Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

01/07/76 BOARD EDUCATION OAKLAND SCHOOLS v.

January 7, 1976

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF OAKLAND SCHOOLS
v.
SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION



Original action in the Court of Appeals.

Leave to appeal applied for.

McGregor, P. J., and T. M. Burns and N. J. Kaufman, JJ.

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

1. Schools and School Districts -- Intermediate School Districts -- Bursley Equalization Act -- Minimum Yearly Increase -- Statutes.

An intermediate school district for the 1973-1974 school year is entitled to receive not less than a 10% increase over the state aid received the previous year, pursuant to § 81 of the Gilbert E. Bursley School District Equalization Act, where ample funds were appropriated by the act to give all intermediate school districts a minimum 10% increase ( The opinion of the court was delivered by: Mcgregor

Complaint by the Board of Education of Oakland Schools against John W. Porter, Superintendent of Public Instruction, the State Board of Education, and Allison Green, State Treasurer, for mandamus to compel payment of sums of money due plaintiff under a school aid statute.

Plaintiff Oakland Intermediate School District commenced this action for mandamus against defendant John W. Porter, Superintendent of Public Instruction, The State Board of Education, and Allison Green, State Treasurer, in the Court of Appeals, on October 10, 1974. Plaintiff's motion for an order to show cause was granted on February 20, 1975.

Plaintiff asks that defendants be compelled to pay over an additional $23,944 in state school aid for the 1973-74 school (fiscal) year, under § 81 of the Gilbert E. Bursley School District Equalization Act of 1973, 1972 PA 258; MCLA 388.1101 et seq.; MSA 15.1919(501) et seq., as last amended by 1974 PA 242. For the 1973-74 school (fiscal) year, § 81(1) of the Bursley act provided:

"From the amount appropriated in section 11, there is allocated to intermediate districts as established under the school code of 1955, the sum necessary but not to exceed $8,350,000.00 to provide state aid to intermediate districts. There shall be allocated to each intermediate district a sum obtained by multiplying the number of pupils in membership in the constituent districts of the intermediate district by $8.00 each, which shall be reduced by a sum equal to .2 mill on the state equalized valuation of the property in the intermediate district, or for any intermediate district having a fixed allocation of less than .2 mill adopted as a separate limitation pursuant to section 6 of article 9 of the state constitution of 1963, shall be reduced by a sum equal to the fixed allocation levied on the state equalized valuation of the property in the intermediate district. However, an intermediate district shall not receive less than a 10% increase, nor more than a $1.50 per pupil increase, in state aid under this subsection in 1973-74 over the state aid received under sections 81 and 82 in 1972-73." *fn1 (Emphasis added.)

The essential facts in this case are not disputed.

In determining the amount that each of the state's intermediate districts was to receive under § 81 of the Bursley act, the defendants basically followed a two-step process.

First, they applied the per pupil/state equalized valuation formula set forth in the second sentence of § 81 to each intermediate district in the state and thereby obtained the base amount of § 81 state aid for each district.

The second step was to determine whether the computed base amount for each intermediate district fell somewhere in between the minimum 10% increase and the maximum $1.50 per pupil increase provided for in the last sentence of § 81.

Thus, if the base amount for a district fell within the above range, then the defendants initially allocated that amount to the district. If, however, the computed base amount for a district fell below the minimum 10% increase, then the defendants would increase that district's allocation sufficiently to provide the required 10% increase. Similarly, if the district's base amount resulted in an allowance which would have exceeded the $1.50 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.