Thomas Jefferson Classical Academy Charter School v. Cleveland County Board of Education

NO. COA13-893-2
NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS
Filed: 2 September 2014
THOMAS JEFFERSON CLASSICAL ACADEMY
CHARTER SCHOOL, PIEDMONT COMMUNITY
CHARTER SCHOOL AND LINCOLN CHARTER
SCHOOL,
Plaintiffs,
v. Cleveland County
No. 12 CVS 41
CLEVELAND COUNTY BOARD OF
EDUCATION, D/B/A CLEVELAND COUNTY
SCHOOLS,
Defendant.
Appeal by defendant from Judgment entered on or about 13
February 2013 and Order and Judgment entered 2 April 2013 by
Judge Jesse B. Caldwell III, in Superior Court, Cleveland
County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 23 January 2014 and
Opinion filed 3 June 2014. Petition for Rehearing allowed 10
July 2014.
Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson, P.A., by Richard A. Vinroot and
Matthew F. Tilley, for plaintiffs-appellees.
Tharrington Smith, L.L.P., by Deborah R. Stagner, for
defendant-appellant.
Allison B. Schafer and Christine T. Scheef for N.C. School
Boards Association, amicus curiae.
STROUD, Judge.
-2-
The Cleveland County Board of Education, d/b/a Cleveland
County Schools (“CCS” or “defendant”), appeals from the judgment
entered by the trial court on or about 13 February 2013, wherein
it concluded that certain funds that CCS had placed in Fund 8
should have been placed into the local current expense fund and
distributed on a pro rata basis to the plaintiff charter schools.
CCS also appeals from an order awarding plaintiffs attorneys’
fees.
On 3 June 2014, we filed an opinion holding that the 2010
amendments applied to the present case as clarifying amendments.
Plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing, which we allowed.
Upon reexamination, we clarify the definition of “restricted”
funds as used in our prior case law and applicable to the school
year in question without relying on the subsequent amendments.
We remand for the trial court to apply the correct definition of
“restricted” funds and to make appropriate findings of fact. We
reverse the trial court’s order awarding attorneys’ fees.
I. Background
On 9 January 2012, Thomas Jefferson Classical Academy
Charter School, Piedmont Community Charter School, and Lincoln
Charter School (“plaintiffs”) filed a complaint in superior
court, Cleveland County, alleging that CCS had failed to pay
-3-
them the proper per-pupil amount required by statute. Plaintiffs
specifically contended that CCS wrongfully moved approximately
$4.9 million from the local current expense fund, which must be
shared with the charter schools, to a “special revenue fund,”
which is not shared. Plaintiffs alleged that they were owed
approximately $102,480. Plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment
that CCS must allocate the funds as plaintiffs contended the
statute required, recovery in the amount of $102,480, and
attorneys’ fees under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 6-19.1. CCS answered,
denying that their transfer of the funds to the special revenue
fund violated any of the applicable statutes and that plaintiffs
were owed anything.
The case was tried by the superior court sitting without a
jury. The parties each presented evidence to support their
claims. Plaintiffs primarily relied on the testimony of David
Lee, financial director for CCS. Mr. Lee prepared an audit
report of CCS’ finances, which used various state budget codes
for different revenue sources. Many of the funding sources that
CSS had placed in the special revenue fund were classified by
Mr. Lee as “unrestricted.” Defendant presented a number of
witnesses who administered various programs within the CCS
system who testified about their funding sources and the use of
-4-
those funds. After two days of testimony, the trial court took
the matter under advisement.
The trial court entered its judgment on 21 February 2013,
wherein it found that defendant had misappropriated
approximately $2,781,281 that should have been placed in the
current expense fund rather than the special revenue fund. It
found that Mr. Lee had admitted that $2,109,377 of the funds,
called “Column A,” were “unrestricted.” It further found, based
on Mr. Lee’s testimony and that of the other CCS administrators,
that $671,904 of the funds, listed under “Column B” and “Column
C” were “(a) part of moneys made available to CCS for its
current operating expenses, (b) used by CCS to operate its
general K-12 programs and activities, and (c) not restricted to
purposes outside CCS’s general educational programs.” It
concluded that defendant owed plaintiffs $57,836 collectively
and entered judgment against CCS in that amount. Defendant
filed written notice of appeal from the 21 February 2013
judgment on 18 March 2013.
Plaintiffs then filed a petition for attorneys’ fees under
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 6-19.1(a). The trial court, by order and
judgment entered 2 April 2013, granted plaintiffs’ petition and
awarded them $47,195.90 in attorneys’ fees. Defendant filed
-5-
written notice of appeal from the 2 April 2013 judgment and
order on 30 April 2013.
II. “Restricted” Funds
Defendant argues that the trial court erred in finding that
various revenue sources were not “restricted” and concluding
that these funds were therefore subject to a per-pupil
distribution to the plaintiff charter schools. We clarify the
definition of “restricted” funds, hold that the trial court did
not make sufficient findings of fact to support its judgment,
and remand for further proceedings.
A. Standard of Review
When the trial court sits without a jury,
the standard of review on appeal is whether
there was competent evidence to support the
trial court’s findings of fact and whether
its conclusions of law were proper in light
of such facts. . . . Evidence must support
the findings, the findings must support the
conclusions of law, and the conclusions of
law must support the ensuing judgment.
Jackson v. Culbreth, 199 N.C. App. 531, 537, 681 S.E.2d 813, 817
(2009) (citations, quotation marks, and brackets omitted).
B. Charter School Funding and the Uniform Budget Statute
The allocation of funds between local school administrative
units and charter schools is governed by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 115C-
238.29H (2009). That statute requires the local school
-6-
administrative unit to “transfer to the charter school an amount
equal to the per pupil local current expense appropriation to
the local school administrative unit for the fiscal year.” N.C.
Gen. Stat. § 115C-238.29H(b). This Court has interpreted the
phrase “local current expense appropriation” to be “synonymous
with the phrase ‘local current expense fund’ in the School
Budget and Fiscal Control Act, N.C.G.S. § 115C–426(e).” Francine
Delany New School for Children, Inc. v. Asheville City Bd. of
Educ., 150 N.C. App. 338, 347, 563 S.E.2d 92, 98 (2002), disc.
rev. denied, 356 N.C. 670, 577 S.E.2d 117 (2003). We have
further held that charter schools “are entitled to an amount
equal to the per pupil amount of all money contained in the
local current expense fund.” Sugar Creek Charter School, Inc. v.
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 188 N.C. App. 454, 460, 655
S.E.2d 850, 854 (Sugar Creek I), disc. rev. denied, ___ N.C.
___, 667 S.E.2d 460 (2008). It is immaterial that the school
board has earmarked particular funds for a specific purpose if
the funds have been deposited in the local current expense fund.
Sugar Creek Charter School, Inc. v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of
Educ., 195 N.C. App. 348, 360-61, 673 S.E.2d 667, 676 (Sugar
Creek II) (holding, inter alia, that the trial court did not err
in concluding that funds designated for students affected by
-7-
Hurricane Katrina were subject to per-pupil distribution to
charter schools because they were placed in the current local
expense fund, as opposed to a separate fund), disc. rev. denied,
363 N.C. 663, 687 S.E.2d 296 (2009).
The local current expense fund is defined by N.C. Gen.
Stat. § 115C-426(e) (2009)1:
The local current expense fund shall include
appropriations sufficient, when added to
appropriations from the State Public School
Fund, for the current operating expense of
the public school system in conformity with
the educational goals and policies of the
State and the local board of education,
within the financial resources and
consistent with the fiscal policies of the
board of county commissioners. These
appropriations shall be funded by revenues
accruing to the local school administrative
unit by virtue of Article IX, Sec. 7 of the
Constitution, moneys made available to the
local school administrative unit by the
board of county commissioners, supplemental
taxes levied by or on behalf of the local
school administrative unit pursuant to a
local act or G.S. 115C-501 to 115C-511,
State money disbursed directly to the local
school administrative unit, and other moneys
1
This statute has since been amended twice, but neither of these
amendments applies to the 2009-2010 school year. N.C. Sess. Laws
2010-31, § 7.17(c)(stating that the amendments apply beginning
with the 2010-2011 school year); N.C. Sess. Laws 2013-355, §
2(a), § 8 (amending § 115C-426 and stating that the amendments
become effective when the act becomes law but do not affect
pending litigation); Charter Day School, Inc. v. New Hanover
County Bd. of Educ., ___ N.C. App. ___, ___ n.4, 754 S.E.2d 229,
235 n.4 (2014) (noting that the amendments do not apply
“retroactively”).
-8-
made available or accruing to the local
school administrative unit for the current
operating expenses of the public school
system.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 115C-426(c) also permits the creation of
“other funds . . . to account for trust funds, federal grants
restricted as to use, and special programs.” Thus, we have held
that “the provisions of Chapter 115C . . . do not require that
all monies provided to the local administrative unit be placed
into the ‘local current expense fund’ (Fund Two).” Thomas
Jefferson Classical Academy v. Rutherford County Bd. of Educ.,
215 N.C. App. 530, 543, 715 S.E.2d 625, 633 (2011), disc. rev.
denied and app. dismissed, ___ N.C. ___, 724 S.E.2d 531 (2012).
“Restricted funds” kept in a fund separate from the local current
expense fund are exempt from per-pupil distribution to the
charter schools. Id. at ___, 715 S.E.2d at 630 (“[I]f funds are
placed in the ‘local current expense fund’ and not held in a
‘special fund,’ they must be considered as being part of the
‘local current expense fund’ used to determine the pro rata share
due to the charter schools.”). The local school board has the
authority to place such restricted funds in a separate fund. Id.at ___, 715 S.E.2d at 634 (“Sugar Creek I and II clearly indicate
that it is incumbent upon the local administrative unit to place
restricted funds into a separate fund.”); Sugar Creek I, 188 N.C.
-9-
App. at 460-61, 655 S.E.2d at 855. However, we have never defined
what “restricted funds” are or who has the authority to make that
determination.
Thus, there are two fundamental questions we must address
here: (1) does the local school board have discretionary
authority to allocate funds into the local current expense fund
or a separate fund as it sees fit?; and if not, (2) did
defendant here properly classify the funds at issue as
restricted?
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 115C-426(e) states that the local current
expense fund
shall be funded by revenues accruing to the
local school administrative unit by virtue
of Article IX, Sec. 7 of the Constitution,
moneys made available to the local school
administrative unit by the board of county
commissioners, supplemental taxes levied by
or on behalf of the local school
administrative unit pursuant to a local act
or G.S. 115C-501 to 115C-511, State money
disbursed directly to the local school
administrative unit, and other moneys made
available or accruing to the local school
administrative unit for the current
operating expenses of the public school
system.
“It is well established that the word ‘shall’ is generally
imperative or mandatory.” Chandler ex rel. Harris v. Atlantic
Scrap & Processing, ___ N.C. App. ___, ___, 720 S.E.2d 745, 750
-10-
(2011) (citation and quotation marks omitted), aff’d and
remanded, ___ N.C. ___, 749 S.E.2d 278 (2013). Consistent with
this Court’s decisions in Sugar Creek I, Sugar Creek II, and
Thomas Jefferson, as well as the plain language of N.C. Gen.
Stat. § 115C-426(e), we conclude that the local school
administrative unit may deposit any “restricted” funds into a
fund separate from the current expense fund. See Thomas
Jefferson, 215 N.C. App. at 544, 715 S.E.2d at 634; Sugar Creek
I, 188 N.C. App. at 460, 655 S.E.2d at 855. By contrast, any
funds covered by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 115C-426(e) must be deposited
into the local current expense fund. We further conclude that
the determination of which funds may be placed in a separate
fund is a question of law and not solely in the discretion of
the local school board, given the mandatory language found in
the budget statute. See Chandler, ___ N.C. App. at ___, 720
S.E.2d at 750 (holding that the Industrial Commission has no
discretion in determining an interest award when the relevant
statute employed the word “shall”).
Because the issue of whether funds are “restricted” or not
is an issue of law, we further hold that the determination of
whether funds that accrued to the local school administrative
unit were “restricted” is a conclusion of law rather than a
-11-
finding of fact. “A ‘conclusion of law’ is a statement of the
law arising on the specific facts of a case which determines the
issues between the parties.” Puckett v. Norandal USA, Inc., 211
N.C. App. 565, 570, 710 S.E.2d 356, 359 (2011) (citation and
quotation marks omitted). Relevant findings of fact would
concern the origin, purpose, and ultimate use of the funds, not
their designation as “restricted.”
C. Defining “restricted” funds
“Restricted” is not a term found in any of the relevant
statutes. Rather, it is a gloss this Court has put on the
statutory definitions found in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 115C-426. It
was the Court’s shorthand for those monies that can be placed in
a separate fund, i.e. those from “trust funds, federal grants
restricted as to use, and special programs” which must be
accounted for separately. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 115C-426(c). We have
already held that a donor of “restricted funds” does not need to
require that they be placed in a separate fund for the local
school administrative unit to do so. Thomas Jefferson, 215 N.C.
App. at 543, 715 S.E.2d at 634. Thus, the question is not what
accounting method was required by the donor, but whether the
funds have a limited use and specific purpose, such as to fund a
special program. See Sugar Creek I, 188 N.C. App. at 460, 655
-12-
S.E.2d at 855. Moreover, “federal grants restricted as to use[]
and special programs” clearly have operating expenses and most
will serve some portion of the K-12 population, but that fact
does not make the funds “unrestricted.”
The guidance from the Department of Public Instruction that
we reviewed in Thomas Jefferson indicated that Fund 8 was a new,
separate fund “to separately maintain funds that are restricted
in purpose and not intended for the general K–12 population in
the LEA.” Thomas Jefferson, 215 N.C. App. at 537, 715 S.E.2d at
630. This definition nicely captures the Legislature’s intent in
allowing local school administrative units to separate special
funds from the local current expense fund.
The use of funds to operate a program for the K-12
population does not make the funds unrestricted. Instead,
unrestricted funds are those that could be used for all of the
K-12 population without restriction. To label any funds which
serve even a portion of the K-12 population as “unrestricted”
would contravene the legislature’s intent to allow local school
administrative units to place monies from grants “restricted as
to use” or funds for “special programs” into a separate fund.
Nearly any funds (except those for Pre-K programs) given as a
grant to a local school administrative unit will be used to
-13-
operate some program for some of the K-12 population. Based on
the prior cases and the language of the applicable statutes, we
define “restricted” funds as those funds which have been
designated by the donor for some specific program or purpose,
rather than for the general K-12 population of the local school
system.
The local school administrative unit should place such
restricted funds into a fund separate and apart from the local
current expense fund, and if it fails to do so, the funds may
lose their “restricted” status. See id. at ___, 715 S.E.2d at
634 (holding that “it is incumbent upon the local administrative
unit to place restricted funds into a separate fund.”); Sugar
Creek II, 195 N.C. App. at 361, 673 S.E.2d at 676 (“If donations
or other moneys are intended for special programs, they should
be held in a special fund.”).
D. Application
The trial court’s judgment included no findings on the
origins or nature of the funds for each source of funding.
Instead, the trial court assessed the programs in bulk as either
“restricted” or “unrestricted.” It did so apparently on the
basis that Mr. Lee testified that these particular funds were
“unrestricted.” First, we note that it is unclear what Mr.
-14-
Lee’s understanding of the definition of “restricted” was, as
this was never explicitly stated, but he seems to have based his
characterization of the funds on the state budget codes he used
for each funding source. As both Mr. Lee and Mr. Merritt, the
expert witness called by plaintiffs, acknowledged, the budget
codes do not dictate how the funds are spent and funds
classified as “unrestricted” may still have a specific purpose.
Given our definition of “restricted” funds, we believe that the
trial court’s current findings of fact are inadequate for us to
review its conclusion that various funds were “unrestricted”
when it failed to make findings on the origins, purposes, and
uses of the challenged funds. The fact that Mr. Lee may have
classified funds of a certain origin as “unrestricted” is not
dispositive of the issue.
Although we agree with the dissent that the definition of
"restricted funds" may be complex in its application, we believe
that the complexity is unavoidable, considering the prior case
law and statutory language which we must follow. All students
served by both the public school systems and charter schools
throughout the state must be treated equally and the law must be
applied uniformly in all of the school systems. If the local
school boards and trial courts have no clear definition of
-15-
“restricted funds,” even if all are acting in good faith and
seeking to comply with the governing statutes, different school
boards and trial courts may determine their own differing
definitions and thus allocate funds differently. In fact, in
this case, various witnesses seemed to have different ideas of
the definition of “restricted funds.” We also agree that the
complexity of identifying “restricted funds” may foster
additional litigation, but the absence of a definition of the
term probably fosters even more litigation. Fortunately, our
legislature has recently amended N.C. Gen. Stat. § 115C-426 and
this amendment should clarify the identification of the funds
which the General Assembly intends to be included in the local
current expense fund. Unfortunately, this amendment does not
apply to this case.
Given the extensive record and the facts in evidence as to
each program, we believe that there is sufficient evidence in
the record for the trial court to make specific findings about
the funds at issue here. Therefore, we remand this case for the
trial court to enter a revised judgment with specific findings
about the origins, purpose, and uses of the various funding
sources at issue and appropriate conclusions applying the
definition of “restricted” funds outlined above.
-16-
III. Attorneys’ Fees
Defendant next argues that the trial court erred in
awarding plaintiffs attorneys’ fees under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 6-
19.1 because a local school board is not a state agency. We
agree.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 6-19.1 (2011) allows the trial court to
award attorney’s fees to a party prevailing over a state agency
in a civil action. This Court has held that the definition of
“agency” for the purposes of § 6-19.1 is the same as the
definition of an “agency” under the Administrative Procedures
Act (APA). Izydore v. City of Durham (Durham Bd. of Adjustment),
___ N.C. App. ___, ___, 746 S.E.2d 324, 326, disc. rev. denied,
___ N.C. ___, 749 S.E.2d 851 (2013). The APA defines an “agency”
as
an agency or an officer in the executive
branch of the government of this State and
includes the Council of State, the
Governor’s Office, a board, a commission, a
department, a division, a council, and any
other unit of government in the executive
branch. A local unit of government is not an
agency.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 150B-2(1a) (2011) (emphasis added).
Accordingly, we have held that local governmental units, like
municipalities and counties, are not subject to the attorney’s
fees provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 6-19.1. Izydore, ___ N.C.
-17-
App. at ___, 746 S.E.2d at 326 (holding that “local governmental
units—such as respondents—are not ‘agencies’ for purposes of §
6–19.1.”). Local school boards and local school administrative
units are local governmental units, and, as such, are not
“agencies” for the purpose of the APA. See N.C. Gen. Stat. §
115C-5(5)-(6) (defining “local school board” as “a city board
of education, county board of education, or a city-county board
of education” and a “local school administrative unit” as “a
subdivision of the public school system which is governed by a
local board of education. It may be a city school administrative
unit, a county school administrative unit, or a city-county
school administrative unit.”); Coomer v. Lee County Bd. of
Educ., ___ N.C. App. ___, ___, 723 S.E.2d 802, 803 (observing
that “local boards of education are generally excluded from the
requirements of the APA.”), disc. rev dismissed, 366 N.C. 238,
731 S.E.2d 427, disc. rev. denied, 366 N.C. 238, 731 S.E.2d 428(2012).
Plaintiffs contend that the local school boards are subject
to § 6-19.1 because we have held that they “are deemed agents
of the State for purposes of providing public education.” Kiddie
Korner Day Schools, Inc. v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ.,
55 N.C. App. 134, 140, 285 S.E.2d 110, 114 (1981), app.
-18-
dismissed and disc. rev. denied, 305 N.C. 300, 291 S.E.2d 150(1982). Yet, our Supreme Court has noted that “[a]n agent of the
State and a state agency are fundamentally different . . . .”
Meyer v. Walls, 347 N.C. 97, 107, 489 S.E.2d 880, 885 (1997);
see also Green v. Kearney, 203 N.C. App. 260, 272, 690 S.E.2d
755, 764 (2010) (noting the distinction between a state agent
and a state agency). In that same opinion, the Supreme Court
quoted a prior opinion for the proposition that “[i]n no sense
may we consider the [Local] Board of Education in the same
category as the State Board of Education . . . .” Meyer, 347
N.C. at 106, 489 S.E.2d at 885 (citation and quotation marks
omitted). Thus, local school boards are not state agencies for
purposes of the APA and N.C. Gen. Stat. § 6-19.1 simply because
they may be considered agents of the State in certain
circumstances.
We hold that the trial court erred in awarding plaintiff
attorney’s fees under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 6-19.1 because defendant
is not an agency for purposes of that statute. Therefore, we
reverse the trial court’s order allowing plaintiff’s petition
for attorneys’ fees.
IV. Conclusion
-19-
For the foregoing reasons, we remand for the trial court to
enter a revised judgment with appropriate findings of fact and
conclusions of law as to the funds at issue. We further reverse
the trial court’s order awarding plaintiffs attorneys’ fees.
REMANDED in part; REVERSED in part.
Judge DILLON concurs.
Judge HUNTER, JR., Robert N. concurs in part and dissents
in part by separate opinion.
NO. COA13-893-2
NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS
Filed: 2 September 2014
THOMAS JEFFERSON CLASSICAL ACADEMY
CHARTER SCHOOL, PIEDMONT COMMUNITY
CHARTER SCHOOL AND LINCOLN CHARTER
SCHOOL,
Plaintiffs,
v. Cleveland County
No. 12 CVS 41
CLEVELAND COUNTY BOARD OF
EDUCATION, D/B/A CLEVELAND COUNTY
SCHOOLS,
Defendant.
HUNTER, JR., Robert N., Judge, concurring in part, dissenting in
part.
I dissent from Section II of the majority opinion. The
majority’s definition of “restricted” funds adds unnecessary
complexity to this Court’s body of cases addressing school
funding disputes between charter schools and local school
boards.2 The majority’s definition is overly broad and may allow
local school boards to sequester funds as “restricted” which
should be apportioned to charter schools under N.C. Gen. Stat.
2
As an initial matter, I agree with the majority that the
holding in this case is limited to a small subset of funding
disputes between charter schools and local education authorities
due to the General Assembly’s changes to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 115C-
426 (2009). 2013 N.C. Sess. Laws 965, 978–80.
-2-
§§ 115C-238.29H(b), 115C-426(c) (2009). For these reasons, I
respectfully dissent.3
The majority defines “restricted” funds as “those funds
which have been designated by the donor for some specific
program or purpose, rather than for the general K-12 population
of the local school system” and notes the requirement of Thomas
Jefferson I that these funds be placed into a separate fund from
the local current expense fund. Thomas Jefferson I, ___ N.C.
App. at ___, 715 S.E.2d at 634. The majority then remands to
the trial court for further findings of fact concerning the
“origins, purpose, and uses of the various funding sources at
issue” that it must then apply to this newly constructed
definition of “restricted” funds.
In Union Acad. v. Union Cnty. Pub. Sch., ___ N.C. App. ___,
735 S.E.2d 452, 2012 WL 5857373 (2012) (unpublished) this Court
instructed the trial court on remand to determine, based on the
rules set forth in Thomas Jefferson I, “the amount of restricted
funds properly placed” in a separate fund. Id. at *5. Notably,
this Court said “[w]ithout specific evidence as to what the
funds in UCPS’ Fund 8 actually were, any attempt by this panel
3
I agree with the majority opinion concerning attorneys’ fees in
Section III.
-3-
to define ‘restricted funds’ would amount to an improper
advisory opinion.” Id. at *4.
Here, the trial court followed the exact procedure
prescribed by Union Academy: the trial court collected what the
majority describes as an “extensive record” and then examined
the nature of the funds. The trial court relied on the
testimony of the Chief Financial Officer of Cleveland County
Schools (“CCS”) to find as fact that $2,109,377 of the funds at
issue in Column A were unrestricted in nature. The trial court
then found as fact that the roughly $671,904 at issue in Columns
B and C were funds used for “(a) part of ‘moneys made available’
to CCS for its ‘current operating expenses,’ (b) used by CCS to
operate its general K-12 programs and activities, and (c) not
restricted to purposes outside CCS’s general educational
program . . . .” As the trial court properly took evidence,
considered the “nature” of the funds, and determined that the
funds were unrestricted in nature, the trial court has already
followed the proper procedure under Thomas Jefferson I and the
example provided in Union Academy. Accordingly, I would affirm
the trial court.
The majority’s definition unnecessarily adds a layer of
complexity and will foster further litigation relating to
-4-
charter school funding disputes for the 2009–10 school year.
Funds appropriated by a donor to a local school district and
designated for a “specific program or purpose” conceivably
captures a wider variety of programs intended to benefit the
general K-12 population of a local school system, including
charter school students. This Court’s prior cases have already
lead to local school units “increasingly allocat[ing] monies for
operating expenses to funds other than the local current expense
fund”4 as well as a bevy of litigation discussed supra. Creating
an additional avenue for argument—that a particular budgetary
item is a “specific program” or has a “specific purpose”—will
only exacerbate those trends. For the foregoing reasons, I
respectfully dissent.
4
See Kara Millonzi, Allocating Operating Monies Among Local
School Unit Funds: Local Current Expense Fund vs. Fund 8,
Coates’ Canons: NC Local Government Law, Univ. of N.C. Sch. Of
Gov’t. (June 10, 2014), http://canons.sog.unc.edu/?p=7721; see
also Lisa Lukasik, Deconstructing a Decade of Charter School
Funding Litigation: An Argument for Reform, 90 N.C. L. Rev.
1885, 1918 (2012) (“After the court of appeals’ charter school-
funding trilogy and the subsequent regulatory and legislative
changes . . . the base amount of local per pupil funding for
charter schools may fluctuate depending upon how local boards of
education account for ‘other’ funds.”).