Five towns that won an education funding lawsuit against the state went back to court today. The towns are asking the state Supreme Court to decide whether the legislature is complying with the four-year-old Claremont decision. But the state Attorney General argues the court should drop the Claremont case entirely. NHPR's Trish Anderton reports.
To listen to the complete oral arguments, go to
www.nhpr.org/content/fullmonty_view.php/2347/
IN ITS SEMINAL 1997 RULING, THE COURT SAID THE STATE MUST PAY FOR AN ADEQUATE EDUCATION FOR EVERY CHILD. IT ORDERED THE LEGISLATURE TO DEFINE JUST WHAT IS ADEQUATE. ANDRU VOLINSKY, THE LEAD LAWYER FOR THE FIVE CLAREMONT TOWNS, ARGUED THE STATE HASN'T LIVED UP TO THE RULING. HE SAID IT'S TIME FOR THE COURT TO ACT.
educated informed citizens sustain the vitality of democratic institutions. This is perhaps the most important line of cases the court has decided and most critical line of protection of state constition.
VOLINSKY SAID THE STATE HAS ADOPTED BROAD GOALS FOR SCHOOLS. BUT HE SAID IT DOES NOT HAVE DETAILED, MANDATORY STANDARDS FOR DISTRICTS TO FOLLOW. AND HE ARGUED THERE'S NO SYSTEM TO ENFORCE THE STANDARDS THAT DO EXIST. VOLINSKY SAID THE STATE ADMITTED AS MUCH DURING COURT PROCEEDINGS IN 1998 AND 99.
005 23 it is not we who said system was incomplete at that time. It was the state who said that.
VOLINSKY ARGUED THE STATE HAS ADDED NOTHING SUBSTANTIAL TO THE ADEQUACY LAW SINCE THEN. AND HE SAID IF THE COURT FAILED TO ENFORCE THE CLAREMONT DECISION, IT WOULD APPEAR TO BE RETREATING ON THE ISSUE. BUT STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL PHILIP MCLAUGHLIN SAID IT'S NOT THE TIME OR PLACE FOR THE COURT TO ACT. IN THE FIRST PLACE, MCLAUGHLIN ARGUED, IF THE COURT WANTS TO EXAMINE WHAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS DONE, IT SHOULD SHOULD HOLD A TRIAL TO AIR ALL THE FACTS.
009 244 the question of whether that legislation is const should be entertained only in context of a pending case, supported by complete trial record, with appellate issues well framed and properly preserved.
BUT MCLAUGHLIN SAID THERE'S NO NEED FOR SUCH A TRIAL. HE ARGUED THE STATE HAS DEFINED ADEQUACY THROUGH A COMPLEX SYSTEM OF EDUCATION LAWS AND REGULATIONS. MCLAUGHLIN ARGUED LAWMAKERS UNDERSTAND WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE, AND THE COURT SHOULD STEP ASIDE AND LET THEM DO THEIR JOBS.
12 18 democracies don't operate by judiciary. They operate by the constitution which now includes fairly clear definitions of obligation to educate children as a fundamental right.
THE JUSTICES AGGRESSIVELY QUESTIONED BOTH SIDES. NEW MEMBER JOSEPH NADEAU TOOK THE LEAD AGAINST VOLINSKY, ASKING WHETHER THE CLAREMONT LAWYER INTENDED TO RETURN YEAR AFTER YEAR UNTIL THE LEGISLATURE DID WHATEVER THE TOWNS WANT.
We have a government of three branches and why should we sit here as a superlegislature? Isn't that what you're asking us to do, and isn't that the first question we have to answer?
BUT THE TWO JUSTICES WHO TOOK PART IN THE 1997 CLAREMONT DECISION WERE SKEPTICAL OF THE STATE'S ARGUMENT. JUSTICE JOHN BRODERICK SHARPLY QUESTIONED WHETHER THE LEGISLATURE HAS DONE ENOUGH. BRODERICK ASKED ATTORNEY GENERAL MCLAUGHLIN, IF THE STATE HAS DEFINED ADEQUACY, WHY COULDN'T HE SIMPLY POINT TO THE DEFINITION?
***14 00 brod I hear you saying it's in there somewhere, there are a lot of things in those regulationss// I can't tell you specifically what the localities have to do for an adequate education because it's a fact-intensive investigation. I find that rather amazing.
AND CHIEF JUSTICE DAVID BROCK APPEARED TO BRISTLE AT MCLAUGHLIN'S SUGGESTION THAT THE COURT DOESN'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ORDER THE LEGISLATURE TO DO MORE.
14 437 so if we decide against you on constitutional grounsd you wouldn't be in a position to recommend to your clients that they promptly comply?
MCLAUGHLIN QUICKLY REPLIED THAT IT'S UP TO THE COURT TO DECIDE ITS JURISDICTION. SPEAKING ON THE COURTHOUSE STEPS AFTERWARD, MCLAUGHLIN SAID HE WAS SATISFIED HE'D BEEN ABLE TO PRESENT HIS ARGUMENT. BUT STATE SENATOR CAROLINE MCCARLEY, A DEMOCRAT FROM ROCHESTER AND VICE CHAIR OF THE SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE, WONDERED WHETHER THE ATTORNEY GENERAL COULD HAVE PAINTED A FULLER PICTURE OF WHAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS ACCOMPLISHED.
006 45 I think the plan was to make the argument, I think the brief made the argument, I'm not sure I heard it expressed as well here as I would have liked.
FELLOW DEMOCRAT LOU D'ALLESANDRO OF MANCHESTER SAID MCLAUGHLIN DID A GREAT JOB. D'ALLESANDRO SPECULATED THAT THE THREE NEW JUDGES MAY SOFTEN THE COURT'S POSITION. HE SAID THEY SEEMED MORE INTERESTED IN HEARING ABOUT THE LEGISLATURE'S PROGRESS.
009 155 there's a split in the court. It was very clear to me. 009 209 // I think this is going to be a 3-2 decision one way or the other
MANY LAWMAKERS OF BOTH POLITICAL STRIPES WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE COURT DROP THE CLAREMONT CASE. SOME BELIEVE THE DECISION WAS AN ABUSE OF POWER; OTHERS FEEL THE LEGISLATURE IS NOW MAKING GOOD PROGRESS ON EDUCATION REFORM. BUT ONE DEMOCRAT SAID SHE CAN UNDERSTAND WHY THE COURT WOULD BE RELUCTANT TO DROP THE CASE. BECAUSE LAWMAKERS HAVE BEEN SLOW TO TACKLE THE ISSUE IN THE PAST, SHE SAID, THE COURT HAS HISTORICAL REASON NOT TO TRUST THE LEGISLATURE ON EDUCATION FUNDING. FOR NHPR NEWS I'M.
