|
Columbia
Falls, et al, Plaintiffs v. The State of
Montana
Cause BDV-2002-528
Summary of the September/October Prehearing and October 20 Closing Arguments: Curt Nichols. Consultant for the
Montana Taxpayers Association
Closing Arguments - October 20, 2008
coming soon!
Prehearing
Day 1 – Monday, Sept. 22
Opening statements were made by the plaintiff, MREA and the state, each hitting the high points of their recommended conclusions. MREA agreed with Molloy.
Plaintiff's say:
- 2009 increase (2.7%) is inadequate.
- while increases in 2006-2008 provided improvement they did not make up for 8 years of underfunding
- problem of special education competing for funds from regular students not fixed
- teacher salaries have improved but 2009 is a set back
- state share is falling again- more districts budgeting at the max
State says:
- quality education is provided
- we have a structurally reformed formula
- 125 teachers have been added while ANB has fallen
- student achievement is up
- schools have experienced large applicant pools for teachers and administrators
- not all problems are state funding issues
- inflation experienced in 2009 has not been available to the legislature to address
- deference should be given to the state
Today's testimony came from Madalyn Quinlan, Kirk Miller and Jack Copps. Madalyn gave an overview of how school funding works and responded to questions from Molloy and Ali. Molloy generally used Madalyn to document points about state share, maximum budgets and lack of basis for formula elements both HB667 and 05 special session additions. Ali used Madalyn to make point that you do not need a formula factor for each item in the definition of a quality education and that the current formula could work.
Kirk Miller described the QSIC process and attributed the failure to get passage of a formula to the committee limiting consideration to what we could "afford" rather than what we "need". He stated a 30% or $300 million increase is needed as documented by three studies (later on cross examination the state rebutted this by citing that only the professional judgment studies indicated that level). He described his experience at
Bozeman citing the reductions he was forced to make and illustrating via the example of having to choose between Latin - AP biology - Symphonic Band which
Bozeman parents had come to expect all would be available. When asked if we are doing better than when this first went to trial he said "yes, resources are better targeted to research based instruction" but that funding was worse.
Jack Copps described
Billings' experience with school funding generally saying it was inadequate. On cross examination Ali challenged him on: his decisions about FY09 funding when he knew what it would be in FY07 after the legislature, his statement that
Billings had accreditation issues due to class size (which it did not) and MQEC's "Montana Promise" statements similarity to the enacted funding plan.
Day 2 – Tuesday, Sept. 23
The plaintiff case continued today with Bruce Messenger, Wade Johnson (Cut Bank Superintendent), John Myers, Steve Johnson (
Bozeman) and John McNeil. The line of argument continued the themes set previously except for Myers.
Each district witness discussed their school's experience and their work with QSIC. The repeated lines are:
- current district budget is at, close to, or over maximum
- currently provide a quality education
- have a budget shortfall in 2009
- while this shortfall could be foreseen various reasons are cited for action not being effective
- current funding formula is inadequate
- funding school at the 80% level would not allow district to meet accreditation standards
- QSIC formula was not based on "needs"
- formula components added in 2005 special session did not come from QSIC study
- formula components added in 2005 special session help but are too small and not inflated
- formula components added in 2005 special session are not "cost based"
- current funding formula is not "cost based"
The state generally illustrated through questions the improvements (added staff, salary increases, etc) the district has experienced under the actions taken in the 2005 special session and the 2007 regular session. The state did good at pointing out misstatements or inconsistencies in witness testimony.
Myers charged that the Woods/Smith study failed to cost out education "needs". His review of the current funding formula finds the state has not addressed the court's requirement to develop a cost based formula and that funding is inadequate. He finds the 4 added components leave the core funding nearly identical to the previous formula. Special education doesn't address the disproportionate needs of some districts. He observed that change generally results in the state share rising but stated state share is not a good measure.
Cross examination of Myers brought out that the special education funding mechanism is not bad - just underfunded in his opinion. MQEC's "Montana Promise" was not cost based. Myers' group increased the cost of adequacy to over $600 million in their 2007 study, substantially above the earlier result. Myers has never testified in any state that school funding is adequate. Myers did not attend QSIC meetings, talk with governor's staff or visit
Montana schools since funding has increased.
Day 3 – Wednesday, Sept. 24
Day three saw the wrap-up of the plaintiff witnesses with Lance Melton and the beginning of the state witnesses with David Ewer. Melton's testimony was similar to the previous plaintiff points with some additional emphasis on levy passage rates. Ewer described how he made public schools a priority for funding after the Schweitzer administration took office and immediately received the Sherlock ruling. In the '05 regular session he set aside 1/2 of ongoing discretionary money for schools and looked to the court findings to help with budget allocations. In this session $88 million ongoing was added to schools.
He described the QSIC process and results citing his concern that the resulting 9 component formula was too complex. The executive began to develop a back up plan in November 2005. A letter from Molloy to Petesch stating that the "state can meet its obligations by adding components to the existing formula" was discussed. Ewer stated the executive proposal to the special session took "core ideas" from QSIC in the development of the new components though not using specific calculations or amounts.
Ewer described the '07 session as a further expansion of public school support with full day kindergarten, additional OTO for facilities maintenance and the reserve for facilities inventory. He summarized the actions for schools since '04 as: $140 million ongoing, significant OTO, passage of a definition of "quality". He emphasized that the $ did not drive the budget but the needs drove the budget and explained that, in the hierarchy of budgeting, schools were high.
In cross examination Ewer had to admit that he had done no costing out or formal analysis in preparing the funding additions and new components. Issue was also raised with statements that the amounts were based on "what the state could afford"
Day 4 – Thursday Sept 25
It's noon on day 4 and the state is behind schedule on its presentation. Nancy Hall was up all morning and will be cross examined this afternoon. Then Jan Lombardi, Jim Standaert, Madalyn Quinlan and Al McMillan. The state experts are up tomorrow. It will be tight to fit it all in by Friday at 5.
Day 5 – Friday Sept. 26
They did not finish and will go back at it 1:30 PM Monday. The state experts testified but the plaintiffs did not finish cross examination of Manwaring. My understanding is they will do closing statements on Monday and the remaining cross examination of Manwaring will be by conference call at a later day.
Day 6, Monday Sept. 29
Plaintiffs confirmed with judge that cross and recross of Manwaring will be completed by conference call. Plaintiffs put Lance Melton back on the stand as a rebuttal witness to some of the state’s witnesses.
|
