Could Baker and Zachary receive Louisiana school funding and contract with East Baton Rouge while forming new districts?

Plain-English summary

Baker and Zachary were forming separate school systems inside East Baton Rouge Parish while a federal desegregation case remained pending. The Attorney General explained that a new district could not receive state money to provide education in a way that violated the federal court's order. He then applied the different creation statutes for Baker and Zachary to proposed 2001-02 funding and service contracts.

For Baker, the statute expressly required a final judgment allowing actual operation and separation before the new system could provide educational services and receive the related Minimum Foundation Program funds. Without that condition, those funds would go to the East Baton Rouge Parish School Board. The AG also said Baker's statute did not permit Baker to contract East Baton Rouge to educate its students once Baker became responsible for them; the statute did not address contracts for other services.

For Zachary, the statute contemplated beginning operations in the 2001-02 school year and did not bar contracting with East Baton Rouge for education or related services. Even so, the AG said Zachary needed a federal court order allowing the new system to operate and receive state educational funding. The opinion did not resolve practical funding obstacles or forecast the federal court's decision.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2001. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Could Baker receive state education funds immediately in 2001?
The AG said East Baton Rouge would receive the 2001-02 funds unless the litigation was resolved or the final judgment required by Baker's statute allowed the new system to operate.

Could Baker pay East Baton Rouge to educate Baker's students?
The AG said the then-current Baker statute did not permit that educational-services contract. He expressly left noneducational services unaddressed.

Did Zachary's statute give it the same final-judgment requirement?
No. The AG said Zachary's statute did not contain Baker's specific final-judgment language, though a federal court order was still necessary because of the desegregation case.

Could Zachary contract with East Baton Rouge for school services?
The opinion said Zachary's creation law did not prevent educational or related-services contracts, assuming a federal court order allowed the arrangement and no other constitutional obstacle existed.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion analyzed Baker's creation law in La. R.S. 17:72 and Zachary's in La. R.S. 17:64 and 17:64.1. Baker's statute tied operation to a specified final judgment in the pending Davis desegregation case. Zachary's statute set a 2001-02 starting school year but did not mention that case. The AG treated federal desegregation approval as a constitutional constraint on both systems, separate from each statute's wording.

Citations and references

• La. R.S. 17:72
• La. R.S. 17:64
• La. R.S. 17:64.1

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinions
• Original PDF: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinion/Download/01-0158

Original opinion text

April 20, 2001
OPINION NUMBER 01-158

94 – Schools & School Districts –
Mr. Bob Odom
Administration, Government & Officers
Commissioner
Department of Agriculture & Forestry
R. S. 17:64, 64-1, 72, 72-1
Post Office Box 631
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70821-0631
Responds to various questions concerning the creation of new school systems in Baton Rouge Dear Mr. Odom: and Zachary.
Your request for an Attorney General Opinion has been referred to me for a response.

You state in your opinion request the following:

Both the Baker Board and the Zachary Board have intervened in the matter of Davis, et al v. East Baton Rouge Parish School Board, et al. Docket No. 56-1662-A which is currently pending in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana.
Both boards would like to present a settlement offer to the parties in the Davis matter which would permit the boards to begin operating the school within their respective jurisdictions for the 2001-2002 school year. In order to fashion an offer the boards would like your opinion regarding the following:

1. Whether the 2001-2002 funds for the minimum foundation program for students attending schools within their jurisdiction will be paid by the state of Louisiana to the Baker Board and the Zachary Board or to the East Baton Rouge Board?

2. If the funds for the minimum foundation program for the 2001-2002 are paid to the Baker Board and the Zachary Board, can these boards contract with East Baton Rouge to educate their students and/or provide other related services pursuant to an intergovernmental agreement where the respective boards would pay to the East Baton Rouge School Board the proceeds of the local taxes plus a portion of the funds from the minimum foundation program received from the state?

Page 2

Mr. Bob Odom
Opinion No. 01-158
Page 2

As a general rule, the Louisiana legislature exercises plenary authority over the public educational system in this state. La. Const. Art. VIII, §1. This authority would generally include the creation or dissolution of school systems, the procedure leading to same, the disposition of property, etc. See City of Baker School Board v. East Baton Rouge Parish School Board, 99-2505 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2/18/00), 754 So.2d 291; Rouselle v. Plaquemines Parish School Board, 633 So.2d 1235 (La. 1994). In this regard, Louisiana is generally in accord with other states. The Courts and the Public Schools, The Legal Basis of School Organization and Administration, Newton Edwards, The University of Chicago. Press (1971), 3rd Edition. While exercising plenary authority, the legislature is nevertheless constrained by the state and federal constitutions.

Therefore, in order to receive public funds, the law must first provide for it. Second, the law must be constitutional. See e.g. Louisiana Attorney General Opinion No. 95-310 and cases cited infra.

I. Legislation Creating The Baker School Board A. MFP Funds

The Baker School System was created by La. R.S. 17:72 and 72.1. See also La. Const. Art. VIII, § 13(D). This legislation predates La. R.S. 17:64 and 64.1 that created the Zachary School System. The legislation that created the Baker School System is much longer and more detailed.

Certain relevant provisions in Baker’s legislation have no parallel provision in Zachary’s legislation. For example, La. R.S. 17:72(H)(1)(e)(i) and (ii) state:

(e)(i) The city of Baker School Board shall obtain a final judgment, in the matter entitled “Clifford Eugene Davis, Jr., et al. and the United States of America versus East Baton Rouge Parish School Board, et al.”, Civil Action No. 56-1662-A, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, which, after the exhaustion of all applicable appellate review or, in the event such review is not sought, upon the expiration of the period in which said appellate review may be taken, as the case may be, and which shall be deemed a final judgment for the purposes of this Section, which final judgment shall permit the operation of a city of Baker municipal school system and the separation of the city of Baker municipal school system from the East Baton Rouge school system.
(ii) Item H(1)(e)(i) of this Section shall only be applicable in the event that the matter entitled “Clifford Eugene Davis, Jr., et al. and the United States of America versus East Baton Rouge Parish

Page 3

Mr. Bob Odom
Opinion No. 01-158
Page 3

School Board, et al.”, Civil Action No. 56-1662-A, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana shall not have been dismissed, closed, or otherwise resolved, and in the further event that there shall not have been entered therein a judgment declaring the East Baton Rouge Parish school system “unitary” or releasing said school system from judicial supervision.

The legislation makes other references to a “final judgment.” In particular, La. R.S. 17:72(H)(2)(a) – (c) states:

(2)(a) Upon the occurrence of all of the requirements set forth in Paragraph H(1) of this Section , the city of Baker municipal school system shall be established for the purpose of operating public elementary and secondary schools within the incorporated limits of the city of Baker as the same existed as of June 1, 1997, on the date of the July first following the date on which a final judgment is obtained permitting the actual operation of a city of Baker municipal school system and the separation of the city of Baker municipal school system from the East Baton Rouge Parish school system, or July first of the following year.
(b) As of the date a city of Baker municipal school system is established in accordance with Subparagraph H(2)(a) of this Section, the city of Baker School Board shall be responsible to provide for the education of the elementary and secondary school aged children residing within the city of Baker as its incorporated limits existed as of June 1, 1997. The city of Baker School Board shall thereafter exercise the powers delegated to, and the duties, functions, and responsibilities imposed upon parish and municipal school boards under the laws of the state of Louisiana and commence its initial school year of actual operation at the beginning of the school year immediately following the date on which the city of Baker municipal school system is established.
(c) Upon the date the city of Baker municipal school system is established in accordance with Subparagraph H(2)(a) of this Section, the East Baton Rouge Parish School Board shall cease to provide for the education of the elementary and secondary school aged children residing within the city of Baker as its incorporated limits existed as of June 1, 1997.

The litigation referenced in La. R.S. 17:72(H)(1)(e)(i) is the desegregation lawsuit in which the East Baton Rouge Parish School Board is a defendant. Under federal jurisprudence, a new school system created within a school system which is subject to a federal court desegregation order must be approved by the federal court before it can operate. See e.g. Wright v. Council of City of Emporia; 407

Page 4

Mr. Bob Odom
Opinion No. 01-158
Page 4

U.S. 451, 92S.Ct. 2196, 33 L.Ed 2d 51 (1972); United States v. Scotland Neck City Board of Education, 407 U.S. 484, 92 S.Ct. 2214, 33 L.Ed. 2d 75(1972). In short, a state cannot fund a school system created within a school system that is subject to court ordered desegregation without federal court approval. The funding of an unapproved school system is unconstitutional.

The above analysis concerning federal court approval presupposes that funding will result in the delivery of educational services violative of the federal court order. However, if the funding does not result in the delivery of educational services violative of the federal court order, the state may provide funds. See e.g. Act No. 10 of the 1999 Regular Session of the Louisiana legislature that appropriated $400,000.00 “in the form of a loan, for start –up costs for Baker Independent School District.”

In sum, concerning Baker, 2001-2002 MFP funds will be paid to the East Baton Rouge Parish School Board because La. R.S. 17:72 currently requires a final judgment in the referenced litigation allowing Baker to operate prior to its receiving funds for the purpose of providing educational services. On the other hand, such funds may be paid to Baker if the litigation is dismissed, resolved, East Baton Rouge Parish schools are declared unitary, or if a final judgment contemplated by the legislation is obtained. The law states that funding should begin “July first following the date on which a final judgment is obtained --- or July first of the following year.” La. R.S. 17:72(H)(2)(a). Therefore, if such a final judgment is obtained, funds may be paid Baker either beginning July 1, 2001 or July 1, 2002. This opinion does not address the practical impediments to Baker receiving funds that may impact its ability to begin receiving money.

B. Contract With East Baton Rouge Parish School Board

Current legislation requires a “final judgment.” The final judgment “shall permit the operation of a city of Baker municipal school system and the separation of the city of Baker municipal school system.” The final judgment shall permit the “actual operation” of a Baker school system. Such school system “shall be responsible to provide for the education of the elementary and secondary school aged children residing within the city of Baker,” presumably to the extent allowed by the federal court final judgment. La. R.S. 17:72(H)(2)(a) and (b).

Moreover, at that time, “the city of Baker School Board shall thereafter exercise the powers delegated to, and the duties, functions, and responsibilities imposed upon parish and municipal school boards under the laws of the state ---.” La. R.S. 17:72(H)(2)(b).

Finally, at that time. “--- the East Baton Rouge Parish School Board shall cease to provide for the education of the elementary and secondary school aged

Page 5

Mr. Bob Odom
Opinion No. 01-158
Page 5

children---.” In sum, current legislation would not permit the Baker School Board to contract with the East Baton Rouge Parish School Board to educate students. The legislation does not address a contract for non-educational services.

II. Legislation Creating The Zachary School Board A. MFP Funds

The Zachary School System was created by La. R.S. 17:64 and 64.1. The legislation that creates the Zachary School System does not reference the desegregation litigation in East Baton Rouge Parish. In fact, the legislation states that, “The Zachary Community School Board shall begin its initial year of actual operation providing for the education of students within its jurisdiction at the beginning of the 2001-2002 school year.” La. R.S. 17:64(F). In sum, the law that created the Zachary School System appears to contemplate its receipt of MFP funds to provide educational services for the 2001-2002 school year. No particular date is stated in the legislation for Zachary to begin receiving MFP funds. Again, as with Baker’s receipt of money, this opinion does not address practical impediments that may exist.

As mentioned above, the legislation must be constitutional. The legislation cannot create and fund a school system to provide educational services by ignoring pending desegregation litigation. The Zachary School System must still obtain some court order that will allow it to receive state funding to provide educational services. The legislation does not require a “final judgment” as discussed above in the case of Baker.

B. Contract With East Baton Rouge Parish School Board

The legislation that created the Zachary School System does not prevent Zachary from contracting with the East Baton Rouge Parish School System to provide educational services or other related services. This writer presumes that the federal court order mentioned above would address the contents of any such contract.

III. Conclusion

In sum, concerning Baker, in the absence of a settlement of the desegregation litigation, current law requires a “final judgment” as defined above prior to its receipt of state MFP dollars, and current law would prevent it from contracting with the East Baton Rouge Parish School Board to provide educational services. Concerning Zachary, current law contemplates that it begin providing educational services in the 2001-2002 academic year, though no particular date is mentioned

Page 6

Mr. Bob Odom
Opinion No. 01-158
Page 6

for it to begin receiving state MFP dollars, and current law does not prevent it from contracting with the East Baton Rouge Parish School Board to provide educational or other related services. This writer assumes a federal court order allowing the above, and no other constitutional impediment. See e.g. La. Attorney General Opinion No. 95-310.

I hope this opinion has sufficiently addressed your concerns. If I can be of further assistance to you, please let me know.

Very truly yours,

RICHARD P. IEYOUB
ATTORNEY GENERAL

By: _____
James C. Hrdlicka
Assistant Attorney General

RPI:JCH:crt

Page 7

OPINION No. 01-158

94 – Schools & School Districts – Administration, Government & Officers

R. S. 17:64, 64-1, 72, 72-1

Responds to various questions concerning the creation of new school systems in Baker and Zachary.

Mr. Bob Odom
Commissioner
Department of Agriculture & Forestry
Post Office Box 631
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70821-0631

DATE REQUESTED:
JAMEC C. HRDLICKA
DATE RELEASED: April 20, 2001
Assistant Attorney General