By Gongwer Staff
Posted: December 2, 2013 9:53 AM

December 2, 2013

The Ohio Supreme Court, in its fourth DeRolph decision on December 11, 2002, decreed in paragraph 5, "To date, the principal legislative response to DeRolph I and DeRolph II has been to increase funding, which has benefited many schoolchildren. However, the General Assembly has not focused on the core constitutional directive of DeRolph I: 'a complete systematic overhaul' of the school-funding system. Id. 78 Ohio St.3d at 212, 677 N.E.2d 733. Today we reiterate that that is what is needed, not further nibbling at the edges. Accordingly, we direct the General Assembly to enact a school-funding scheme that is thorough and efficient, as explained in DeRolph I, DeRolph II, and the accompanying concurrences." Hence the Court again ruled the school funding system unconstitutional.

Even though the legislature had a bad track record for compliance with previous court orders in DeRolph, the Court released jurisdiction of the case in the DeRolph IV decision. The probable reason for the release of jurisdiction was that a change in membership of the Court was decided by the November 2002 election. The justices comprising the majority in the fourth DeRolph decision, were concerned that continued Court jurisdiction by the "new" Court would cause the unraveling of previous DeRolph decisions. Of particular concern was that Maureen O'Connor was replacing a justice who had sided with the majority in DeRolph I, II and IV.

Earlier this year, the current Chief Justice, Maureen O'Connor, was quoted in a news article as saying that she didn't believe the state's school funding system has changed since it was found unconstitutional in 2002. That statement, no doubt, caused heartburn to some state officials who have quietly, and in some cases blatantly, ignored the Court's decisions in DeRolph.

In a November 24 Columbus Dispatch column by Darrel Rowland, Justice Paul E. Pfeifer, in response to O'Connor's earlier pronouncement, is quoted, "It was a jaw dropper, because I said, 'Damn, I guess we guessed wrong.'" Possibly Justice O'Conner would have favored "the complete systematic overhaul" of the school funding system when first seated on the Court in 2003.

Perhaps it is time to once again challenge the constitutionality of school funding in Ohio. It is absolutely clear that the school funding system has not undergone a complete systematic overhaul, i.e. less dependence on property tax in the school funding formula and a formula based on the needs of students and the components of a high quality education. Typically, Ohioans are shocked when they learn that their elected officials continue to snub the Court's order to reduce reliance on property tax and to fix the system.

The current state budget (HB 59) further exacerbates the property tax issue by shifting the overall school funding burden toward property taxes and then compounding the shift by the elimination of the 12 ½ % state payment of property tax on new levies.

William Phillis

Ohio E & A