September 8, 2003


TO:    Counsel of Record


           RE:    Eric Montoy, et al v. State of Kansas, et al

                      Case No. 99-C-1738


LETTER DECISION

Greetings:


           Now that you have had an opportunity to spend a little time with the Court’s opinion on questions of law, the issues of procedure and parties emerge.


           The Court’s current thought is as follows:


           A.       Equity:


1.     The plaintiffs must first establish a prima facia case by demonstrating disparate per-pupil funding, (or in the adverse, that in some cases it is not disparate enough, i.e. special needs unmet).

                      

2.     The defendants would then proceed to explain with their evidence whether there is a rational non-pretextual legal basis for that (those) disparities (or lack thereof) based upon actual cost to provide the children receiving additional or substandard funds an equal educational opportunity.

3.        There would then be an opportunity for the plaintiffs to challenge or rebut the defendants explanatory evidence.


           B.       Suitability:


                      1.        The plaintiffs must first establish a prima facia case by demonstrating

 

Counsel of Record

September 8, 2003

Page Two

 

                                 

that Kansas children generally are failing to receive a suitable education (as that term is now defined) for reasons of inadequate total funding, unrelated to inequitable distribution of gross educational dollars (which we deal with in paragraph A, above).

                     

2.        Defendants would then have an opportunity to dispute plaintiffs evidence on this point.

                      

3.        There would then be an opportunity for plaintiffs to rebut defendants evidence of suitability of education offered to all Kansas children.

                      

[Frankly, thus understood and given what the Court understands of the plaintiffs’ factual claims, the Court wonders if we will ever reach this suitability question. But that remains to be seen.]


           C.       Motions to Dismiss:


                      The Court is also satisfied that the constitutional school funding mandate is directed at the Legislature alone. Consequently, there is no need to have the Governor or the State Treasurer as individual parties. Should orders of restraint be needed at the end of this litigation requiring or prohibiting any constitutionally required or prohibited actions, those can always be then served on all appropriate officials. Accordingly, the motions of those parties to dismiss are sustained, no further Journal Entry being required.


           Finally, in case the Court has not been crystal clear, the Court takes the view that this case is about children and their suitable, and equal educational opportunities. Nothing else. If we all keep our focus on the children, I believe we shall reach the goal our constitution mandates.


                                                                                        Very truly yours,




                                                                                        Terry L. Bullock

                                                                                        District Judge

TLB/lrk