Governor sued over Prop. 98 funding 

With the support of the Education Coalition, state Superintendent Jack O’Connell and the California Teachers Association have filed suit against the governor for violating the constitution and Proposition 98 by underfunding schools by $3.1 billion over two years.

The lawsuit, filed Aug. 8 in Sacramento Superior Court, includes three parents and their children as plaintiffs. The suit names Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Finance Director Tom Campbell, and state Controller Steve Westly as defendants.

At issue in the case is the governor’s decision to – in O’Connell’s words – “ignore” his agreement with the education community, signed into law last year, to fund K-14 education at the Proposition 98 level minus $2 billion. In December 2003, the Education Coalition agreed to sacrifice the $2 billion in 2004-05 (with continued lower funding) to help balance a large state budget deficit.

Because state revenues came in higher than expected, however, schools were entitled to an additional $1.8 billion under Proposition 98 for 2004-05, which would boost the 2005-06 guarantee by $1.3 billion. In those two years, K-14 funding should have been appropriated at $3.1 billion more than it was. That is the basis of the lawsuit.

“This lawsuit signifies that the education community will not stand for the unconstitutional provisions in this year’s budget,” said CSBA Executive Director Scott P. Plotkin. “CSBA is pleased to see our education colleagues take the initiative on this lawsuit. We applaud and support their efforts.”

CTA officials, the parents and Superintendent O’Connell announced the lawsuit at a Sacramento school Aug. 9.

“Let me be clear: the governor hasn’t just broken a promise, he’s broken the law,” said CTA Vice President David Sanchez. “The governor likes to talk about cutting up the state’s credit card. But in my family we know that cutting up the plastic doesn’t mean that the debt goes away.”

The suit asks for a court order that the state has violated its constitution and Proposition 98. It will then be up to the state to figure out a way to pay schools the money owed, as it did when it lost a case over Proposition 98 funding a decade ago in CTA v. Gould, said plaintiffs’ attorney Karen Getman. The suit does not name the Legislature, though its members approved the budget, said Getman, because it was the governor who first requested the agreement to lower education funding, it was the governor who requested the Legislature enact a law promising that education funding would not fall more than $2 billion below the Proposition 98 level, and it was the governor who decided not to fund education at the level agreed and stated in Chapter 213, the 2004 California law that enacted the agreement.

“In all of my years up here in Sacramento, I have never seen an agreement so blatantly ignored and a promise so almost gleefully broken,” said O’Connell.

The governor has “borrowed” money from city, county and transportation budgets and fully paid it back, but the missing $3.1 billion for education is under no such repayment schedule, O’Connell said.

While California schoolchildren and their importance to the future should be the state’s No. 1 priority, said CSBA President Dr. Kerry Clegg, “their standing during the last several state budgets has signified the lack of commitment toward our schools. We commend the actions of Superintendent O’Connell and CTA to honor the will of the people who supported the passage of Proposition 98 and hold the administration accountable.”