[T]he Stowe and Elmore-Morristown school districts had their day in court on Monday. Lawyers for the towns argued the state erred when it decided to merge the two districts under Act 46.
The merger of the Elmore-Morristown and Stowe districts was one of the State Board of Education’s most contentious decisions under the controversial consolidation law. It was one of the rare instances in which the board voted to merge districts where the Secretary of Education had recommended against consolidation. And board members, who were themselves split on whether to merge the two districts, took three separate votes on the matter.
The Stowe and Elmore-Morristown districts’ court challenge to Act 46 represents one of three lawsuits against forced mergers. In one of those separate suits, Superior Court Judge Robert Mello has already issued two rulings dismissing constitutional arguments from plaintiff school districts. All three cases are being heard by Mello.
Many of those constitutional arguments overlap with claims brought by the Elmore-Morristown and Stowe districts, but attorneys for the plaintiffs on Monday focused mostly on procedural errors the State Board had allegedly made in deciding to merge the two districts.
William Clark, an attorney for Stowe and Elmore-Morristown, noted that board members had at times referred to incorrect enrollment numbers for the districts in their deliberations. And he argued that board members hadn’t done their due diligence and read the “alternative governance structure” proposals put forward by districts asking to remain independent. Instead, Clark said, board members simply relied on the analysis supplied by the Secretary of Education.
Clark read a quote from a State Board of Education meeting in which one board member, John Carroll, joked that reading the Stowe and Elmore-Morristown’s proposal showed “what a nerd” he was.
“A necessary implication of that, your honor, is that board members did not typically read alternative governance structure proposals. They simply read the Secretary’s recommendations and said ‘eh, thumbs up or thumbs down,’” he said.
Clark also argued that Board members had felt political pressure to merge the two districts. He noted instances in which board members had said that other communities resented the idea that Stowe, in particular, should get a pass.
“That’s what set this up. ‘Well, if all these other communities are going to have to go through it, then darn Stowe’s going to have to go through this process too’,” Clark said.
And Clark also argued that the Board had skipped a necessary step – elaborating why, exactly, it believed such a merger was “necessary” in order to meet the goals of the law.
“EMUU and Stowe have never disputed that merger is possible. What we’ve said is that it’s not necessary to meet the goals of the Act. That merger is actually going to be counter-productive to the goals of the Act,” he said.
A similar “necessity” argument was made – unsuccessfully – by plaintiffs in the case brought jointly by 33 school districts. But Clark appeared to suggest a key difference, and argued that the board needed to show that such a merger was necessary when they were acting against the secretary’s recommendations.
Assistant Attorney General Eleanor Spottswood, meanwhile, argued that State Board members had done their homework, and said there was “no evidence in the record” that other board members hadn’t read Stowe and Elmore-Morristown’s proposal.
As for political pressure, Spottswood said there was nothing “untoward” about the Board receiving public comment during deliberations. And she noted that political pressure had also come from the districts – against the merger.
The districts’ due process claims should be dismissed, she said, because the State Board is “quasi-legislative,” not “quasi-adjudicative.”
“So if the Board of Education relied upon erroneous information about a fundamentally important fact and was motivated in its decision by political considerations, there would be no remedy?” Mello asked.
Spottswood replied that there was – it just typically didn’t come from the judicial branch.
“In a quasi-legislative proceeding, courts have found that the remedy is really through the Legislature, and not the courts,” she said.
Clark countered later that the Legislature never made it clear in Act 46 that the State Board’s decision couldn’t be appealed in court, and that a decision by Mello to dismiss Stowe and Elmore-Morristown’s claims on those grounds would cut all lawsuits brought against the state to contest mergers “at the knees.”
“This is a case of immense public importance and public focus….” he said. “I think this court should be very hesitant to find no appellate jurisdiction.”
As for the argument that the board needed to show why a merger was “necessary,” Spottswood argued plaintiffs had flipped the law’s “standard on its head.” The board only needed to find that a merger was legally possible and that it advanced the goals of Act 46.
“If the board had wanted to approve an alternative structure, plaintiffs would have to show that the preferred structure was not the best means of advancing the goals of Act 46,” she said.
Both parties have asked Mello to rule before July 1, when new unified districts created by state fiat are set to become operational. A ruling could come in a few weeks.
