State v. Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Alaska (2016)

7/25/2019 State v. Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Alaska (2016)

1/44

Notice: This opinion is subject to correction before publication in the PACIFICREPORTER.

Readers are requested to bring errors to the attention of the Clerk of the Appellate Courts,

303 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, phone (907) 264-0608, fax (907) 264-0878, email

[email protected].

THESUPREMECOURTOFTHESTATEOFALASKA

STATEOFALASKA,MICHAEL HANLEY,COMMISSIONEROFALASKADEPARTMENTOFEDUCATIONANDEARLYDEVELOPMENT,inhisofficialcapacity

Appellantsand

Cross-Appellees,

v.

KETCHIKANGATEWAYBOROUGH,AGNESMORAN,anindividual,onherownbehalfandonbehalfofherson,JOHNCOSS,aminor,JOHNHARRINGTON,anindividual,and

DAVIDSPOKELY,anindividual,

AppelleesandCross-Appellants.

) ) SupremeCourtNos.S-15811/15841

SuperiorCourtNo.1KE-14-00016CI

OPINION

No.7075January8,2016

) )

,) ))

)))))))))

)) ) ) )

AppealfromtheSuperiorCourtoftheStateofAlaska, FirstJudicialDistrict,Ketchikan,WilliamB.Carey,Judge.

Appearances: Kathryn R. Vogel, Rebecca Hattan, and

Margaret Paton-Walsh, Assistant Attorneys General,Anchorage,andCraig W.Richards, Attorney General,Juneau,forAppellants/Cross-Appellees.LouisianaW.Cutler and Jennifer M. Coughlin, K&L Gates, LLP,Anchorage, for Appellees/Cross-Appellants, and ScottBrandt-Erichsen,KetchikanGatewayBorough,Ketchikan,for Appellee/Cross-Appellant Ketchikan Gateway
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/44

Borough. William D. Falsey and John Sedor, Sedor,Wendlandt,Evans&Filippi,LLCandSaulR.Friedman,Jermain,Dunnagan&Owens,P.C.,Anchorage,forAmiciCuriae Association of Alaska School Boards, AlaskaCouncil of School Administrators and AlaskaSuperintendents Association. Howard S. Trickey,MatthewSingerandRobertMisulich,Holland&KnightLLP, Anchorage, for Amicus Curiae Citizens for theEducationalAdvancement of Alaskas Children. KimDunn,LandyeBennettBlumsteinLLP,Anchorage,forAmicusCuriaeNEA-Alaska. A.ReneBroker,BoroughAttorney,Fairbanks,forAmicusCuriaeFairbanksNorthStarBorough.

Before: Stowers, Chief Justice,Winfree, Maassen, andBolger,Justices.[Fabe,Justice,notparticipating.]

BOLGER,Justice. STOWERS,ChiefJustice,andWINFREE,Justice,concurring.

I. INTRODUCTION

TheStateslocalschoolfundingformularequiresalocalgovernmentto

makeacontributiontofunditslocalschooldistrict. Thesuperiorcourtheldthatthis

requiredlocalcontributionisanunconstitutionaldedicationofastatetaxorlicense.

Buttheminutesoftheconstitutionalconventionandthehistoricalcontextofthose

proceedingssuggestthatthedelegatesintendedthatlocalcommunitiesandtheState

wouldshareresponsibilityfortheirlocalschools. Andthoseproceedingsalsoindicate

thatthedelegatesdidnotintendforstate-localcooperativeprogramsliketheschool

funding formula to be included in the term state tax or license. These factors

distinguishthiscasefrompreviouscaseswherewefoundthatstatefundingmechanisms

-2- 7075


3/44

violatedthededicatedfundsclause. Wethereforeholdthattheexistingfundingformula

doesnotviolatetheconstitution,andwereversethesuperiorcourtsgrantofsummary

judgment.

II. FACTSANDPROCEEDINGS

A. SchoolFundingFormula

Article VII, section 1 of the Alaska Constitution requires the state

legislaturetoestablishandmaintainasystemofpublicschoolsopentoallchildrenin

thestate.1 Tofulfillthisconstitutionalmandate,thelegislaturehasdefinedthreetypes

ofschool districts according towhere the district is located: cityschooldistricts,

boroughschooldistricts,andregionaleducationattendanceareas.2 [E]achorganized

boroughisaboroughschooldistrict;3 aboroughmustestablish[],maintain[],and

operate[]asystemofpublic schoolsonanareawidebasis.4 Localschoolboards

manageandcontroltheseschooldistrictsunderauthoritydelegatedbyAS14.12.020.

Thisstatuterequireslocalboroughandcitygovernmentstoraisemoneyfromlocal

sourcestomaintainandoperatetheirlocalschools. 5

1 AlaskaConst.art.VII,1(ThelegislatureshallbygenerallawestablishandmaintainasystemofpublicschoolsopentoallchildrenoftheState,andmay

provideforotherpubliceducationalinstitutions.).

2 AS14.12.010.Cityschooldistrictsarethoselocatedwithinahome-ruleareaorcitybutoutsideanorganizedborough.Id.Boroughschooldistrictsarethoselocatedinorganizedboroughs.Id. Regionaleducationattendanceareasarethoselocatedoutsideorganizedcity,home-rule,orboroughboundaries. Id.

3 AS14.12.010(2).

4 AS29.35.160(a).

5 AS14.12.020(c)(Theboroughassemblyforaboroughschooldistrict,andthecitycouncilforacityschooldistrict,shallprovidethemoneythatmustberaised

(continued...)

-3- 7075


4/44

Thelocalschoolfundingformulabeginswiththeconceptofbasicneed.

Thisconceptisintendedtoequalizedistrictsbyprovidingthemwithneededresources,

takingintoaccountdifferencesamongdistricts.6 Astatutoryformuladeterminesa

districts basicneed basedon two variables: the districts adjustedaveragedaily

membershipandthestatewidebasestudentallocation.7 Thedistrictsadjustedaverage

dailymembershipaccountsforseveralmetricssuchasenrollment,schoolsize,relative

costsinthedistrict, thenumberofstudentswithspecialneeds,and thenumberof

correspondencestudents.8 Thebasestudentallocationisaper-studentallowancesetby

astatutethatthelegislatureperiodicallyrevisits. 9

(...continued)fromlocalsourcestomaintainandoperatethedistrict.). Bycontrast,thelegislaturefundsdistrictslocatedintheregionaleducationalattendanceareas,whichlacktaxingauthority.Id. (Thelegislatureshallprovidethestatemoneynecessarytomaintainand

operatetheregionaleducationalattendanceareas.);see AlaskaConst.art.X,2(TheStatemaydelegatetaxingpowerstoorganizedboroughsandcitiesonly.);Matanuska-Susitna Borough Sch. Dist. v. State,931P.2d391,399-400(Alaska1997)(statingthattaxingpowerexplains,inpart,whythelegislaturetreatsdistrictsdifferently).

6 ALASKA DEPT OF EDUC.&EARLY DEV.,ALASKAS PUBLIC SCHOOLFUNDINGFORMULA:AREPORTTOTHEALASKASTATELEGISLATURE8(2001).

7 AS14.17.410(b)(1).

8

AS14.17.410(b)(1)(A)(D);AS14.17.420(a).9 AS14.17.470;see e.g.,ch.9,810,SLA2008(settingtheamountat

$5,480for2008,$5,580for2009,and$5,680for2010);ch.41,7,SLA2006(settingtheamountat$5,380for2006).AsofNovember2015,theper-studentallowanceis$5,830.AS14.17.470.

-4- 7075


5/44


6/44

citytocontributemorethan45percentofadistrictsbasicneedfortheprecedingfiscal

year.17 Acityorboroughschooldistrictalsomaymakeavoluntarycontribution,but

astatutorycappreventsalocalcommunityfromcontributingmorethanthegreaterof

theequivalentofatwomilltaxlevyonthefullandtruevalueofthetaxablerealand

personalpropertyinthedistrictor23percentofthetotalofthedistrictsbasicneed

forthefiscalyear.18 Thus,underthecurrentframework,organizedboroughsandcities

worktogetherwiththeStatetosupportpublicschools.

B. PriorProceedings

KetchikanGatewayBoroughisanorganizedboroughthatmustannually

contributetofunditsschoolsunderAS14.12.020. 19Therequiredpayment,setbythe

schoolfundingformula,20supportstheKetchikanGatewayBoroughSchoolDistrict.In

2013, the districts basic need for the upcoming 2014 fiscal year was almost

$26million; therequiredlocal contributionwasabout$4.2million.ThoughtheBorough

contributedthisamountunderprotest,itvoluntarilycontributedanadditional$3.8

million. Aftercontributingthefunds,theBoroughbroughtsuitagainsttheState,asking

thesuperiorcourt, first, todeclare the requiredlocal contributionunconstitutional;

second,toenjointheStatefromrequiringtheBoroughtocomplywiththestatute;and,

17 AS14.17.410(b)(2).

18 AS14.17.410(c)(1)(2).

19 AS14.12.020(c)(Theboroughassemblyforaboroughschooldistrict...shallprovidethemoneythatmustberaisedfromlocalsourcestomaintainandoperatethedistrict.).KetchikanGatewayBoroughincorporatedasasecond-class

boroughonSeptember13,1963.

KetchikanGatewayBorough,Alaska,Code01.05.040(2015).

20 See AS14.17.410(b)(2)([T]herequiredlocalcontributionofacityorboroughschooldistrictistheequivalentofa2.65milltaxlevyonthefullandtruevalueofthetaxablerealandpersonalpropertyinthedistrict....).

-6- 7075


7/44

third,todirecttheStatetorefunditsprotested$4.2millionpayment.Bothpartiesmoved

forsummaryjudgment.

ThesuperiorcourtpartiallygrantedtheBoroughsmotion. Itagreedwith

theBoroughthattherequiredlocalcontributionviolatedthededicatedfundsclause

underarticleIX,section7ofthestateconstitution.Thededicatedfundsclauseprovides:

Theproceedsofanystatetaxorlicenseshallnotbededicatedtoanyspecialpurpose,exceptasprovidedinsection15ofthisarticleorwhenrequiredbythefederalgovernmentforstateparticipationinfederalprograms. Thisprovisionshallnotprohibitthecontinuanceofanydedicationforspecial

purposesexistinguponthedateofratificationofthissectionbythepeopleofAlaska.[21]

Thesuperiorcourtconcludedthatthe requiredlocalcontributionconstitutedtheproceeds

ofastatetaxorlicense;thatthelocalcontributionstatuteearmarkedthosefundsfora

specificpurposeandpreventedthelegislaturefromusingthefundsinanyothermanner;

and that the required local contribution was not exempt from the constitutional

prohibitionagainstdedicatedfunds.

Thesuperior courtdeniedsummary judgmenton theBoroughsother

claims. Itconcludedthatthelocalcontributiondidnotviolatetheappropriationsor

governorsvetoclausesandthatequitydidnotrequiretheStatetorefundthelocal

contributiontotheBoroughforthe2014fiscalyear.

Theappropriationsclauseunderarticle IX, section13provides: No

moneyshallbewithdrawnfromthetreasuryexceptinaccordancewithappropriations

madebylaw. Noobligationforthepaymentofmoneyshallbeincurredexceptas

authorizedbylaw. Unobligatedappropriationsoutstandingattheendoftheperiodof

AlaskaConst.art.IX,7.

-7- 7075

21


8/44

timespecifiedbylawshallbevoid.22 AndthegovernorsvetoclauseunderarticleII,

section15provides: Thegovernormayvetobillspassedbythelegislature. Hemay,

byveto,strikeorreduceitemsinappropriationbills. Heshallreturnanyvetoedbill,

withastatementofhisobjections,tothehouseoforigin.23 Thecourtconcludedthat

neitherclausewasviolatedbecausetherequiredlocalcontributiondoesnotenterthe

statetreasuryandbecausetherequiredlocalcontributionisnotanappropriation. The

courtfurtherconcludedthatitwasunproblematicthattherequiredlocalcontribution

neverenteredthestatetreasury.IndenyingtheBoroughsrequestforarefund,thecourt

explainedthattheStatewasnotunjustlyenrichedbecausetherequiredlocalcontribution

didnotbenefittheState.

TheStateappealedandtheBoroughcross-appealed,togetheraskingusto

considerallfourprongsofthesuperiorcourtsdecision: whethertherequiredlocal

contributionisunconstitutionalunderthededicatedfunds,appropriations,orgovernors

vetoclauses and,ifso,whetherequity requires refunding theBoroughsprotested

payment.24

22 AlaskaConst.art.IX,13.

23 AlaskaConst.art.II,15.

24 Sixamicialsofiledbriefs.TheFairbanksNorthStarBoroughfiledinsupportoftheBorough.FiveamicifiledinsupportoftheState:theCitizensfortheEducationalAdvancementofAlaskasChildrenandtheNEA-Alaskaeachfiledabrief;and the Association of Alaska School Boards, the Alaska Council of SchoolAdministrators,andtheAlaskaSuperintendentsAssociationfiledajointbrief. The

AssociationofAlaskaSchoolBoardsistheorganizationandrepresentativeagencyofthe members of the school boards of the state.

The Alaska Council of SchoolAdministratorsdescribesitselfasanumbrellaorganizationforfourofAlaskaspremiereducationalleadershiporganizations,includingtheAlaskaSuperintendentsAssociation.TheCitizensfortheEducationalAdvancementofAlaskasChildrendescribesitselfas

(continued...)

-8- 7075


9/44

III. STANDARDOFREVIEW

Wereviewagrantordenialofsummaryjudgmentdenovo. 25 Questions

ofconstitutionalandstatutoryinterpretation,includingtheconstitutionalityofastatute,

arequestionsoflawtowhichweapplyourindependentjudgment.26

Weadopttherule

oflawthatismostpersuasiveinlightofprecedent,reason,andpolicy.27 Legislative

historyandthehistoricalcontext,includingeventsprecedingratification,helpdefinethe

24 (...continued)acoalitionof23memberschooldistrictsandeducators,foundedin1998toaddressthe

problemofagedanddeterioratedschoolsinruralAlaska.NEA-Alaskadescribesitselfasastatewidelabororganziationof13,000certifiededucatorsandeducationsupport

professionalsservinginAlaskaspublicschools.

25 State v. Schmidt,323P.3d647,654(Alaska2014)(quotingAlaska CivilLiberties Union v. State,122P.3d781,785(Alaska2005)).

26 Id.at655.

27 Se. Alaska Conservation Council v. State,202P.3d1162,1167(Alaska2009)(quotingPremera Blue Cross v. State, Dept of Commerce, Cmty.& Econ. Dev.,

Div. of Ins.,171P.3d1110,1115(Alaska2007)).

-9- 7075


10/44

constitution.28 Statutespassedimmediatelyafterstatehoodgiveinsightintowhatthe

foundersintended.29 Wepresumestatutestobeconstitutional;thepartychallengingthe

statutebearstheburdenofshowingotherwise. 30

IV. DISCUSSION

A. TheSchoolFundingFormulaDoesNotViolateTheDedicatedFundsClause.

BeforeAlaskabecameastatein1959,theTerritoryandlocalareasshared

28 See State v. Alex,646P.2d203,208(Alaska1982)([T]hesenseinwhichtaxisusedinarticleIX,section7ofthe[Alaska][C]onstitutionmustbedeterminedfromitscontext,bothinthetextandaccordingtothediscussionsattheconstitutionalconventionwhichadoptedthewording.);Hootch v. Alaska State-Operated Sch. Sys.,

536 P.2d 793, 800 (Alaska 1975) ([A]n historical perspective is essential to anenlightenedcontemporaryinterpretationofourconstitution.);id. at804(explainingthatthe events preceding ratification supported the courts interpretation of the stateconstitution).

29 See Bradner v. Hammond, 553 P.2d 1, 4 n.4 (Alaska 1976)(Contemporaneous interpretationof fundamental lawby those participating in itsdraftinghastraditionallybeenviewedasespeciallyweightyevidenceoftheframersintent.);cf. J.W. Hampton, Jr., &Co. v. United States,276U.S.394,412(1928)(citing

Myers v. United States,272U.S.52,175(1926))(ThisCourthasrepeatedlylaiddown

theprinciplethatacontemporaneouslegislativeexpositionofthe[U.S.]ConstitutionwhenthefoundersofourgovernmentandframersofourConstitutionwereactively

participatinginpublicaffairslongacquiescedinfixestheconstructiontobegivenitsprovisions.).

30 Se. Alaska Conservation Council,202P.3dat1167.

-10- 7075


11/44

responsibilityforfundingpubliceducation.31 Thelegislaturederivedthecurrentschool

fundingformulafromthispre-statehoodprogram,theframeworkofwhichhasremained

largelyunchanged.32

TheBoroughcontendsthattheschoolfundingprogramisastatetaxor

licensethatissubjecttothededicatedfundsclausebecauseitisnotadedication...

existinguponthedateofratificationof[theAlaskaConstitution]33andbecausenoother

exemptionfromthededicatedfundsclauseapplies. Accordinglyitconcludesthatthe

requiredlocalcontributionviolatesthededicatedfundsclause.FirsttheBoroughclaims

thatbeforestatehood,municipalitiesexercisedindependentjudgmentanddiscretionas

towhattheycouldaffordtopayforschoolsandnotesthatcitieswerenotrequiredto

provideanyparticularamounttotheschooldistricts.SecondtheBorougharguesthat

therefundamountthatcitiesreceivedfromtheTerritorydependedonhowmuchwas

appropriatedbytheLegislatureforsuchpurpose.

However,asweexplainbelow,therequiredlocalcontributionisthemost

recent iteration of a longstanding state-local cooperative program in which local

communitiesandtheStateshareresponsibilityforfundingAlaskaspublicschools.

Accordingly,whetherornotitisadedicationthatpredatedstatehood,therequiredlocal

contributionisnotastatetaxorlicensewithinthemeaningofthededicatedfunds

clause.

31 See37-3-31to-33,37-3-41,37-3-62AlaskaCompiledLawsAnnotated

(ACLA)(1949).Forexample, section 37-3-62 of theCompiledLawsofAlaska requiredtheTerritorytorefundlocaldistrictsforpartofthecostofmaintaininglocalschools.

32 See AS14.17.410;37-3-31to-33,37-3-41,37-3-62ACLA.

33 AlaskaConst.artIX,7.

-11- 7075


12/44

1. UndertheAlaskaCompiledLawsof1949,theTerritoryandlocal communities shared responsibility for funding local

schools.

BoroughsdidnotexistbeforeAlaskabecameastate. UndertheAlaska

CompiledLawsof1949,eachcityconstitutedasingleschooldistrictandeachhadan

obligationtoprovidepublicschoolservices.34 Anincorporatedcityalsocouldjoinwith

adjacentareastoformanindependentschooldistrict. 35 Localschoolboards,which

oversawlocalschoolactivities,hadthepowertoassess,levy,andcollecttaxestoassist

withthisobligationtosupporttheirschools.36 Thoughterritoriallawdidnotdictatean

exactfundingamount,itrequiredcitiestoprovidesuitableschoolhouses...and...

thenecessaryfundstomaintain[local]publicschools37

or,ifpartofanindependentschooldistrict,tosetasidefundingfortheirshareoflocalschoolcosts.38 Liketoday,

local communities enjoyed discretion in determining how to satisfy their funding

obligation. Theycoulddedicatea specialschool taxtothepurpose,ortheycould

34 See 37-3-32ACLA(Everycityshallconstituteaschooldistrictanditshallbethedutyofthe[city]counciltoprovidethe[schooldistrict]with...thenecessaryfundstomaintainpublicschools....).

35 Id.37-3-41.

36 Id.37-3-24to-26,37-3-32,37-3-53;see also id.37-3-33(establishing

authorizedexpendituresbytheschoolboard). Theseboardspossessedthesamepowertotaxasthethen-existingmunicipalcorporationsandincorporatedcities.Id.37-3-25.

37 Id.37-3-32.

38 Id.37-3-53.

-12- 7075


13/44

dedicateaportionofthegeneralmunicipaltaxtothepurpose. 39 Territoriallawalso

required school boards toannually submit tothe Territoryabudgetofanticipated

expenses,arecordofallfundscollected,andreceiptsfortheirexpenses. 40

Local communities also received support for local schools from the

Territory. Territoriallawprovidedforthelegislaturetorefundaportionoflocalschool

expensesfrom time to time.41 Theamountlocalcommunities receivedreflecteda

statutoryformulathatconsideredfactorslikethenumberofstudentsinthedistrict,the

totalamountthedistrictspenttomaintainitsschoolsystem,andtheexpensesthe

Territoryhadapprovedinthedistrictsbudget.42 ThusbeforeAlaskabecameastate,

localcommunitiesandtheTerritorytogethersupportedlocalschools,muchliketoday.

39 Id.37-3-35;see AS14.17.990(6)(defininglocalcontribution).

40 37-3-55,37-3-63ACLA.

41 Id.37-3-61to-62. AlaskaCompiledLawsof1949section37-3-61provided:

Such per centum of the total amount expended for the

maintenanceofpublicelementaryschoolsandhighschools,withinthelimitsofanyincorporatedcityorincorporatedschooldistrict...astheLegislaturemayfromtimetotimedirect, shall be refunded to the school fund of saidincorporatedcityorincorporatedschooldistrict...fromthemoneysoftheTerritory....

This refund from the Territory reflects the current state-local cooperative fundingprogram. See AS14.17.410(publicschoolfunding).

42

See 37-3-61to-64ACLA.Schooldistrictswithmorestudentsreceivedproportionallylessthanschooldistrictswithfewerstudents.Id.37-3-62. Refundswere notavailableforcertainexpenses,includingthecostoflevyingandcollectingtaxesandconductingboardelections. Id.37-3-64. Inreviewingadistrictsbudget,theTerritory had the authority to disapprove or reduce any items in the budget incalculatingtheamountofreimbursement.Id.37-3-63.

-13- 7075


14/44

2. Theframersdraftedtheconstitutiontoallowsuchstate-localcooperativeprogramstocontinueafterstatehood.

Thedelegatesattheconstitutionalconventionrecognizedthebenefitsof

suchstate-localcooperativeprograms.43 Buttheyalsorecognizedtheimportanceof

preservingstatecontroloverstaterevenue.44 Throughthededicatedfundsclauseof

articleIX,section7,thedelegatessoughttobalancesuchconcerns.45 Earlydraftsofthe

clausegenerallyprohibitedthededicationofstaterevenuewhileallowingforcertain

43 See, e.g.,4ProceedingsoftheAlaskaConstitutionalConvention(PACC)2651(Jan.19,1956)(statementofDelegateLondborg)(explainingthatstate-localcooperativeprogramswouldencourage localcommunitiestoorganizeintoboroughs, thenewformoflocalgovernance).

44 1975FORMALOP.ATTYGEN.Opinion9,at3(May2,1975);3ALASKASTATEHOODCOMMN,CONSTITUTIONALSTUDIESpt.IX,at27-30(1955);4PACC2414(Jan.17,1956).

45 See, e.g.,4PACC2413-16(Jan.17,1956). Thedelegates,forexample,

rejectedanamendmenttothededicatedfundsclauseproposedbyDelegateBuckalewthatwouldhavedeletedasentenceintheclausethatallowedforexistingdedicationstocontinue. Id.at2416. DelegateBuckalewhadexpressedconcernthatthe[only]sensiblesoundwaytorunastateistoabolishthispractice[ofearmarkingfunds]whichleadstoevilsasfarasthefiscalmanagementofthestateisconcerned. Id.at2413.Delegate Peratrovich, who participated in the committee that drafted the clause,respondedthatthecommitteesoughttostrikeacompromise:

[Y]ouhavetocompromise....[I]twasdangeroustogivefreereintothenewstateinearmarkingfunds. However,I

realize...thattherewassomegoodbeingaccomplishedbythoseearmarkedfundsthatwehaveonthebookstodayandIfeelthatIcannotsupport[Buckalewsamendment]onthatcondition.

Id.at2414.

-14- 7075


15/44

exceptions. Thedelegatesrecognized,forexample,thatdedicationsshouldbeallowed

whenrequiredtoparticipateinfederalprogramsandwhensuchdedicationspreexisted

statehood. Onesuchdraftprovided:

Alltaxrevenuesshallbedepositedinageneralfundtobeestablishedandmaintainedbythestate. Thisprovisionshallnotprohibitthecontinuanceofanyspecialfundforspecial

purposesexistingattheeffectivedateoftheconstitution.[46]

Asubsequentdraftmodifiedthefirstsentence: Allrevenuesshallbedepositedinthe

Statetreasurywithoutallocationforspecialpurposes,exceptwherestateparticipation

in Federal programs will thereby be denied,47 and preserved the exemption for

allocationsinexistenceatthetimeofstatehood. 48

Butthedelegatesfearedthatthisdraftlanguagemightprohibittoomuch. 49

Accordinglytheymodifiedtheclauseintwokeyrespects. First,theyrewordedthe

clausebyreplacing[a]llrevenueswithproceedsofanystatetaxorlicense. Second,

theyrevisedthelastsentencebyreplacinganyspecialfundwithanydedication:

Theproceeds of any state tax or license shall not bededicated to any special purpose, except as provided insection15ofthisarticleorwhenrequiredbythefederal

governmentforstateparticipationinfederalprograms. Thisprovisionshall notprohibitthecontinuanceofanydedication

46 FORMALOP.ATTYGEN.,supra note44,at3(quotingthedraft)(internalquotationmarksomitted).

47 Id.at4(quotingthedraft)(internalquotationmarksomitted).

48 Id.at8(ThisprovisionshallnotprohibitthecontinuanceofanyallocationexistinguponthedateofratificationofthisConstitutionbythepeopleofAlaska.(quotingthedraft)(internalquotationmarksomitted)).

49 See id.at5;3PACC2302(Jan.16,1956)(statementofDelegateNerland).

-15- 7075


16/44

forspecialpurposesexistinguponthedateofratificationofthissectionbythepeopleofAlaska. [50]

Throughsuchrevisions,thedelegatesrecognizedthatanyprohibitionondedicatedfunds

requiredreasonablelimits. Aflatprohibitionwasneitherfeasiblenordesirable.51 The

dedicatedfundsclausecouldnotbestrict[ly]interpret[ed]becausebothlegaland

contractualobligationswouldrequireasegregationofcertainmoneys,including:

pensioncontributions,proceedsfrombondissues,sinkingfund receipts, revolvingfund receipts, contributions fromlocal government units for state-local cooperative programs,andtaxreceiptswhichthestatemightcollectonbehalfoflocalgovernmentunits.[52]

Delegate White explained that the amended language allowed these exceptions tocontinue: Bygoingtothetaxitselfandsayingthatthetaxshallnotbeearmarked,we

eliminated[theneedtomakeexplicit]allsevenofthoseexceptions. 53

Thecolloquyamongthedelegatesreflectsthisdeliberatecompromise

embodiedbytheclause.JustasthedelegatesvoicedtheneedforStatecontroloverstate

revenue,thedelegateslaudedtheclauseforpreservingcertainprograms,includingthose

50 AlaskaConst.art.IX,7(emphasisadded).

51 See PUB. ADMIN. SERV., COMMENTS FROM PUBLIC SERVICEADMINISTRATIONONFINANCECOMMITTEEPROPOSAL1(Jan.4,1955);see alsoFORMALOP.ATTYGEN.,supra note44,at7(quotingPUB.ADMIN.SERV.,supra,at1).

52 PUB.ADMIN.SERV.,supranote51,at1(emphasisadded);see alsoFORMALOP.ATTYGEN.,supra note44,at7(quotingPub.Admin.Serv.,supra,at1).

53

4PACC2363(Jan.17,1956)(statementofDelegateWhite);see alsoFORMALOP.ATTYGEN.,supra note44,at7(quotingPUB.ADMIN.SERV.,supra note52,at1);Se. Alaska Conservation Council v. State,202P.3d1162,1169n.29(Alaska2009)(notingtheexceptions). BoththeBoroughandtheStateappeartoagreethatthedelegates amended the clause to avoid interferingwithprograms such as pensioncontributionsandstate-localcooperativeprograms.

-16- 7075


17/44

forhighways,airports,andschools.54 Throughthiscompromise,thedelegatesallowed

dedicationsnowonthestatutebooks[to]beleftineffectaslongasthelegislaturesaw

fittoleavethemthere,55 and,asDelegateWhitenoted,thedelegatesallowedsetting

asidecertainmoniespursuanttostatute,includingthoseforstate-localcooperative

programs.56

Thedelegates recognized thatanarrangementofshared responsibility

betweentheStateandlocalcommunitiesofferedsubstantialbenefits,particularlyinthe

transitionto theboroughsystemof localgovernance. Activeparticipationin local

governance promised to save the State hundreds of thousands of dollars of the

taxpayersmoney.57 Cooperativeprograms,likethoseinwhichtheStateandlocal

communities shared the cost of providing local public services, encouraged

unincorporatedareastoincorporatebyreassuringthemthattheywoulddefinitely

benefitbyorganizing.. .[to]get[]intothepictureoflocalgovernment.58 Existing

cost-sharing programs between the Territory and local communities, like that in

education,combinedwithincreasedlocalcontrolovereducationandotherservices

offeredsuchincentives.59

54 FORMALOP.ATTYGEN.,supra note44,at12-13.

55 4PACC2415(Jan.17,1956)(statementofDelegateNerland);see also id.at2369-70(statementofDelegatePeratrovich).

56 See id.at2363(statementofDelegateWhite)(explainingthatthesevenformerexceptionswerenowimplicitintheamendedclause);FORMALOP.ATTYGEN.,

supranote44,at7(identifyingthesevenexceptionstowhichDelegateWhitereferred).

57 4PACC2652(statementofDelegateLondborg).

58 Id. at2651(statementofDelegateLondborg).

59 See id.;id.at2650(statementofDelegateV.Rivers)(notingtheexample(continued...)

-17- 7075


18/44

Beforestatehood,responsibilityforlocalgovernancelargelyfelltocities.

Thestateconstitutionrevisedthissystembycreatingboroughswiththepotentialtohold

morepowerandmoreresponsibility:

TheentireStateshallbedividedintoboroughs,organizedorunorganized. Theyshallbeestablished inamanner andaccordingtostandardsprovidedbylaw.... Thelegislatureshall classify boroughs and prescribe their powers andfunctions.[60]

Throughtheboroughsystem,thedelegatessoughttoavoidtheredundancy,confusion,

andunnecessarycostsofoverlappingcounty-citysystemselsewhereinthenation.61

Givensuchconcernstheydecidednottograntschooldistrictstaxingpower. 62 Instead

thedelegates made local schoolsdependentonboroughs for money.63 While the

delegatesentrustedtheStatewithestablish[ing]andmaintain[ing]asystemofpublic

59 (...continued)ofexistinginducementstoorganizelikerefundsoftaxesapercentage,atleast,ofwhichrevertsbacktotheorganizedarea).

60 AlaskaConst.art.X,3.

61 See, e.g.,4PACC2630(Jan.19,1956)(statementofDelegateV.Fischer)(Onceyougetstartedon[grantingtaxingauthority],eachseparatefunctioncouldwell

justifyanindependenttaxlevyingauthorityandthenyouarerightbacktothetypeofgovernmentthatwearetryingtoavoidinAlaska,theoverlappingofindependenttaxing

jurisdictions.);id.at2632(statementofDelegateDoogan)(Thethingthatiswrongwiththatfiscalautonomy[givinglocalschoolboardstaxingauthority]isthat...iftheywerenotcarefultheycouldbreakanymunicipalitywithinaschooldistrict.).

62 See AlaskaConst.art.X,2(TheStatemaydelegatetaxingpowersto

organizedboroughsandcitiesonly.).63 See AlaskaConst.art.X,2;4PACC2632(Jan.19,1956)(statementof

DelegateDoogan) (Consequently,withthe[borough]assemblyhavingmorethantheonefunctionofhavingschools,havingmanyotherfunctionsandsomanytaxdollars,thenwouldbeabletodistributethefundsasequitablyaspossible.).

-18- 7075


19/44

schoolsopentoallchildrenoftheState,64theyanticipatedthatboroughslikelywould

havetolevyataxtoprovideforschools. 65

Thedelegatesrecognizedthatthetransitiontotheboroughsystemwould

taketime.66 InallocatingpowerandresponsibilityundertheAlaskaConstitution,the

delegatessoughttoprovidetheStatewithroomtogrowandtoadapt.Theydesignedthe

64 AlaskaConst.art.VII,1.

65 4PACC2652(Jan.19,1956) (statementofDelegateDoogan)(Theborough,ofnecessity,...toprovideforitsoperationwouldprobablyhaveacertainbasictaxtoprovideschools....);see also id. at2648(statementofDelegateDoogan)

(The[S]tatewouldofnecessityprovidecertainbasicfunctions....[T]he[S]tatethencouldveryeasilydelegatewhateveritwantedtodototheborough....);MatanuskaSusitna Borough Sch. Dist. v. State,931P.2d391,399(Alaska1997)(highlightingthelegislaturesauthoritytodelegatesuchresponsibilitywhilestillretainingcontrolovereducation).

66 4PACC2650(Jan.19,1956). AsDelegateVictorRiversexplained:

Wethoughtthatatthestatelevelitwouldbethepolicyasithasbeeninthepasttooffercertaininducementstothemto

organize. Now,at the present time in incorporated citiesthere are certain refunds of taxes inthenatureoflicensetaxes,liquortaxes,and other taxes that are a percentage, atleast, of which reverts back to the organized area. Intheextentthatthebenefitsthelegislaturesetsupwilloffsettheaddedcosttothepeople,...butitwasourthoughttherewould be enough inducement for them to organize andexercise home rule so that as time went on they wouldgraduallyallbecomeincorporatedboroughs....Thethoughtwasthatinducementstoorganizewouldbeofferedonthe

basisofthegrantingofhomerulepowerspluscertainotherinducementsthatwouldmakeitadvantageoustothemtobe

boroughs,aswenowhavethatsameprogramofinducementtoorganizecommunities.

Id.(emphasesadded).

-19- 7075


20/44

constitutiontobeflexiblesothatthelegislaturecouldfillintheexactdetails[later].67

Thoughthedelegatessoughttolimitcertainpowersandtoavoidcertainpitfalls,theydid

notintendtocompeltheStatetounravelexistingprogramsnordidtheyintendtoprevent

theStatefromexperimentingandadaptingtochangingcircumstances.

3. Early legislationbuiltuponthepre-statehoodlawsthatrequired

theTerritoryandlocalcommunitiestoshareresponsibilityfor

localschools.

Earlypost-statehood legislationfilledin thegaps of theconstitutional

framework. In1961thelegislatureenactedincorporationstandardsforboroughs,as

requiredunderarticleX,section3oftheAlaskaConstitution,anddelegatedsignificant

responsibilitytothem.68

Asthedelegatesenvisioned,69

thoseresponsibilitiesincludedtheStatesconstitutionalobligationtoprovidepublicschools. 70

67 Id.at2647(statementofDelegateRosswog)(notingthatthedelegates

soughttodevelopaflexibleframeworkonwhichthelegislaturecouldbuildandfillintheexactdetails...bylaw);see also id.at2654(statementofDelegateV.Fischer)([A]tthesametimewevisualizethepossibilitythatastheboroughbecomesamoredefiniteunitofgovernmentovertheyearsitwillassumethosefunctionsthatitcouldbest...carr[y]out.).

68 See AlaskaConst.art.X,3.

69 See 4PACC2629(Jan.19,1956)(statementofDelegateV.Fischer)(explainingboroughsresponsibilityforschools);id.at2652(statementofDelegate

Doogan)(notingthatboroughslikelywouldhavetolevytaxestosupportschools);seealso Bradner v. Hammond, 553 P.2d 1, 4 n.4 (Alaska 1976) (Contemporaneousinterpretationoffundamentallawbythoseparticipatinginitsdraftinghastraditionally

beenviewedasespeciallyweightyevidenceoftheframersintent.).

70 See AlaskaConst.art.VII,1.

-20- 7075


21/44

The1961actchargedboroughswithestablish[ing],maintain[ing],and

operat[ing]asystemofpublicschoolsonanareawidebasis.71 Tofulfillthismandate,

boroughsweregivenresponsibilitieslikethoseofcities. Statelawsthatgovernedcity

schooldistrictsnowalsogovernedboroughschooldistricts,includingthoserelatedto

financialsupport.. .andothergenerallawsrelatingtoschools.72 Thesefinancial

supportlawsandothergeneralschoollawswerelargelythesameasthoseinplacepre

statehood.73 AsintheTerritory,localcommunities,includingboroughs,wererequired

tosupportlocalschools. 74

Ina1962act,thelegislaturebegantoadaptthepre-statehoodcooperative

programforproviding school servicesto theboroughsystemofgovernance. The

legislature clarified that [e]ach organized borough constitutes a borough school

district.75 LiketheTerritory,theStatecontinuedtooverseelocalschooloperations,

budgeting,andspending,76anditsharedresponsibilityforadministeringandsupervising

71 Ch.146,3.33(a),SLA1961.

72 Id.3.33(b).

73 See, e.g.,formerAS14.15.230.750(1962).Asthelegislativehistoryreveals, many of these laws remained unchanged since 1949. See, e.g., formerAS 14.15.230 (1962) (originally enacted as 37-3-31 ACLA (1949)); formerAS14.15.240(1962)(originallyenactedas37-3-32ACLA);formerAS14.15.450(1962)(originallyenactedas37-3-54ACLA).

74 Ch.146,3.33,SLA1961.

75 Ch.110,9,SLA1962.

76 See formerAS14.05.010(1962)(originallyenactedas37-1-2ACLA(1949));AS14.10.010(1962)(originallyenactedas37-2-7ACLA);AS14.10.300(1962)(originallyenactedas37-2-53ACLA).

-21- 7075


22/44

thesystemofpublicschoolswithlocalschoolboards.77 Andthe1962actbegantorefine

thesystem,developingthepublicschoolfoundationaccounttoprovidestatefundingfor

publicschoolsonanannualbasisandfine-tuningthemethodforcalculatingtheamount

ofstateaidandtherequiredlocalcontribution.78 TheStateandlocalcommunities

continuedtosupportschoolstogether.

Statutesenactedsoonafterstatehoodgenerallyreflecttheframersintent. 79

Post-statehood,as thedelegates envisioned, the legislature continued toholdlocal

communitiesresponsibleforsupportingschoolsunder theboroughsystemoflocal

governance. WhiletheStateofnecessityprovide[d]certainbasicfunctions,80italso,

as the delegates anticipated, delegated some of its duties to boroughs with the

understanding that boroughs would probably have a certainbasic tax to provide

schoolstoboroughresidents. 81

4. Subsequent legislationdidnotalterthebasic framework of

state-localcooperationinprovidinglocalpublicschools.

In1966,astheboroughsystembegantogain traction, the legislature

divided school districts into three categories. Organized cities located outside an

77 FormerAS14.05.100(1962)(originallyenactedas37-1-12ACLA).

78 FormerAS14.17.010.040(1962);see also formerAS14.15.050.070(1962). Thelegislaturealsorecognizedthatthetransitiontotheboroughsystemwouldtaketime. Accordingly,until1966,thelegislatureleftinplacemanyoftheparallelterritoriallawsthatrequiredcitiestosupportlocalschools. Ch.98,61,SLA1966(repealingAS14.15).

79 See Bradner v. Hammond,553P.2d1,4n.4(Alaska1976);Se. AlaskaConservation Council v. State,202P.3d1162,1172(Alaska2009).

80 4PACC2648 (Jan.19,1956)(statementofDelegateDoogan).

81 Id.at2652(statementofDelegateDoogan).

-22- 7075


23/44

organizedboroughwereresponsibleformanagingandcontrollingacityschooldistrict;

organizedboroughswere responsibleforthedistrictwithin theirboundaries;anddistricts

outsideorganizedboroughsandcitieswereoperated(andfullyfunded)bytheState.82

AsbeforetheStaterequiredcityandboroughdistrictstohelpmaintainandoperatelocal

schoolswithmoneyraisedfromlocalsources,andtheStateagreedtocontributean

amountdefinedbyastatutoryformula.83

From 1969to1970,astheBoroughnotes,thelegislatureredefinedstateaid

underChapter17ofthestatutetoequaleachdistrictsbasicneed. 84 Anditrepealed

provisions mandating that local communities contribute to local school funding,

including AS14.17.030 (required localeffort) and AS14.17.130 (computationof

requiredlocaleffort).85 Butthelegislatureleftthestate-localcooperationfoundation

untouched. Aswastruein1961,[e]achorganizedboroughconstitute[d]aborough

schooldistrictandeachorganizedboroughwasrequiredtoestablish,maintain,and

operateasystemofpublicschoolsonanareawidebasis. 86

82 FormerAS14.12.010,.020(1966)(originalversionatch.98,1,SLA1966).

83 FormerAS14.12.020(c)(1966)(originalversionatch.98,1,SLA1966).Theamountofthestatecontributiondependedonfactorslikethenumberofschoolsinthe district, the districts need for special education services, and the specificcharacteristicsofthedistrict. AS14.17.050.070(1966).

84 Ch.95,1,SLA1969(Theamountofstateaidisthebasicneed.).

85

Ch.95,11,SLA1969.86 Compare AS07.15.330(a)(1970)([T]hefirstandsecondclassborough

shallestablish,maintain,andoperateasystemofpublicschoolsonanareawidebasis.),with ch.146,3.33(a),SLA1961(Thefirstandsecondclassboroughshallestablish,maintain,andoperateasystemofpublicschools....).

-23- 7075


24/44

Thenextyear,in1970,legislatorsagainexplicitlymandatedthatlocal

communitiesandtheStateworktogethertofundlocalschools. Therevisedformulafor

allocatingresponsibilitybetweentheStateandlocalcommunitiesexperimentedwithnew

variables.87 Forexample,itdeterminedstateaidbasedontaxablepropertyvalueswithin

thedistrictinlightofthenumberofstudentsadistrictserved. 88 Previously,therequired

localeffortconsideredonlythetaxablepropertywithinthedistrict;itdidnotstandardize

thatvalue.89

In1980,astheBoroughpointsout,thelegislatureagaintweakedtheschool

fundingsystem. Ratherthanseparatelycalculateadistrictsstateaidandadistricts

87 AS14.17.021(c)(5)(1970),asamendedbych. 238, 4,SLA1970([S]tateaidascomputedunderthissectionshallconstituteatleast90percentofthebasicneedasdefinedbythedepartmentofeachschooldistrict.). Adistrictwouldonlyreceivestateaidifitsatisfieditsrequiredlocalfundingobligation. AS14.17.071(a)(1970),asamended by ch.238,4,SLA1970(Paymentofstateaidtoalocalschooldistrict

underthischapteriscontingentuponmatchingbythedistrictintheamountoftherequiredlocaleffortforthatdistrictintheratioofrequiredlocaleffort....).

88 AS 14.17.021(c)(3) (1970), as amended by ch. 238, 4, SLA 1970(definingstateaidwithrespecttothefullandtruevalueoftaxablerealandpersonal

propertywithinthedistrictdividedbytheaveragedailymembershipofthedistrict).

89 Compare AS 14.17.021(c)(3) (1970), as amended by ch. 238, 4,SLA1970(definingstateaidwithrespecttothefullandtruevalueoftaxablerealand

personal property within the district divided by average daily membership of the

district),withAS14.17.030(b)(1963)(definingtherequiredlocaleffortintermsofthefullandtruevalueoftaxablerealandpersonalpropertywithinthedistrictbutnotreferring to the number of students in the district). The legislature repealedAS14.17.030in1969. Ch.95,11,SLA1969. Thelegislaturehadlastamendedthestatute in 1963. See former AS 14.17.030 (1966) (identifying the most recentamendmentassessionlawsof1963,chapter70,section1).

-24- 7075


25/44

basicneed,thestatutecalculatedonlyadistrictsbasicstateaid. 90 Throughthisshift

infocus,thestatutenolongersetouttoestimateadistrictsbasicneedoradistrictstotal

budget.Unlikebefore,thestatutedidnotconsiderlocalcontributions.91 Butitalsodid

notrulethemout.92 Afterall,asbefore,theStatecontinuedtoholdboroughsresponsible

forestablish[ing],maintain[ing],andoperat[ing]asystemofpublicschoolsonan

areawidebasis.93

Subsequently in 1986 the legislature again reformulated the state aid

calculation. Itreinstatedtherequirementthatlocalcommunitiescontributetolocal

schoolfunding.94 Andtheamountofstateaidcontinuedtoreflectfactors likethe

numberofschoolsinthedistrict,thedistrictsneedforspecialeducationservices,and

90 Compare ch.26,4,SLA1980(reframingAS14.17.021(a)as[t]heamountofbasicstateaidforwhicheachdistrictiseligibleandomittingreferencestobasicneed),with ch.90,23,SLA1977(separatelydefiningstateaidandbasicneed).

91

Compare ch.26,4,SLA1980(notingonlythatthestateaidcouldbereducedinlightoffederalcontributions),with ch.90,3,SLA1977(mandatingthatstateaidconstituteatleast97percentofthebasicneedofeachschooldistrict).

92 AS14.17.220(1982)(Thischaptershallnotbeinterpretedaspreventingapublicschooldistrictfromprovidingeducationalservicesandfacilitiesbeyondthoseassuredbythefoundationprogram.). Astheannotatedstatutesreveal,in1982thissectionhadnotbeenrevisedsince1962whenthelegislatureenactedtheprovision.Id.(notingonlythe1962enactmentundersessionlawschapter164,section1.01).

93

AS29.33.050(1984)(identifyingthemostrecentamendmentassessionlawsof1975,chapter13,section6,andchapter124,section34).In1972,thelegislaturerepealedformertitles7(boroughs)and29(municipalcorporations)andreenactedthe

provisionsundertitle29,includingthoserelatedtoboroughduties.Ch.118,SLA1972.

94 Ch.75,23,SLA1986.

-25- 7075


26/44

adistrictsspecificcharacteristics. 95

The legislaturehas continued to refine thisprogram, as the delegates

envisioneditwould,buttheprograms pre-statehoodcorehasremainedintact. Justas

theCompiled Laws ofAlaskachargedlocalcommunitieswithprovid[ing]thenecessary

fundstomaintain[local]publicschools,96 title14,chapter17requiresboroughsand

citiestofundschoolswithmoneyraisedfromlocalsources. 97 Whilethedetailsofthis

state-localcooperativeprogramhavechanged,thelegislaturehasneverrelievedlocal

communitiesoftheirlongstandingobligationtosupportlocalpublicschools. Ratheras

onedelegatestatedwhenexplainingtherationaleforshiftingtheonusofeducationfrom

citiestoboroughs: Whenyoucometotheboroughthough,theboroughisinterested

ineducation. Itwillbeoneofthebasicfunctionswhichitwillberesponsiblefor.98

95 See ch.75,2,5,SLA1986. Section2definedstateaidforadistrictinlightofitsinstructionalunitallotment,and5definedinstructionalunitstoincludesomeoftheabovefactors.Id.Thenextyear,thelegislaturerefinedthislongstanding

cooperativeframework, creatingnewsectionsfor someofthe1986mandates andcombiningothermandateswithexistingsections. See, e.g.,ch.91,3-4, SLA1987(recalibratingtheformulaforstateaidandlocalcontributions);id.25(repealingtheformerprovisions).

96 37-3-32ACLA(1949).

97 AS14.12.020(c)(Theboroughassemblyforaboroughschooldistrict...shallprovidethemoneythatmustberaisedfromlocalsourcestomaintainandoperatethedistrict.);AS14.17.410(b)(Publicschoolfundingconsistsofstateaid,arequired

localcontribution,andeligiblefederalimpactaid....). ThelegislaturehaslefttheAS14.12.020mandateuntouchedsince1975. See AS14.12.020.

98 4PACC2629(Jan. 19, 1956)(statementofDelegateV.Fischer).CompareAS14.12.020(2015),with id.(1975),id.(1966),formerAS07.15.330(1966),and ch.146,3.33,SLA1961.

-26- 7075


27/44

5. Wehaveyettoconsiderthededicatedfundsclauseinlightofstate-localcooperativeprograms.

TheBorougharguesthatState v. Alex anditsprogenydictatethatthelocal

fundingformulaofAS14.12.020(c)and14.17.410(b)violatesthededicatedfunds

clause.ButAlexanditsprogenydonotdictatetheresulthere.Neverbeforehavewe

consideredthistypeoflongstandingstate-localcooperativeprogram.

a. State v. Alex

Wefirstconsideredthescopeofthededicatedfundsclausein State v.

Alex.99 There,agroupofcommercialfishersallegedthatastatuteauthorizingmandatory

assessmentsontheirsalmonsalesforthepurposeofprovidingrevenuefor...qualified

regional[aquaculture]association[s]violatedthededicatedfundsclause.100 Weagreed

with thefishersandaccordinglyrejectedtheStatesargument,whichattemptedto

distinguishbetweengeneralrevenuetaxes(subjecttothededicatedfundsclause)and

specialassessmentsforservices(allegedlynotsubjecttotheclause). 101 Indoingso,

weadoptedabroadmeaningoftaxinlightoftheoriginoftheclausesprohibition.

WeconsideredthedebatesattheConvention;thestudiesthedelegatesreliedonwhen

draftingthesection,includingthosethatemphasizedimportanceofprotectingStatecontroloverstaterevenue;andhowthedelegatesrevisedtheclause,includingthe

99 646P.2d203(Alaska1982).

100 Id.at204-05(Alaska1982).

101 Id.at208.

-27- 7075


28/44

changefromallrevenuestotheproceedsofanystatetaxorlicense.102 Inlightof

thiscontext,weheldthattheclauseprohibiteddedicatingnotonlytaxesbutalsospecial

assessmentsliketheoneatissueinAlex.103

Butunlikethiscase,Alex didnotaskustoconsideralongstandingstate-

localcooperativeprogram. InAlex,theprogramatissuewasfirstenactedin1976,

nearly20yearsafterAlaskabecameastate,andtherewasnoevidencesuggestingthat

the programwasone the delegates intendedwould falloutside the clause.104 The

regionalaquacultureassociations,whowouldbenefitfromtheassessment,werealso

establishedin1976,longafterAlaskabecameastate. 105 AccordinglyinAlexwedidnot

considerwhetheralongstandingstate-localcooperativeprogramwasastatetaxor

licensewithinthemeaningofthededicatedfundsclause.

b. City of Fairbanks v. Fairbanks Convention & Visitors

Bureau

InCity of Fairbanks,weevaluatedtheconstitutionalityofavoterinitiative

thatrestructuredhowthecityallocatedbedtaxrevenues.106 ArticleXI,section7ofthe

AlaskaConstitutionprohibitsanyinitiativethatdedicatesorappropriatesfunds, 107and

102 Id.at209-10.

103 Id.at210.

104 Ch.190,1,SLA1976;ch.154,1416,SLA1977.

105 Ch.161,2,SLA1976.

106 City of Fairbanks v. Fairbanks Convention & Visitors Bureau,818P.2d1153,1153-54(Alaska1991).

107 AlaskaConst.art.XI,7(Theinitiativeshallnotbeusedtodedicaterevenues,makeorrepealappropriations....).

-28- 7075


29/44

theinitiativesopponentsarguedthatitdidboth.108Weheldthattheinitiativedidnot

dedicatefundsbecauseitactuallyincreasedthecouncilsflexibilitytomakespending

decisions.109 WereliedonAlex todeterminewhethertheinitiativededicatedfunds

because it was the only other time we had considered the meaning of dedicated

revenues.110

ButwedidnotinterpretthededicatedfundsclauseofarticleIX,section7

inCity of Fairbanks.ArticleXI(atissueinCity of Fairbanks),unlikearticleIX(atissue

hereandinAlex),definesthescopeoftheinitiative,referendum,andrecallprocess. 111

BycontrastarticleIXdefinesthescopeofadifferentsetofpowers,thoserelatedtostate

financeandtaxation.112 BecauseCity of Fairbanks consideredanentirelydifferentset

ofpowers,thatdecisionhasnobearinghere.

c. Sonneman v. Hickel

TenyearsafterAlex,weconsideredthededicatedfundsclauseforthe

secondtimeinSonneman v. Hickel,whereweheldunconstitutionalinparttheactthat

createdtheAlaskaMarineHighwaySystemFund.113 Thelegislatureestablishedthe

AlaskaMarineHighwaySystemFundasaspecialaccountinthegeneralfundand

requiredtheAlaskaMarineHighwaySystem,whichoperatestheAlaskaferries,to

108 City of Fairbanks,818P.2dat1155.

109 Id.at1158-59.

110 Id.at1158.

111 AlaskaConst.art.XI.

112 AlaskaConst.art.IX.

113 836P.2d936,937,940(Alaska1992).

-29- 7075


30/44

deposititsgrossrevenueintothataccount.114 Throughtheact,thelegislaturesoughtto

createincentivesfortheMarineHighwaySystembysettingasidesomeofitsrevenue

foritsownuse.115 Amongotherprovisions,theactoutlinedhowthelegislatureandthe

DepartmentofTransportationandPublicFacilities,whichhousestheMarineHighway

System,couldappropriateandcouldrequestmoneyfromthefund,anditdictatedhow

thelegislaturecouldspendthemoneytherein. 116

Wefoundthatsuchprovisionsrestrictedexecutiveauthoritytorequest

appropriations.117 Accordinglyweheldthatthestatuteviolatedthededicatedfunds

clause of article IX, section 7.118 In doing so, we recognized that a statute can

impermissiblydedicatefundsinvariousways: Astatutecouldrequirethelegislatureto

usefundsonlyforaspecifiedpurposeor,asin Sonneman,thestatutecouldpreclude

agenciesfromrequestinganappropriationforagivenpurpose. 119

But Sonneman doesnot controlour decision here either. Nothing in

Sonneman suggeststhattherestrictiononexecutiveauthorityovermarinehighway

114 Id.at937-38.

115 Id. at 938-39 (stating that the act isbased on the principle that theadministratorsoftheAlaskaMarineHighwaySystemandthelegislaturewilltreatthefundasiftheMarineHighwaySystemhadarighttoitsproceeds....).

116 Id.at938.

117 Id.at940.

118 Id.

119 Id.(Asthedebatesmakeclear,alldepartmentsweretobeinthesamepositionascompetitorsforfundswiththeneedtosell theirviewpointalongwitheveryoneelse.(quoting4PACC2364-67(Jan.17,1956))).

-30- 7075


31/44

revenueexistedbeforestatehood. And,unliketheschoolfundingformulaatissuehere,

inSonneman wedidnotconsiderastate-localcooperativeprograminwhichlocal

communitiesandtheStateshareresponsibilityforprovidingalocalpublicservice.

d. Myers v. Alaska Housing Finance Corp.

Anothertenyearspassedbeforeweagainconsideredthededicatedfunds

clause. InMyers v. Alaska Housing Finance Corp.,weupheldalegislativeschemefor

sellinganticipatedfuturestaterevenuefromasettlementagainsttobaccocompaniesso

that itcouldfund ruralschool improvements.120 Thelegislatureaccomplished the

schemeinthreesteps: First,thelegislaturedeemedtheStatesrighttofuturesettlement

paymentstobeanasset.121 Aswithotherassets,theStatecouldsellthefuturesettlement

paymentsfora lumpsumamountthatreflectedthepresentvalueoftheanticipated

revenuestream.122 Second,thelegislatureissuedrevenuebonds secured by theestimated

presentvalueofthesettlement.123 Finally,thelegislaturethenappropriatedaportionof

thebondproceedstofundthenecessaryschoolimprovements. 124

Thoughthetobaccosettlementfellwithinthescopeofthededicatedfunds

clauseandthoughtheschemededicatedfuturestaterevenue,weconcludedthatthe

schemewasconstitutional.125 WeexplainedthatunlikeAlex andSonneman,which

clearlydealtwiththeallocationoffuturerevenues,therevenueallocationschemein

120 68P.3d386,387-88(Alaska2003).

121 Id.at388.

122 Id.

123 Id.

124 Id.

125 Id.at390-91.

-31- 7075


32/44

Myers wasdifferent.126 TheschemeinMyers reducedfuturerevenuetopresentvalue

andusedthatvaluetosecurebonds,theproceedsofwhichwouldbededicatedtofund

schoolimprovementsthatyear.127

e. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council v. State

Mostrecently,inSoutheast Alaska Conservation Council,wereturnedto

thededicatedfundsclausewhenwestruckdownanactthattransferredstatelandtothe

UniversityofAlaskaandthendirectedthatincomederivedfromthatlandbeheldintrust

fortheUniversity.128 Beforeconcludingthattheactwasunconstitutional,weengaged

inatwo-partinquiry. First,weconcludedthatproceedsfromthelandwerewithinthe

scopeoftheclausesreferencetoproceedsofanystatetaxorlicense.129 Indoingso,

wereiteratedourwarninginAlex thattheconstitutionprohibitsthededicationofany

sourceofrevenue.130 Andweexplainedthat,unlikeMyers,theactdidnotcontemplate

anon-recurringappropriation,whichasinMyers wouldhavebeenpermissibleunderthe

clause.131

Second, we considered whether the University was exempt from the

dedicatedfundsprohibitionbyvirtueofanimpliedexceptionunderarticleVII,section2

of the Alaska Constitution, which authorized the University to hold title to real

126 Id.at392.

127 Id.at389.

128 202P.3d1162,1165-66,1177(Alaska2009).

129 Id.at1169.

130 Id.(quotingState v. Alex,646P.2d203,210(Alaska1982)).

131 Id.at1170;see Myers,68P.3dat392.

-32- 7075


33/44

property.132 Inrejectingthisargument,weexplainedthatourcaselawestablishesthat

UniversitylandsarestatelandsoverwhichtheStateretainsauthorityregardlessof

whethertheUniversityholdstitle. 133 Asaresult,allrevenuefromUniversitylandisstate

revenuesubjecttotheclause. 134

Southeast Alaska Conservation Councildidnotruleoutthepossibilitythat

wemightfindotherstatutesexemptfromthededicatedfundsclause. Liketheother

casesinthisline,itdidnotaddressalongstandingcooperativeprogram,liketheschool

fundingprogram,inwhichlocalgovernmentsandtheStateshareresponsibilityfor

providinga localpublicservice. Suchprogramsdonotviolatethededicatedfunds

clause.

Here we are asked for the first time whether local contributions to

longstandingcooperativeprogramsinwhichtheStateandlocalgovernmentsshare

fundingresponsibilityrunafoulofthededicatedfundsclause. Theminutesofthe

constitutionalconventionandthehistoricalcontextofthoseproceedingsrevealthatthe

delegatesdidnotintendforrequiredlocalcontributionstosuchprogramstobeincluded

inthetermstatetaxorlicense. Todaysstatutoryprogramforfundinglocalpublic

schoolsfallssquarelywithinthetypeofstate-localcooperativeprogramsthedelegates

132 Se. Alaska Conservation Council,202P.3dat1170-71;see AlaskaConst.art.VII,2([TheUniversityofAlaska]shallhavetitletoallrealandpersonalproperty

noworhereaftersetasideorconveyedtoit. Itspropertyshallbeadministeredanddisposedofaccordingtolaw.).

133 Se. Alaska Conservation Council,202P.3dat1171.

134 Id.at1172.

-33- 7075


34/44

soughttoexemptfromtheconstitutionalprohibitionondedicatedfunds. Wetherefore

concludethattheexistingschoolfundingformuladoesnotviolatethededicatedfunds

clause.

B. TheSchoolFunding FormulaDoesNotViolateTheAppropriationsOrGovernorsVetoClauses.

Weagreewiththesuperiorcourtthattherequiredlocalcontributiondoes

not violate the appropriations clause or the governors veto clause of the Alaska

Constitution.

ArticleIX,section13,theappropriationsclause,provides: Nomoney

shallbewithdrawnfromthetreasuryexceptinaccordancewithappropriationsmadeby

law. Noobligationforthepaymentofmoneyshallbeincurredexceptasauthorizedby

law. Unobligatedappropriationsattheendoftheperiodoftimespecifiedbylawshall

bevoid.135 ArticleII,section15,thegovernorsvetoclause,provides: Thegovernor

mayvetobillspassedbythelegislature. Hemay,byveto,strikeorreduceitemsin

appropriationbills.Heshallreturnanyvetoedbill,withastatementofhisobjections,

tothehouseoforigin.136

Like the dedicated funds clause, the appropriations clause and thegovernorsvetoclausebothaddresshowtheStatespendsstaterevenue.Togetherthe

clausesgovernthelegislaturesandthegovernorsjointresponsibility...todetermine

theStatesspendingprioritiesonanannualbasis.137 Aswithourprecedinganalysis,

wemustinterprettheseconstitutionalclausesaccordingtoreason,practicality,and

135 AlaskaConst.art.IX,13.

136 AlaskaConst.art.II,15.

137 Simpson v. Murkowski,129P.3d435,447(Alaska2006)(quotingthetrial courtdecision).

-34- 7075


35/44

commonsense,takingintoaccounttheplainmeaningandpurposeofthelawaswellas

theintentofthedrafters.138

TheBorougharguesthattherequiredlocalcontributionisanappropriation

that bypasses the constitutionally mandated appropriations process and that the

governorsvetoclauserequiresthatthegovernorbegiventheopportunitytovetothis

appropriation. IfweassumetherequiredlocalcontributionislocalmoneyastheState

contends,therequiredlocalcontributionwouldnotviolateeithertheappropriations

clauseorthegovernorsvetoclausebecausetheseclausesaddressstate money,notlocal

money. Ontheotherhand,evenifweassumethatthelocalcontributionisstatemoney

astheBoroughcontends,therequiredlocalcontributionstillwouldnotviolateeither

clause. Thelocalcontributionneverentersthestatetreasury,anditisneversubjectto

appropriations bills. The appropriations clause, per its plain language, applies to

withdrawalsfromthestatetreasury,andthegovernorsvetoappliestoappropriation

bills.139 Therequiredlocalcontributiondoesnotwithdrawfromthestatetreasury;and

itisnotanappropriationbill.

The Borough correctly points out that the constitutional delegates

intentionallyestablishedasysteminwhichboththelegislatureandthegovernorwould

consider howto spendstatemoney eachyear. Butwhileall threeclausesthe

dedicatedfundsclause,appropriationsclause,andgovernorsvetoclauseaddress

poweroverthestatebudget,theplainmeaningofeachclauserevealsthreedistinct

purposes. Throughthededicatedfundsclause,thedelegatessoughttoavoidtheevils

ofearmarking,whichthedelegatesfearedwouldcurtail[]theexerciseofbudgetary

138 West v. State, Bd. of Game,248P.3d689,694(Alaska2010)(quotingNative Vill. of Elim v. State,990P.2d1,5(Alaska1999)).

139 See AlaskaConst.art.II,15;AlaskaConst.art.IX,13.

-35- 7075


36/44

controlsandsimply[would]amount[]toanabdicationoflegislativeresponsibility. 140

ThedelegatessoughttoprotectStatecontroloverstaterevenueandtoensurelegislative

flexibility.141 Bycontrast,theappropriationsclausedefineshowthelegislaturemay

spendstatemoneyafter ithasenteredstatecoffers,andthegovernorsvetoclause

providesanexecutivecheckonthelegislaturesspendingplan.142 Becausetheplain

languageofboththeappropriationsandgovernorsvetoclausesindicatesthatthese

clausesrestricttheStatespowerafter moneyentersthestatetreasury,notbefore,the

requiredlocalcontributiondoesnotviolateeitherclause.

C. TheBoroughIsNotEntitledToARefundOfItsProtestedPayment.

Becausewefindtherequiredlocalcontributionconstitutional,weneednot

considertheBoroughsrequestforarefundofitsprotestedpayment. Accordingly,we

upholdthesuperiorcourtsdenialoftheBoroughsrequest.

V. CONCLUSION

WeREVERSEthesuperiorcourtsdecisiongrantingsummaryjudgment

infavoroftheBoroughandREMANDtoallowthecourttoenterjudgmentinfavorof

theState.

140 State v. Alex,646P.2d203,209(Alaska1982)(citingALASKASTATEHOODCOMMN,supra note44,at29-30).

141 Id.;see also FORMALOP.ATTYGEN.,supra note44,at3.

142 See AlaskaConst.art.II,15;AlaskaConst.art.IX,13.

-36- 7075


37/44

STOWERS,ChiefJustice,concurring.

Ijoininthecourtsopinion. ButlikeJusticeWinfree,Iamconcernedthat

thecourtwasnotgiventheopportunitytodecidethededicatedfundsquestioncontrolled

byarticleIX,section7oftheAlaskaConstitutionaspresentedbythisappealinthefuller

contextofthepublicschoolsclauseofarticleVII,section1oftheAlaskaConstitution.

IdonotbelievethatthiscourtsopiniontodaynecessarilydeterminesthattheStates

requiredlocal contribution would surviveconstitutional scrutiny under articleVII,

section1itmight,itmightnotbutthepartiesintentionallydidnotlitigatethis

questioneitherinthesuperiorcourtorthiscourt,andnotwithstandingpointedquestions

byseveraljusticesinoralargumentinquiringintothepotentialapplicationofarticleVII,

section1,thepartiesadamantlyinsistedthatconstitutionalprovisionwasnotinissue.

Inmyview,therefore,thequestionwhethertheStatesrequiredlocalcontributionis

constitutionalunderthepublicschoolsclauseremainsanundecidedquestion.

-37- 7075


38/44

WINFREE,Justice,concurring.

Statutesarepresumedtobeconstitutional,andthepartychallenginga

statutesconstitutionalityhastheburdenofpersuasion;doubtsareresolvedinfavorof

constitutionality.1 AlthoughIhaveconsiderabledoubtabouttheconstitutionalityofthe

statutorilyrequiredlocalcontribution(RLC)publicschoolsfundingcomponent,I cannot

concludethatthepresumptionhasbeenovercomeinthiscase. Ithereforeagreethatthe

superiorcourtsprimarydecisionthattheRLCisanunconstitutionaldedicatedtax

shouldbevacated. ButIdonotruleoutanultimateconclusionthattheRLCis

unconstitutional,asadedicatedtaxorotherwise,andthereforedonotjointhecourts

analysisordecisionon this point.2 Inmy view the questioncannot beanswered

definitivelywithoutafullinterpretationandunderstandingoftheAlaskaConstitutions

public schools clause, which, apparently for strategic reasons, the parties did not

confront.

AddressinghowtheRLChaseveryappearanceofadedicatedtaxwarrants

abriefdiscussionofthepublicschoolsclause. ArticleVII,section1oftheAlaska

Constitutionstatesinrelevantpart: Thelegislatureshallbygenerallawestablishand

maintainasystemofpublicschoolsopentoallchildrenoftheState....

WeaddressedthisprovisioninMacauleyv.Hildebrand,3whenwereversed

asuperiorcourtdecisionallowingaboroughtorequirethatanon-consentingborough

schooldistrictusetheboroughscentralizedsystemforaccountingcontroloverfunds

1 Alaskans for a Common Language, Inc. v. Kritz,170P.3d183,192(Alaska2007).

2 IagreewiththecourtsanalysisandconclusionaffirmingthesuperiorcourtssecondarydecisionthattheRLCdoesnotviolatetheAlaskaConstitutionsappropriationsorgovernorsvetoclauses.

3 491P.2d120(Alaska1971).

-38- 7075


39/44

appropriatedtotheschooldistrict.4 Anexistingstatuteallowedcentralizedaccounting

upontheschooldistrictsconsent,andtheissuebeforeuswasthevalidityoftheborough

ordinanceconflictingwiththestatute.5 Westatedthegeneralrulethat,notwithstanding

theconstitutiongrantingbroadpowerstohomerulemunicipalities,6thedetermination

ofwhetherahomerulemunicipalitycanenforceanordinancewhichconflictswitha

statestatutedependsonwhetherthematterregulatedisofstatewideorlocalconcern.7

WeheldthatthequestionwascontrolledbyarticleVII,section1:

Thisconstitutionalmandateforpervasivestateauthorityinthefieldofeducationcouldnotbemoreclear. First, thelanguageismandatory,notpermissive. Second,thesectionnotonly requires that the legislature establish a schoolsystem,butalsogivestothatbodythecontinuingobligationto maintain the system. Finally, the provision isunqualified; no other unit of government sharesresponsibility or authority.[8]

WelaterconfirmedthatarticleVII,section1smandatethatthelegislatureestablishand

4 Id.at121-22.

5 Id.at121.

6 Cf. AlaskaConst.art.X,11.

7

Macauley,491P.2dat122&n.4.8 Id.at122(emphasisadded)(footnoteomitted)(quotingAlaskaConst.art.

VII, 1). We also noted that the legislatures delegation ofcertaineducationalfunctionstolocalschoolboardsdoesnotdiminishthisconstitutionallymandatedstatecontrolovereducation. Id.

-39- 7075


40/44

maintainapublicschoolssystemhasadualnature: Itimposesa[constitutional]duty

upon the state legislature, and it confers upon Alaska school age children a

[constitutional]righttoeducation.9

In what otherwise is a vacuum the RLC has all the hallmarks of an

unconstitutionaldedicatedtax.TheRLCisaState-imposedmandatethatmunicipalities

raisespecifiedfundsfortheStatespublicschoolssystem;itisarevenuesourceforthe

Stateandataxbyanyothernameremainsatax10andtherevenuesarededicated

totheStatespublicschoolssystemeventhoughtheyneverentertheStatestreasury.11

IfindunpersuasivethecourtsconclusionthattheRLCisexemptfromthe

dedicated taxprohibitionbecauseit isapost-statehoodcontinuationofaterritorial

dedicatedtaxoracooperativeefforttoestablishandmaintainpublicschools. First,the

RLCwasnotapartoftheterritorialmunicipalschoolfundingsystem. (Theterritorial

taxdedicatedtoschoolsdiscussedattheconstitutionalconventionwasatobaccotax

earmarkedforschoolconstruction.12) Intheterritorialsystemmunicipalschooldistricts

wererequiredtodeterminetheirownbudgetsandlocaltax-fundinglevels,butwere

promised some level of territorial reimbursement. Now the State determines a

foundationalbasicneedforallschooldistrictsandrequiresmunicipalitiestofund

specificamountsofthatbasicneedintheirschooldistricts. Theterritorialsystemdid

notincludea dedicated taxonmunicipalities; thecurrentsystemappearstodoso.

9 Hootch v. Alaska State-Operated Sch. Sys.,536P.2d793,799(Alaska1975).

10 See State v. Alex,646P.2d203,208-10(Alaska1982).

11 See id.at207-08.

12 See 4ProceedingsoftheAlaskaConstitutionalConvention(PACC)2370(Jan.17,1956).

-40- 7075


41/44

Second,theStatehastheconstitutionaldutytoestablishandmaintainthepublicschools

system inAlaska,not municipalities. It isdifficult tounderstandhowmandatory

delegationoffunctionsandmunicipalfundingfortheStatespublicschoolssystemcan

beacooperativeeffort.Moreimportantly,thecourtmisperceivesourearlierdiscussion

aboutfundingcooperativeeffortswedidnotsuggesttheframersapprovedofastate

taxdedicatedtoacooperativeeffort,butratherapprovedofdedicatingStaterevenues,

aftertheyreachtheStatetreasury,toacooperativeeffort(andotherusesofrevenues).13

Whatthengivesmepause? Byapparentdesign,thetailmaybewagging

thedogthepartiesappeartobeusingthededicatedtaxclausetodefinethepublic

schoolsclauseslimits.

Ifwefocussolelyontheconstitutionalprohibitionof dedicatedtaxesand

conclude that the RLC is a dedicated tax,wemaybeinferentiallybut necessarily

concludingthatthepublicschoolsclauseisaconstitutionalmandatethattheStatealone

mustprovidethefundsnecessarytomeetatleastminimumconstitutionalrequirements

for the statewide unified public schools system.14 Under this view municipal

contributionstolocalpublicschoolsmaynotbecompelled,butmaybevolunteeredto

supplementStatefundingtoenhancelocaleducationalopportunities. Thiswouldbea

remarkableconclusiontoreachwithouteverconsideringthepublicschoolsclause. 15

13 Alex,646P.2dat209-10.

14 Cf. Matanuska-Susitna Borough Sch. Dist. v. State,931P.2d391,405(Alaska 1997) (Matthews, J., joined byRabinowitz, J.,concurring)(noting publicschoolsclausemightsupportaconstitutionalclaimwhenfundsareinsufficienttopay

foralevelofeducationwhichmeetsstandardsofminimaladequacy).15 IrecognizethatinState v. Alex,646P.2dat210-11,weconcludedthatthe

legislatures general constitutional authority over natural resources could not beconstruedtooverridetheconstitutionalprohibitionofadedicatedtax,ananalysisthat

(continued...)

-41- 7075


42/44

Icertainlydonotsuggestthatthis interpretationof thepublicschoolsclause

wouldbeincorrect. Lookingonlyattheconstitutionallanguageandourlimitedcase

law,acredibleargumentcanbemadethattheconstitutionrequiresfundingthepublic

schools system in a significantly different manner than in territorial days.16 The

constitutionmandatesthattheState,throughthelegislature,establishandmaintaina

publicschoolssystem,17 andourcaselawestablishesboththatitisaunifiedpublic

schoolssystem18andthatnootherunitofgovernmentsharestheStatesobligation.19

This seems inconsistent with a RLC; if the current RLC is allowable, the State

theoreticallycouldcraftaRLCcompellingamunicipalitytopayforallofitspublic

schoolssystemcostswithoutanyStatecontributionwhatsoever. 20

15 (...continued)mayapplyinthiscontextaswell. ButIdeclinetoapplyitinrotefashionwithoutafullexplicationandunderstandingofthepublicschoolsclause.

16 Cf. Opinion,pp.12-13.

17 AlaskaConst.art.VII,1.

18 Hootch v. Alaska State-Operated Sch. Sys.,536P.2d793,799(Alaska1975).

19 Macauley v. Hildebrand,491P.2d120,122(Alaska1971).

20 Thiscouldhavebeenpossibleintheterritorialsystembecausemunicipalschooldistrictswererequiredtosettheirownpublicschoolsbudgetsandrelatedtaxlevelsandthenhopeforterritorialreimbursement.ButthisalsoseemsinconsistentwiththesubsequentconstitutionaldirectivethattheState,throughthelegislature,establishandmaintainastatewidepublicschoolssystem.

AninterestingquestionnotbeforeusiswhethertheStatecouldavoiditsconstitutionalobligation tomaintain a statewide unifiedpublic schools system byrefusingtofundschooloperationsifamunicipalitydoesnotcomplywiththeRLCmandate. See AS14.17.410(d)(providingthatiftheRLCisnotmade,theStatewillnot

(continued...)

-42- 7075


43/44

Ontheotherhandthepublicschoolsclausedoesnotexpresslyprovidethat

theStatemustfundthestatewidepublicschoolssystem. 21 Beforestatehoodtheterritory

didnotalonefundmunicipalschools,22 andtherewaslittlediscussionofthepublic

schoolsclauseattheconstitutionalconvention.23 Andasthecourtnotes,shortlyafter

statehoodthelegislaturecreatedapublicschoolsfundingframeworkinconsistentwith

thenotionthattheStateissolelyobligatedtofundthepublicschoolssystem. 24 Perhaps,

asthecourtconcludesbutnotforitsstatedreasonstheRLCisconstitutionally

viable.Butthisconclusionmayalsoinferentiallyandnecessarilyrequiretheconclusion

20 (...continued)provideanyschoolfunds);cf. Matanuska-Susitna Borough Sch. Dist. v. State,931P.2d391,405(Alaska1997)(Matthews,J.,joinedbyRabinowitz,J.,concurring)(noting

publicschoolsclausemightsupportaconstitutionalclaimwhenfundsareinsufficienttopayforalevelofeducationwhichmeetsstandardsofminimaladequacy).

21 Cf. AlaskaConst.art.VII,1.

22

See Opinion,pp.12-13.23 SeeVICTORFISCHER,ALASKASCONSTITUTIONALCONVENTION140(1975)

(Exceptfortheproposedprohibitionofpublicfundsbeingusedfordirectbenefitofprivateeducationalinstitutions, the[publiceducation]articlewasnot controversial.Lackofdisagreementwasduetothefactthatthefunctionscoveredbythearticlewerealreadybeingcarriedoutundertheterritorialgovernment.).

24 See Opinion,pp.21-23.ThecourtstatesthatthisreflectstheframersintentthattheStatecouldmandatelocalcontributionstothestatewideschoolssystem,

citingBradner v. Hammond, 553 P.2d1,4n.4 (Alaska1976)(Contemporaneousinterpretationoffundamentallawbythoseparticipatinginitsdraftinghastraditionallybeenviewedasespeciallyweightyevidenceoftheframersintent.).Bymycount10constitutionaldelegateswereinthe60-member1961-62legislature:

DelegatesCoghill,Hellenthal, McNealy, McNees, Metcalf, Nolan, Peratrovich, Smith, Sweeney, andTaylor.

-43- 7075


44/44

thattheStatedoesnothaveaconstitutionaldutytofundthestatewidepublicschools

system.

Iamleftwith the followingconclusions. Ifthepublicschoolsclause

requiresthatthestatewideschoolssystembefundedtoaconstitutionallyacceptable

minimumbytheState,thentheRLClikelyisanunconstitutionaldedicatedtax. Ifthe

publicschoolsclauseallowsthelegislaturetorequirelocalfundingforthestatewide

unifiedschoolssystem,then,dependingonitsparameters forrequiringlocalfunding,the

RLCmay or may notbe an unconstitutional dedicated tax. But, deliberately, the

interpretationofthepublicschoolsclausewasnotlitigatedinthesuperiorcourtand,

therefore,wasnotmeaningfullybriefedinthisappeal. AlthoughIhaveconsiderable

doubtthattheRLCisconstitutional,onthisrecordandbriefingImustresolvethatdoubt

infavorofthepresumptionthatitisconstitutional.

Documents

State v. Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Alaska (2016)