School Districts Argue State’S Solution Flawed Judge’S Ruling On Case Expected In One To Three Months

If Idaho tries to fix its deteriorating schoolhouses by shifting money away from academics, the state will run up against the same constitutional problem it faces for letting its buildings go.

That’s the argument a group of school districts makes in new documents filed in their years-long legal battle against the state over the condition of Idaho’s school buildings.

The case centers on the state Constitution’s requirement that the Legislature provide for a thorough education for Idaho students. That requirement has been interpreted by the courts as one that ensures quality education as well as classrooms that provide a “safe environment conducive to learning.”

Laws passed by this year’s Legislature offer districts two new types of loans to fix critical safety problems in schoolhouses, but they must be paid back with interest. A third new law allows the state to shut down unsafe schools.

Robert Huntley, the former Supreme Court justice who’s representing the school districts, called the new laws “a sham” because they provide no new money to fix the building problems. Instead, districts would have to shift money from education to repairs or loan payments, he said.

“There is absolutely no evidence in the record that the school districts which are in financial distress can take the funds from monies that are now being used to provide a thorough education, and still provide the academic requirements needed,” Huntley argued.

But attorneys for the state say their analysis shows all but two of the state’s districts have enough money to fix critical safety problems - they’re just spending it on other things.

“In a sense, he (Huntley) is correct - if you have devoted your resources to going far beyond the minimums in some areas, you will have to cut back your educational program in some areas,” said Michael Gilmore, the deputy attorney general handling the case for the state. “But we believe a school district has an obligation to meet all the minimums before they start going above the minimums.”

That means meeting minimum standards for buildings as well as academics, Gilmore said.

The legal briefs filed by the two sides in the past week complete the steps necessary before 4th District Judge Deborah Bail can rule on the case. The judge may still hold one more hearing on an issue regarding seismic safety at an American Falls high school, which the two sides have disputed.

A ruling on the suit is likely in one to three months, but it’s also likely to then be appealed to the state Supreme Court. The way Idaho pays for school buildings has become a hot issue in the Legislature in recent years, as districts that can’t get construction bond issues passed pushed for relief, while others opposed any change to Idaho’s long-standing system.

That system leaves the full responsibility for school construction to local property taxpayers, who must vote by a two-thirds majority to increase their taxes. As the only state with both the two-thirds rule and no state funds backing up the local investment, Idaho is the toughest state in the nation in which to build a school.

In other states facing similar lawsuits, courts are increasingly ordering states to pay to build schools, even where that responsibility was historically left to local school districts.

As part of Idaho’s case, Judge Bail has already issued an order to test Silver Valley schools for lead, in response to trial testimony this spring that students’ health could be threatened.

Huntley said Wednesday that while various agencies haggle over how to pay for testing, he’s contacted an engineering firm and may try to raise private funds for the tests.

Testimony in the lawsuit highlighted conditions that both sides agreed are serious safety problems in some Idaho schools. They include crumbling masonry, inadequate fire alarm systems, rickety bleachers, dead-end corridors and unsafe wiring.

But the state argued that the problems are isolated and don’t show an overall problem with Idaho’s funding system.

Huntley disagreed, calling that a “cop-out.”

“The Legislature has a constitutionally mandated duty to provide a system which works,” he said. “The system as established by the Legislature is not working for all of the students.”

In his legal arguments, Huntley said the court’s ruling will be significant. “This court has an opportunity to leave a legacy of having done as much or more for the schoolchildren of Idaho, present and future, as any other single individual, public or private, in the history of the state.”