Supreme Judicial Court -- January 24, 2012
Procedural History: The towns of Dartmouth and Fairhaven appeal dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted under Mass. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) of their complaint and cross claim challenging the funding obligations imposed by the Education Reform Act of 1993.
Holding: Dismissal properly granted. The Education Reform Act overrides the parties’ previous regional agreement regarding school district funding. Further, Dartmouth and Fairhaven, as political subdivisions of the Commonwealth, lack standing to challenge the constitutionality of the Education Reform Act.
Facts: In 1971, a Special Act, St.1971, c. 428, authorized Dartmouth, Fairhaven and other municipalities to create a “vocational regional school district.” New Bedford, Dartmouth, and Fairhaven followed Act procedures to establish a school district and approved an agreement pursuant to the Act among the member municipalities (“regional agreement”). The regional agreement provided that all operating costs, except those described as “special operating costs,” were to be apportioned to according to each municipality’s student enrollment. The Act further provided that “[n]o municipality in the regional school district shall be liable for any obligation imposed on any other municipality in said district by authority of this act, or of any agreement thereunder, any other provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding.” Id. at § 12.
In 1993, the Legislature enacted the Education Reform Act, which defined “a foundation budget and a standard of local funding effort applicable to every city and town in the [C]ommonwealth.” G.C. c. 70, § 1. The formula for calculating each municipality’s contribution to the foundation budget for every school district is wealth based, requiring more affluent municipalities to make larger contributions than less affluent municipalities. Following the Education Reform Act, from 2003 to 2008, Dartmouth has contributed over $4.7 million more than it would have under the regional agreement, Fairhaven over $3.3 million more, while New Bedford has contributed $7.1 million less.
Issue #1: Does the Education Reform Act override the method set forth in the regional agreement for apportioning the expenses of the school district among the member municipalities?
Yes. The Education Reform Act is comprehensive legislation designed to improve public education in every school district throughout the Commonwealth by, among other things, better public school funding. The language of the Education Reform Act stating “[n]otwithstanding the provisions of any regional school district agreement, each member municipality shall increase its contribution to the regional district each year by the amount indicated in the district’s share of the municipality’s minimum regional contribution in that fiscal year,” G.L. c. 70, § 5, is explicit intent by the Legislature to override prior legislation providing for school funding. Implicit repeal of a prior law exists when the earlier statute, as is the case here, “is so repugnant to and inconsistent with the later enactment covering the subject matter that both cannot stand.” Doherty v. Commissioner Admin., 349 Mass. 687, 690 (1965).
Issue #2: Do Dartmouth and Fairhaven have standing to challenge, on constitutional grounds, the public school funding obligations imposed on the member municipalities by the Education Reform Act?
No. A town is a political subdivision of the Commonwealth, and governmental entities lack standing to challenge the “acts of their creator State,” Spence v. Boston Edison Co., 390 Mass. 604, 610 (1983). Further, Dartmouth and Fairhaven here do not fall into the several limited exceptions to the “prohibition on constitutional challenges by governmental entities to acts of their creator State.” Id. (LP)
