Judge rules against Michigan school districts in funding dispute

Sign up for Chalkbeat Detroit’s free newsletter to keep up with the city’s public school system and Michigan education policy.

Dozens of Michigan school districts and officials are appealing a judge’s ruling that upholds state budget language putting conditions on the distribution of funding for school safety and mental health.

The lawsuit stemmed from a new rule in the budget stating that in order to receive that funding from the state, districts must agree to waive privilege, which means they must disclose information that would otherwise be legally protected if there is a mass casualty event. Districts must also agree to a comprehensive investigation of such an event.

Judge Sima Patel granted the state’s motion for a summary disposition, essentially ending the case in the Michigan Court of Claims. But the plaintiffs are appealing Patel’s ruling to the Michigan Court of Appeals.

Patel, who listened to oral arguments during a hearing earlier this month, issued her ruling Dec. 17 rejecting the plaintiffs’ arguments. Here is what she had to say about two of the key claims in the school districts’ lawsuit.

Districts claimed budget language violates Michigan Constitution

The budget says that to receive the $321 million in safety and mental health funds, districts “must agree to be subject to a comprehensive investigation, must affirmatively agree to waive any privilege that may otherwise protect information from disclosure in the event of a mass casualty event, and must agree to comply with a comprehensive investigation.”

A mass casualty event is defined in the state budget in part as an incident “resulting in significant injuries to not fewer than 3 individuals” or an incident resulting in fatalities.

But the plaintiffs’ attorney, Scott Eldridge, argued in court that some of the budget language violates the Michigan Constitution because it is “exceedingly vague.” Specifically, Eldridge said the “waive any privilege” language is overly broad. He also said the definitions of a mass casualty event are too broad and vague.

“Vagueness means it’s limitless and unbound because it gives zero guideposts or direction as to what’s legal versus what’s illegal conduct,” Eldridge said.

Eldridge urged Patel to “use a scalpel instead of a machete” and declare those phrases unconstitutional.

But Patel noted in her ruling that the plaintiffs faced an “extremely steep hurdle” in proving those claims.

The “waive any privilege,” language, she said, “is clear and not vague,” and means what it says.

“Any and all privileges that may otherwise protect information from disclosure by the district are included,” Patel said in the ruling. “The breadth of the phrase does not render it ambiguous.”

At the hearing earlier this month, Eldridge questioned whether incidents like a bus accident on the way to school, concussions on a football field, a fight in the stands of an athletic event, food poisoning in the cafeteria, or a gas leak would be considered a mass casualty event.

“A significant injury is one that is severe enough to be noticed and have an effect on the injured person,” Patel responded in her ruling. She also said that the budget’s definition of a mass casualty event “may be broad, but it is understandable.”

Districts had until Dec. 4 to agree to waive their privilege. They have until Dec. 30 to rescind that agreement. The plaintiffs sought to extend that deadline to rescind even longer, asking Patel that if she rules against them in the lawsuit, that she set that deadline to 30 days after the appeals process is resolved. Patel said no in her ruling.

“There is no way for this Court or the interested parties to know how long the appellate process will take,” Patel said. “The distribution of funds cannot be delayed that long.”

Lori Higgins is the bureau chief for Chalkbeat Detroit. You can reach her at lhiggins@chalkbeat.org.