The Courts' Opinion in Young v. Williams

by Richard Day

On February 13th, Franklin County Circuit Court Judge Thomas Wingate issued an order granting summary judgment to the legislative defendants in the school funding case, Young v. Williams. Summary judgment is the court’s equivalent to a blocked dunk shot; where the case is thrown out of court without a trial because “it appears impossible” for the Council for Better Education “to produce evidence at trial which would effect a favorable judgment.”

Swat; into the cheap seats.

Given the importance of this case to Kentucky’s children and our future economy, I was shocked by the decision. Certain inadequacies are so glaring that I assumed summary judgment wasn’t even a possibility. I spent a couple of weeks brooding before driving to Frankfort over spring break to review the case file; and it’s a big honker. It took the clerk three trips to deliver the arm loads of evidence, depositions and motions – and cost me $60 to photocopy a small fraction of the files. But the biggest shock was yet to come.

Judge Wingate was appointed to the Franklin County circuit bench by Governor Ernie Fletcher last June as former Judge William Graham was retiring. There has been more than a little speculation that certain executives at the state and federal level are making efforts to stack the courts with restrained jurists who may fail to act at times when they should redirect the other branches of government; and I’m just skeptical enough to believe it could be true. So, I was ready for a fight. But as I scoured the case file I came to a surprising conclusion. As much as I hate to say it, I think Wingate’s summary judgment was constitutionally correct. This is a big deal because the action effectively halted the Council for Better Education, a collection of 164 Kentucky school districts, in their effort to challenge the adequacy of the present school system to meet its legislated goals – a cause I fully support.

When former Governor and federal Judge Bert Combs argued Rose v. Council for Better Education before the Kentucky Supreme Court, he was very careful to tip-toe around any suggestion of a legislative remedy. The Council’s legal theory was that no district in the state was over-funded. As Co-counsel Debra Dawahare argued, “Possibly, as compared to Connecticut, we're all a mess.” But they stopped short of suggesting what should be done about it.

Combs wanted the court to direct the legislature to exercise their authority and proceed “as far as they can” to enact an efficient system of public schools. How far is that? Combs told the court, that they could say to the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate, “You can exercise your authority to propose legislation that is constitutional.” That would leave them knowing what the law is, and the governor would know, and the General Assembly would know. Combs noted that nowhere in the original circuit court ruling did Judge Raymond Corns’ direct the General Assembly to pass any particular laws, or derive school funding from any particular source, or to adopt any particular system. The circuit court went as far as it could go.

Apparently in the Young case, specific remedies were suggested that violated the “Constitutional bar” and would render the court powerless to enforce its own ruling. Expert witnesses and a handful of studies confirmed the present inadequacies. But when the Council asked the court to direct the legislature to use a “specific, systematic method to quantify the amount of money necessary to provide an adequate system of common schools” they went over the line. Judge Wingate responded with a swat; don’t bring that specific remedy into my house.

House Speaker Jody Richards told the Herald-Leader that Wingate’s ruling, “…vindicates our position that we have made an attempt to adequately fund education.” Of course, the ruling does no such thing. The constitution requires more than an attempt from the legislature. Wingate also rejected claims of sovereign immunity advanced by Richards and Senate President David Williams, and their request that the court “dismiss the legislative defendants” was flatly denied. Don’t bring that legislative immunity stuff into my house either.

Wingate’s rejection of the Council’s legal theory in Young was, consistent with Rose, a stark refusal to step “onto the slippery slope by stipulating the manner by which the General Assembly must carry out its responsibilities.” Because of this, it’s hard to see how a motion for reconsideration, or an appeal of the present case, can win. It looks like the only viable option for the Council for Better Education is the initiation of a new action - and I hope they get to work on that right away. Wingate’s ruling will only reinforce the legislature’s natural tendency maintain the status quo.