Court Affirms State’s Duty to Rescue School Districts

SAN FRANCISCO — The California Supreme Court held unanimously Thursday that state officials have a broad constitutional duty to intervene in a local school district faced with insolvency to ensure that its students receive the same basic education as other pupils in the state.

In a separate vote of 4 to 3, however, the court held that judges lack power to order a state-funded bailout of financially pressed districts unless money has been appropriated for that purpose by the Legislature.

The court, ruling in a far-reaching test of governmental authority, upheld a 1991 decision by Contra Costa County Superior Court Judge Ellen James that authorized state officials to take over the near-bankrupt Richmond Unified School District and prevent it from closing its doors to 31,500 students six weeks before the term was to end.

Authorities said it appeared that the decision would have no immediate impact on the financially troubled Los Angeles Unified School District. A Superior Court judge in November refused to hear a challenge to a plan to cut teacher salaries to stave off insolvency, saying a state labor relations board must first hear the case. Under a state law that took effect last January, the Los Angeles County Office of Education is working with the district and has threatened to take it over if the pay cuts do not go through.

Justice Marvin R. Baxter, writing the majority opinion, rejected contentions by Gov. Pete Wilson that the state could refuse to intervene in order to preserve local autonomy and local accountability for budgetary mismanagement that led to the crisis.

Baxter said the state’s constitutional responsibility did not end by merely assuring equal state aid to districts, rich and poor. Where a school shutdown would cause “an extreme and unprecedented disparity,” he wrote, the state has a duty “to protect district students against loss of their right to basic educational equality.”

But the court went on to say that Judge James had improperly authorized the state to make Richmond a $19-million emergency loan from state education funds that were not appropriated for that purpose. Giving judges such authority would upset the constitutional balance of power between the courts and the legislative and executive branches of government, the justices said.

In dissent, Justice Joyce L. Kennard, joined by Justice Stanley Mosk, warned that the majority had declared a fundamental right to education but effectively prevented judges from enforcing it. In that instance, Kennard said, “the doors to the schoolhouse will close.”

Chief Justice Malcolm M. Lucas issued a separate dissent, saying it was not necessary at this point to decide the validity of the funding used to bail out the district.

In reply to Kennard’s concerns, the court majority noted that its decision would not rescind the state loan to the Richmond district, which is beginning to pay the money back.

The justices also cited a law passed in the wake of the Richmond crisis that, starting last Jan. 1, gave county and state authorities more power to review district budgets and intervene to help a district facing bankruptcy bring its budget into balance.

The court said it assumed that if a crisis did arise, the Legislature and the governor would meet their constitutional responsibility to “protect basic educational equality.”

Supporters of state intervention praised aspects of Thursday’s decision that strengthened the constitutional obligation of the state to assure basic educational equality.

“This is a very important ruling,” said state Supt. of Public Instruction Bill Honig. “It said that the right to an equal education is a primary right for children and that the school can’t be shut down early and deprive students of that right.”

The recent law permitting county and state intervention, Honig added, will help ensure that districts do not reach the crisis Richmond faced.

Arturo J. Gonzalez of San Francisco, attorney for Thomas K. Butt and other Richmond parents who sued to keep the schools open, expressed concern over the restrictions on judicially ordered funding but hailed strengthened protections for equal education. “Overall, I’m happy,” he said.

Maureen G. DiMarco, the governor’s secretary for education and child development, welcomed the restrictions on judicially ordered funding. “There was never any conflict in this case over the fact that the children come first,” said DiMarco. “But now the court has clarified that judges have no independent authority to appropriate money without approval of the governor and the people’s elected representatives.”

A spokeswoman for Wilson, Kassy Perry, added: “From the Administration’s view, this was not a question of winning or losing, but a welcome clarification of roles: Who is to allocate funds and who is not.”

The case arose when the Richmond district ran out of money in April, 1991, after squandering millions of dollars on a costly experimental education project.

The district was faced with closing its 55 schools six weeks before the end of the school year. But in the first ruling of its kind, Judge James held that the state was obligated to intervene and “by whatever means” assure that students could finish out the year.

With James’ approval, Honig and state Controller Gray Davis said they would comply with the order by arranging a $19-million loan of state funds to the district.

Gov. Wilson, saying the decision would set a dangerous precedent for local districts victimized by their own fiscal mismanagement, asked the high court to block the loan. The justices refused to halt it, but agreed to resolve the far-reaching issues the case raised.

In other actions Thursday, the court agreed to decide whether a drug manufacturer can be sued for failing to include a warning in Spanish, along with English, that its aspirin could have harmful side effects. It also unanimously upheld the death sentence of Rodney James Alcala, 47, convicted of the 1979 murder of 12-year-old Robin Samsoe of Huntington Beach.