ESHB) 2261, a
66-page bill that substantially amends laws relating to the program and funding of
education. See, e.g., Laws of 2009, ch. 548, § 106 (effective until Sept. 1, 2011)
(amending the prescribed student-staff ratios to be used in funding formulas). ESHB 2261
provides that the legislature intends to implement a new instructional program funded by a
new funding formula. Laws of 2009, ch. 548, §§ 1, 2. But the sections relating to funding
do not take effect until 2011. See ESHB 2261, Laws of 2009, ch. 548 § 804 (providing
that sections 101 through 110 become effective Sept. 1, 2011); id. § 112(2) (calling for a
8
No. 80943-7
Currently, average base salary amounts used in funding formulas are
contained in LEAP 2. In 2007, the legislature determined allocations for
certificated administrative and classified staff by multiplying the average
number of full-time students in each school district by prescribed staff to
student ratios,then multiplying the result by the average salary figure listed
for each district in LEAP 2. See Laws of 2007, ch. 522, § 503(1)(a)
(uncodified appropriations bill) (incorporating LEAP 2 by reference); RCW
28A.150.410. Allocations for teacher salaries are calculated the same way,
but each district's average base salary figure is modified by factoring in a
staff mix factor that adds funding based on higher levels of teacher experience
and education.8
In the 2007 biennial budget, some school districts that historically paid
higher salaries continued to receive allocations based on higher staff unit
salary figures than Federal Way School District.9 No single district received
"technical working group" to work out the details of new funding formulas). Thus, the
amendments in ESHB 2261 do not appear to be of consequence to this case.
8 The staff mix factors are located in a table called LEAP Document 1. CP at 262-64.
9 Federal Way School District has access to certain additional sources of funding other
than staff unit-based allocations that are not available equally to all districts. First, Federal
Way School District has excess levy authority higher than that generally available to other
districts. See RCW 84.52.0531, amended by Laws of 2009, ch. 4 (effective Feb. 18,
9
No. 80943-7
the highest staff unit allocation salary figures in all three categories of staff.1
Out of 295 districts, 64 districts, including Federal Way School District,
received allocations based on the lowest staff unit salary figures on LEAP 2
in all three staff categories.
The greatest disparity among school districts is in the salary figures for
administrators. For the 2008-09 school year, four districts received funds
calculated using the highest average base salary figure of $84,362, while
Federal Way School District and 88 other districts received $57,986 -- a 45
percent gap.11 For classified staff, the Seattle School District average base
salary was $36,777, while for Federal Way School District and 224 other
districts, the average base salary was $31,865 -- a 15 percent gap.
For teachers, Federal Way School District and 282 other districts'
2009). In 2007, Federal Way School District had levy authority for over $32 million, and
sought voter approval for $31 million. Second, a state program entitled Local Effort
Assistance, provided an additional $4 million in 2007. See RCW 28A.500.10-.30. The
respondents do not contend that disparities between districts created by these alternative
funding channels are unconstitutional.
1 There is no correlation between higher allocation amounts in one category and another;
for example, Seattle received the top salary allocation for classified staff but ranks 150th
for administrator salary.
11 These figures have no correlation to the real cost of hiring administrators; the average
Federal Way School District administrator makes $94,486.
10
No. 80943-7
funding was calculated using the teacher average base salary figure of
$33,898. Only 12 districts' funding was based on higher numbers up to
$35,581. This is a 4.9 percent gap statewide. LEAP 2, CP at 266-73.
Federal Way School District argues that in the 2006-07 school year, it would
have received an additional $7.1 million in basic education funding if its
allocation had been calculated using the highest salary figures on LEAP 2.
CP at 112.
C. Procedural History
Federal Way School District filed suit in King County Superior Court
seeking a declaration that the State's funding formulas for all three categories
of public school employees violate the Washington Constitution. The
superior court held that the disparity in salary figures on LEAP 2 (and
incorporated into the appropriations act) violates the uniformity requirement
of Washington Constitution article IX, section 2, and violates the equal
protection rights of the individual respondents under article I, section 12.12
Accordingly, the superior court granted the school district's motion for
12 The superior court did not address justiciability arguments raised by the State. CP at
418-26.
11
No. 80943-7
summary judgment. The State moved for direct review, which this court
granted.
Standard of Review
A grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo. Amalgamated
Transit Union Local 587 v. State, 142 Wn.2d 183, 206, 11 P.3d 762, 27 P.3d
608 (2000). We view the facts and all reasonable inferences in the light most
favorable to the nonmoving parties. Berrocal v. Fernandez, 155 Wn.2d 585,
590, 121 P.3d 82 (2005). Interpretation of the constitution is a question of
law, which we review de novo. State v. Chenoweth, 160 Wn.2d 454, 462,
158 P.3d 595 (2007). Summary judgment is proper where there are no
genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as
a matter of law. Amalgamated Transit, 142 Wn.2d at 206; CR 56(c).
Analysis
A. Article IX, Section 2 (the "uniformity clause")
The superior court held that the legislature's current funding allocation
system violates the education article of our state constitution, which requires
the legislature to "provide for a general and uniform system of public
12
No. 80943-7
schools." Const. art. IX, § 2. We disagree.
A brief historical note first will add perspective to the analysis. At the
time of the constitution, and since, total education funding has varied
statewide, and local control has been assured through locally elected school
board administrators and local voter-approved tax levies.
Statutes are presumed constitutional, and the burden is on the party
challenging the statute to prove its unconstitutionality. Tunstall ex rel.
Tunstall v. Bergeson, 141 Wn.2d 201, 220, 5 P.3d 691 (2000). This court
has long held that article IX, section 2 imposes upon the State a fundamental
duty to create a common school system.13 Tunstall, 141 Wn.2d at 221. We
have previously elaborated on what such a system must consist of.
"Uniform" means that "every child shall have the same advantages and be
subject to the same discipline as every other child." Sch. Dist. No. 20 v.
Bryan, 51 Wash. 498, 502, 99 P. 28 (1909).
13 Newspaper editorials at the time of our constitutional convention heavily influenced the
debate on the new educational system. See Parents Involved in Cmty. Schs. v. Seattle
Sch. Dist. No. 1, 149 Wn.2d 660, 672, 72 P.3d 151 (2003) (quoting Quentin Shipley
Smith, Analytical Index to The Journal of the Washington State Constitutional
Convention 1889, at 685 (Beverly Paulik Rosenow ed., 1999)). We have noted that one
such editorial highlighted the "uniformity in charts, manuals, methods, and highly
competent instructors" of Australia's common school system. Id. (quoting Tacoma Daily
Ledger, July 3, 1889).
13
No. 80943-7
A general and uniform system, we think, is, at the present time,
one in which every child in the state has free access to certain
minimum and reasonably standardized educational and
instructional facilities and opportunities to at least the 12th
grade -- a system administered with that degree of uniformity
which enables a child to transfer from one district to another
within the same grade without substantial loss of credit or
standing and with access by each student of whatever grade to
acquire those skills and training that are reasonably understood
to be fundamental and basic to a sound education.
Northshore Sch. Dist. No. 417 v. Kinnear, 84 Wn.2d 685, 729, 530 P.2d 178
(1974), overruled on other grounds by Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. State, 90
Wn.2d 476, 514, 585 P.2d 71 (1978).
The legislature created a common school system at its first session.14
Newman v. Schlarb, 184 Wash. 147, 152, 50 P.2d 36 (1935). The
Washington Basic Education Act of 1977 provided for uniform educational
content, teacher certification, and instructional hour requirements, as well as a
statewide assessment system enabling students to transfer from one school
district to another without loss of credit and with access to substantially the
same educational opportunities. See RCW 28A.150.200, amended by Laws
14 Even prior to enactment of the basic education act, this court held that the common
school system then in place provided a general and uniform system of public schools.
Kinnear, 84 Wn.2d at 729, overruled on other grounds by Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 90
Wn.2d at 514.
14
No. 80943-7
of 2009, ch. 548, § 101 (effective until Sept. 1, 2011) (basic educational
program requirements).15 This court recently held that Title 28A RCW's
"Common School Provisions," which include the basic education act, satisfy
the "general and uniform" portion of the legislature's article IX duty.
Tunstall, 141 Wn.2d at 221.16
Federal Way School District argues that the current school funding
system violates the uniformity requirement of article IX, section 2 because
funding for staff salaries in some school districts is calculated using different
base salary figures than for others.17 Federal Way School District relies
primarily on Seattle School District No. 1, 90 Wn.2d 476 and McGowan v.
State, 148 Wn.2d 278, 60 P.3d 67 (2002).18
15 See also ch. 28A.410 RCW (uniform teacher certification requirements), amended by
Laws of 2009, ch. 548, § 402 (effective July 26, 2009) (mandating new uniform teacher
performance standards for 2010); ch. 28A.655 RCW (academic achievement and
accountability), amended by Laws of 2009, ch. 548, § 202 (effective July 26, 2009)
(providing for electronic collection of teacher and student data).
16 Federal Way School District attempts to distinguish Tunstall because it did not address
school funding, but that distinction presumes that article IX, section 2 applies to school
funding mechanisms.
17 Amicus League of Education Voters Foundation supports this argument with its own
analysis of article IX, section 2 but cites no additional authority.
18 Federal Way School District also relies on Brown v. State, 155 Wn.2d 254, 269, 119
P.3d 341 (2005), which echoes the holding in McGowan. Because Brown relies entirely
on McGowan for the argument cited, it is not persuasive here.
15
No. 80943-7
Federal Way School District's reliance on Seattle School District No. 1
is misplaced. Federal Way School District argues that that case stands for the
proposition that the State's school funding violated article IX, section 2's
uniformity clause. But Seattle School District No. 1 addressed the local
excess levy funding system, which has been replaced by a completely new
and different funding mechanism by The Washington Basic Education Act of
1977. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 90 Wn.2d at 519 n.14 (calling the act "a
commendable effort to alleviate the constitutional void" addressed by the
decision).
In Seattle School District No. 1, we held that the previous system was
invalid under article IX, section 1 -- not under section 2. Regarding the
interplay between section 2 and specific funding mechanisms, we said only
that sections 1 and 2 together "require the State to amply provide for the
education guaranteed through the medium of 'a general and uniform system of
public schools.'" Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 90 Wn.2d at 522 (quoting Const.
art. IX, § 2). This holding does not define a "uniform" system, and our cases
have never held that the provision requires uniform funding.
16
No. 80943-7
Federal Way School District also relies on McGowan, 148 Wn.2d 278.
In that decision, the court struck down a provision of I-732 that defined basic
education to include specific salary increases for school employees as
contrary to the requirements of article IX. We explained that the definition
was unconstitutional because it sought to write into the State's constitutional
obligation to provide basic education a requirement for a specific type and
amount of funding. Our holding actually rebuts respondents' argument
because they -- similar to the plaintiffs in McGowan -- seek to write into the
State's increases for this district and its obligation to provide a uniform
school system a specific type of funding, viz., uniform salary figures
statewide. Moreover, McGowan does not address the interplay of article IX,
section 2 and specific funding mechanisms, other than repeating Seattle
School District No. 1's holding that compliance with article IX, sections 1
and 2 cannot be achieved through local levies. McGowan, 148 Wn.2d at 293-
94. Thus, like Seattle School District No. 1, McGowan does not define
"uniform" and does not hold that the provision requires uniform funding.
Federal Way School District has not cited any persuasive authority for
17
No. 80943-7
its argument that article IX, section 2 requires the State to calculate basic
education funding using uniform salary figures statewide. Our cases
discussing article IX, section 2 make it clear that the provision requires
uniformity in the educational program provided, not the minutiae of funding.
Such details -- unless specifically mandated by the constitution -- are the
province of the legislative branch. See Const. art. II, § 1 (legislative authority
vested in the legislature, subject to powers reserved by the people); Const.
art. IX, § 2 (mandating limits on the use of common school fund revenues).
Federal Way School District fails to overcome the presumption that the
statutory funding formulas are constitutional and fails to prove that the
disparities in those formulas have violated article IX, section 2.
B. Article IX, section 1 (the "ample funding clause")
Federal Way School District cross-appeals on the issue of ample
funding. The district argues that the legislature's salary allocation formulas
for school staff violate article IX, section 1 by failing to fund all school
districts at the same level. "It is the paramount duty of the state to make
ample provision for the education of all children residing within its borders,
18
No. 80943-7
. . . ." Const. art. IX, § 1. In its summary judgment ruling, the trial court
explicitly held that respondents had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt
that Federal Way School District is not amply funded. The trial court
emphasized its decision "should in no way be construed to find or even
suggest that the legislature has not provided for full funding of education in
the Federal Way School District." CP at 434.
Federal Way School District's argument essentially relies on a single
passage in Seattle School District No. 1, stating that the legislature must
expressly deploy resources that are sufficient to provide for basic education.
90 Wn.2d at 537. But this court did not require uniformity of funding
formulas or salary multipliers. Moreover, the cited passage merely begs the
question of what is "sufficient." Id. Federal Way School District cites no
authority for the argument that, in order for resources to be constitutionally
sufficient, the legislature must allocate them uniformly or use uniform
formulas. Our decision in Seattle School District No. 1 does not support the
argument nor does the constitutional provision, and therefore we reject it.
C. None of the Individual Respondents Present Justiciable Claims
19
No. 80943-7
The trial court also held that the legislature's funding formulas violate
some individual respondents' constitutional rights. The State continues to
argue that the individual respondents' claims do not meet requirements for
justiciability. The superior court did not address this argument. Because we
require claims to be justiciable before we will decide them, we must address
this threshold.
The Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act grants standing to persons
"whose rights . . . are affected by a statute." RCW 7.24.020. This is
consistent with the general rule that a party must be directly affected by a
statute to challenge its constitutionality. To-Ro Trade Shows v. Collins, 144
Wn.2d 403, 411-12, 27 P.3d 1149 (2001). Respondents must show they are
being affected or denied some benefit; mere interest in state funding
mechanisms is not sufficient to make a claim justiciable. See Walker v.
Munro, 124 Wn.2d 402, 419, 879 P.2d 920 (1994). We held in Seattle
School District No. 1 that both parent and children plaintiffs had standing
where the adverse impact of insufficient revenue on educational programs for
individual students was demonstrated by the record. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1,
20
No. 80943-7
90 Wn.2d at 495 (holding that students "are the intended and immediate
objects of Title 28A RCW").
First, the individual parent, student, and teacher respondents claim they
are alleging denial of a benefit and therefore do not have to show actual harm.
But these individuals do not establish any benefit they are personally being
denied. Individual parents, students, and teachers have no personal claim to
education funding allocations; the funds are a benefit paid to the school
district. Because teacher salaries are negotiated between the district and
unions, individual parents, students, and teachers do not determine how
allocated funds are spent (or receive any direct benefit).
Alternately, the individual parent and student respondents argue that
the funding system -- where other school districts receive more money for
staff salaries -- creates actual harm. This argument relies on the implicit
assumption that unequal funding formulas result in disparate educational
quality. But the only evidence in this record shows that Federal Way School
District students generally score above the state average, as measured by
WASL (Washington Assessment of Student Learning) scores. No adverse
21
No. 80943-7
impacts are demonstrated by this record. Respondents have shown no
educational opportunities unequal to those provided in other school districts
in violation of the constitution. See Tunstall, 141 Wn.2d at 222.
Similarly, the individual teachers' article I, section 12 claim fails. To
be justiciable under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, a controversy
must be an actual, present and existing dispute, not possible, dormant, or
hypothetical. To-Ro Trade Shows, 144 Wn.2d at 411. The LEAP 2 salary
figures determine only overall allocations and not individual teacher pay,
which is negotiated between the union and district. Even if we affirm the
superior court's judgment and the legislature equalized allocation formula
salary figures, that would not translate to any individual benefit for the
teacher whose salary is determined through negotiation with the school
district. The teachers' dispute is therefore hypothetical and nonjusticiable.
Finally, eight of the parent and teacher respondents claim standing as
taxpayers because they were unable to pay higher taxes in support of Federal
Way School District due to limits on levy authority that are tied to the salary
allocations. While taxpayers may have standing to protest high taxes or
22
No. 80943-7
improper expenditures, this court has said it is doubtful there is taxpayer
standing to protest lower taxes or limits on taxation. Walker, 124 Wn.2d at
402. Moreover, the posture of the parent and teacher respondents' argument
is misleading; they do not merely seek to support Federal Way School
District. That could be accomplished by bypassing the tax system and
voluntarily contributing to the school district directly. Their complaint
apparently is that the school district is unable to ask for more taxes from them
(and others). A municipal corporation's inability to ask for voter approval of
a levy for a specific dollar amount is not a justiciable harm to an individual
taxpayer. Moreover, the controversy is hypothetical; there is no evidence that
the school district would ask for higher levies. To the contrary, in 2007, the
school district sought voter approval for $1 million less than its full levy
authority. Since the parent and teacher respondents also lack taxpayer
standing for separate claims, none of their claims are justiciable.
Conclusion
The legislature's use of the staff unit allocation system to fund
education with differing salary allocations to school districts with historically
23
No. 80943-7
disparate average salaries does not violate article IX, section 2, although there
remains a slight gap between the highest and lowest salary funding
statewide.19 There is no showing that the legislature's funding allocations,
including those for Federal Way School District, do not constitute "ample
provision for the education of all children" as required under article IX,
section 1. The legislature has acted well within its constitutional authority
and its duty to make ample provision for the education of children and to
provide for a general and uniform system of education under article IX. The
individual respondents' claims do not meet requirements for justiciability and
should be dismissed. Accordingly, we reverse.
19 As previously noted, the gap in teacher funding statewide under the legislature's budget
was only 4.9 percent, significantly less than cost-of-living variations between school
districts in our state. See Wash. State Office of Fin. Mgmt., A Review of K-12 Regional
Cost Issues app. at A1-A9 (Dec. 2000) (statistics showing household expenses in the most
expensive school district were 37 percent higher than those in the least expensive district),
available at http://www.ofm.wa.gov/fiscal/k12cola/k12cola.pdf (last visited Nov. 4,
2009).
24
No. 80943-7
AUTHOR:
Justice James M. Johnson
WE CONCUR:
Chief Justice Gerry L. Justice Susan Owens
Alexander
Justice Charles W. Johnson Justice Mary E. Fairhurst
Justice Barbara A. Madsen
Justice Richard B. Sanders Justice Debra L. Stephens
Justice Tom Chambers
25
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Courts | Organizations | News | Opinions | Rules | Forms | Directory | Library |
| Back to Top | Privacy and Disclaimer Notices | |
