Arizona Judge Orders State to Return Money Diverted from School Facilities

On October 17, 2002, Judge Edward Burke of Maricopa County Superior Court in Arizona ruled that state legislators had illegally used $90 million earmarked for school facilities funding to balance the budget. He gave the legislature until June 30, 2003 to return the money. The state, which already has a $500 million deficit, is expected to appeal, and Governor Jane Dee Hull said that the current facilities formula is "inflated."

In response to Roosevelt Elementary School District No. 66 v. Bishop (1994), in which the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that the state's school finance formula did not provide enough money for the facilities and equipment needed to enable students to reach high standards, Arizona created a new facilities funding system and formula. That system was designed to provide schools with sufficient facilities funding every year, but, Judge Burke ruled, the state violated its own new formula. Instead of the $128 million for facilities that the formula required, the state legislature authorized only $30 million for school repairs. Burke thus declared the $90 million diversion unconstitutional. Acknowledging the state's budget shortfall, Judge Burke nonetheless said that the state constitution mandates "a general and uniform" system of schools, and that facilities cuts have a disproportionate effect on smaller, rural school districts.

Tim Hogan at the Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest, attorney for the plaintiff school districts, said that if the money is not returned, he will ask the judge to block distribution of state aid to schools, which would effectively close them down. This is the only way, he claims, for the court to enforce its decision. Administrators in Tucson, Mesa, and Tempe are challenging the state's claim that they have enough money even without the diverted $90 million. While the state is providing funds through one-shot appropriations for major problems, the repairing and upgrading of roofing, fire alarms, and lighting, sprinkler, and air-conditioning systems is being delayed. This means that more money will have to be spent in the long run, as equipment that could be repaired breaks and must be replaced at a higher cost.

Prepared October 29, 2002