The Connecticut Supreme Court plans to issue its ruling on the Connecticut Coalition for Justice in Education Funding, Inc. v. Rell case in a few minutes. We know from the website that there are at least three opinions in the majority and two dissenters. But we don't yet know what it says.
The case could mean a drastic overhaul in school funding in Connecticut.
Here's the story about why Bristol joined the case in 2008.
*******
Copyright 2010. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com
8 comments:
More social welfare "justice"? As if this state isn't being driven into the ground hard enough, it's being accelerated.
Here is a link to the opinion by Justice Norcott: http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR295/295CR163.pdf .
Essentially his opinion states that the CT Constitution guarantees not only an education, but an education that will allow students to attain productive employment or go on to higher education.
With such a split in the Court on this issue, it will be interesting to see what effect the decision will have going forward.
I attended the first half hour of the press conference before having to leave to attend another meeting in Bristol. The theme was that the justices expanded what is required by the state under our constitution. Not only is a "free and public" education required but a "suitable and adequate" education must be provided. I believe the hope is that the coalition would not have to use the courts to enforce that right but that the legislature will accept its responsibility. Both co-chairs Gaffey and Fleishman (sp) were in attendance and spoke on behalf of the ruling and In support of the majority opinion.
so does this mean my property taxes are going to go down?
Chris,
After reading through some of the opinions last night, that was my sense as well.
My concerns about the plurality notwithstanding (in so far as its precedential effect), if the co-chairs are on board with the decision, that could be enough for enforcement.
10:56
Not in Bristol!
Colin; while the cochairs are on board, the economic reality is that it would be extremely painful for the state to fund education in an appropriate manner. It will be difficult for the next Governor to want to allocate more money to education when we can't even address the current and future structural deficits. It will probably end up much like the Sheff decision wherby the plaintiffs will go back to court and try and enforce this right. There is some precedent in other states like NY, NJ and NH so hopefully we won't leave it to judicial decision. There has been a long history of federal government and state government passing mandates but not providing the necessary funding so it seems difficult to be too optimistic. But I think the plaintiffs believe this is a beginning. Too bad you didn't go to Yale because this case was argued by students. You could have been one of them!
Post a Comment