Could a Maine school board defer state-mandated education programs in 1991 because the state had not restored aid to 1990 levels?

Plain-English summary

In March 1991, Senator Stephen Estes and Representative Nathaniel Crowley, Sr., chairing the Education Committee, asked the Attorney General to interpret a new provision they had just enacted. P.L. 1991, c. 9, Part II, § II-1 said that any legislation or rule containing a state education mandate enacted after January 1, 1984 could be "deferred by action of a local school board until such time as the State restores state aid to education to the levels required by the laws in effect on January 1, 1990." The provision listed examples: minimum pupil-teacher ratios, guidance programs, gifted and talented programs, music programs, and art programs.

The chairs asked three questions. The AG resolved the first two and concluded the third was unnecessary to address.

Question 1: What does "levels required by the laws in effect on January 1, 1990" mean? The AG's answer: the appropriation passed in spring 1989 setting the state aid level for academic year 1989-90. According to Department of Education records, that was about $466 million, which was 56.65 percent of the total allocation. The statute could be read two ways (absolute dollar amount or percentage of total allocation), but the AG did not need to choose because of the answer to Question 2.

Question 2: Is the mandate-deferral provision triggered by current funding levels? The AG's answer: no. The current (academic year 1990-91) appropriation was about $521 million, which was 56.76 percent of the total allocation. Both figures exceeded the January 1990 baseline under either possible reading. So school boards could not invoke the deferral.

The AG noted the Legislature may have assumed, in writing the provision, that current funding was below 1990 levels and therefore the deferral would activate immediately. But based on Department of Education data, that assumption did not match reality, and the Department had not identified any actual funding reduction relative to the January 1990 baseline.

The opinion also clarifies two adjacent points:

• The Commissioner of Education's annual recommended funding level (under 20-A M.R.S.A. § 15605) is not binding on the Governor or the Legislature. In December 1989, the Commissioner recommended $535 million for academic year 1990-91; the Legislature appropriated about $521 million. So the actual law sets the "required" level, not the Commissioner's recommendation.
• The legislative-intent language at 20-A M.R.S.A. § 15602(1) (suggesting the state share should be at least 55 percent or no less than the prior year) is merely "precatory" and not binding on subsequent Legislatures. There is no minimum percentage of state funding that is "required by law."

Because Question 2 was answered no, the third set of questions (which would have asked how the deferral would operate) became moot.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1991. 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.

Background and statutory framework

The School Finance Act of 1985 sits at 20-A M.R.S.A. § 15601 et seq. Section 15605 requires the Commissioner of Education to certify a recommended funding level for the upcoming academic year by December 15. The method is based on two-year-old costs adjusted for current changes in enrollment, economic factors, and education costs, plus an inflation adjustment.

The Governor must then make a recommendation to the Legislature on the schedule set by 5 M.R.S.A. § 1666 (§ 15606). The Legislature appropriates the state share of the "total allocation" (defined at § 15603(28) as the foundation allocation plus debt service allocation), separately from the various adjustments at § 15612 (quality incentive, geographic isolation, and so on).

Section 15602(1) expresses legislative intent that the state share be at least 55 percent of the total allocation, or at least the prior year's percentage, whichever is greater. The AG opinion expressly characterizes this as precatory, not binding on later Legislatures.

P.L. 1991, c. 9, Part II, § II-1 introduced a conditional deferral mechanism: local school boards could defer compliance with post-1984 state mandates until state aid returned to January 1990 levels. The 1991 enactment is part of the FY 1991 supplemental budget bill, effective March 14, 1991.

The Department of Education identified by the AG provided the data points: $466 million / 56.65% for FY 1989-90 (the January 1990 baseline) and $521 million / 56.76% for FY 1990-91 (the current year). Both higher under either metric, so the deferral did not activate.

Common questions

Why did the Legislature pass a mandate-deferral provision if state aid was already above the baseline?
The AG's footnote suggests the Legislature may have miscalculated, assuming current funding was below 1990 levels. The opinion shows that by reading the statute as written and comparing to the actual numbers, the trigger condition was not met.

Does this mean school boards can never defer state mandates?
No. The deferral provision could activate in a future year if state aid drops below the January 1990 baseline. The 1991 opinion only addresses whether it was activated as of the date of the opinion.

What counts as a state education mandate?
The statute names examples: minimum pupil-teacher ratios, guidance programs, gifted and talented programs, music programs, and art programs. The list is non-exhaustive ("include, but are not limited to"). Any state legislation or rule enacted after January 1, 1984 imposing a requirement on schools would be covered.

Is the Commissioner's recommended funding level legally binding?
No. The AG opinion is explicit. The Commissioner's recommendation under § 15605 is advisory. Neither the Governor nor the Legislature is bound by it. The funding level that matters legally is the one in the actual appropriation.

Why did the AG say the 55 percent floor is "precatory"?
Because it expresses legislative intent, not a binding command, and because one Legislature cannot bind future Legislatures by mere intent language. That principle ties back to the same line of authority the AG used in 1991-08-05 (legislative bind-future-Legislatures rule). [[1991-08-05-citizen-initiative-proposing-to-limit-the-power-of-the-legis]]

Source

• Landing page: https://www.maine.gov/legis/lawlib/lldl/agops/agops.htm
• Original PDF: https://lldc.mainelegislature.org/Open/AG/Opinions/1991/ag_19910401.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain — the linked PDF is authoritative.

State of Maine
Department of the Attorney General
State House Station 6
Augusta, Maine 04333

April 1, 1991

Sen. Stephen C. Estes, Chair
Rep. Nathaniel J. Crowley, Sr., Chair
Committee on Education
State House Station 115
Augusta, ME 04333

Dear Senator Estes and Representative Crowley:

I am writing in response to your inquiry of March 27, asking a series of questions concerning P.L. 1991, c. 9, Part II, § II-1, the FY-91 supplemental budget bill, with an effective date of March 14, 1991. Your questions concern Part II, § II-1 of that bill which states:

Any legislation or rule containing a state mandate enacted after January 1, 1984 may be deferred by action of a local school board until such time as the State restores state aid to education to the levels required by the laws in effect on January 1, 1990. These mandates include, but are not limited to, minimum pupil-teacher ratios, guidance programs, gifted and talented programs, music programs and art programs.

Initially, you inquire about the meaning of the phrase "until such time as the State restores state aid to education to the levels required by the laws in effect on January 1, 1990." Secondly, you ask whether the mandate deferral provisions are triggered by the current level of state funding. Thirdly, you pose a series of questions to be answered if the response to the second question is in the affirmative. For reasons which are discussed below, it is the opinion of this Department that the mandate deferral provision contained in P.L. 1991, c. 9, Part II, § II-1 is not triggered by the current level of state funding. It is therefore unnecessary to respond to your remaining questions.

Your initial question, concerning the meaning of the phrase "until such time as the State restores state aid to education to the levels required by the laws in effect on January 1, 1990", must be answered in the context of the School Finance Act of 1985, 20-A M.R.S.A. § 15601, et seq. as amended. In part, the School Finance Act describes the process used to predict educational costs on a state-wide basis for the coming year and to produce a recommended funding level intended to meet those estimated costs. Title 20-A M.R.S.A. § 15605 requires the Commissioner of Education to produce, prior to December 15 of each year, a recommended funding level for the academic year beginning the following July 1. The statute sets out a method for computing the recommended funding level. This method is based upon two-year-old costs but also reflects more recent changes in pupil enrollment, economic factors, actual changes in education costs, and "any other considerations which effect a change in the costs of education." Additionally, the costs are adjusted to reflect recent inflation. The Commissioner utilizes this method of computation and, with the approval of the State Board, certifies to the Governor and the Bureau of the Budget the recommended funding level for the coming academic year. The Governor is obligated, pursuant to 20-A M.R.S.A. § 15606, to make a recommendation to the Legislature within time schedules set forth in 5 M.R.S.A. § 1666. The Legislature then acts to appropriate the state share of the total allocation and, further, appropriates other amounts for the various adjustments contained in 20-A M.R.S.A. § 15612, e.g. quality incentive, geographic isolation, etc. It is important to note that the Commissioner's recommendation is not binding on the Governor nor upon the Legislature and, similarly, the Governor's recommendation is not binding upon the Legislature. Indeed, in December of 1989, the Commissioner's recommendation for academic year 1990-91 was that the state share of the total allocation be $535 million. The Legislature appropriated just over $521 million.[1]

Notwithstanding the recommendations made to the Legislature, the level of funding that the State provides toward the cost of educating students in the public schools of Maine is not determined until the Legislature acts to appropriate that sum of money. Only upon the passage of the appropriations bill containing the appropriation for state aid to education is a particular level of funding for state aid to education "required by law."[2]

Against this general description, it is possible to determine what level of state aid to education was required by the "laws in effect on January 1, 1990." On January 1, 1990, the law in effect that governed the level of state aid to education was the appropriations bill passed in the spring of 1989. According to information provided by the Department of Education, the state share of the total allocation for academic year 1989-90 was approximately $466 million. This amounts to a 56.65% state share of the total allocation for academic year 1989-90. Thus, there are two possibilities for measuring the "level of state aid to education required by the law in effect on January 1, 1990": the absolute dollar amount of state aid, or the percentage equal to the State's share of the total allocation. Although the Commissioner's recommendation for a level of state aid to education for academic year 1990-91 was pending on January 1, 1990, that recommendation was not tantamount to a "requirement" of the law. Again, no "requirement" exists until the Legislature determines the level of state aid and appropriates funds to match that level. Consequently, in answer to your first question, the "levels required by the laws in effect on January 1, 1990" are the levels of state aid to education contained in the appropriations bill establishing the level of state aid to education for academic year 1989-90.

Secondly, you ask whether the "application of the mandate deferral provision is triggered by the current level of state funding." As stated above, there are two possibilities for measuring the "level" of state aid to education as of January 1, 1990. The first is a dollar amount, approximately $466 million. The second is a percentage, the 56.65% state share of the total allocation represented by that amount. The law gives no guidance as to which of these two methods is to be used. However, it is possible to answer your question because, under either interpretation, the current level of state funding exceeds both the dollar amount and the state percentage share of the total allocation "required by the laws in effect on January 1, 1990." Applying the same analysis discussed above, the current level of state aid to education is that level of aid contained in the appropriation bills which set the level of state aid to education for the academic year 1990-91. According to the Department of Education, state aid for education for 90-91 was set by the Legislature at $521 million or 56.76% of the total allocation. Because both figures are above their respective levels for January 1, 1990, the mandate deferral provisions are not triggered by the current level of state funding.

This Department recognizes that by using the phrase "until such time as the State restores aid to education to the levels required by the laws in effect on January 1, 1990", the Legislature may have assumed that the current level of funding is less than that required by "the laws in effect on January 1, 1990." It is possible the Legislature contemplated that, upon enactment, local school boards would immediately have available to them the option of deferring state mandates. However, this Department has been unable to identify any diminution of funding that has actually occurred under the Department's interpretation of the statutory language.[3]

Given my conclusion that the mandate deferral provision is not triggered by the current level of funding, I find it is unnecessary to answer the remaining questions contained in your letter.

Sincerely,

Michael E. Carpenter
Attorney General

MEC: lm

[1] These numbers do not include approximately $10 million in additional appropriations intended to fund the adjustments described in 20-A M.R.S.A. § 15612. This is because the "total allocation" is defined as "the total of the foundation allocation and the debt service allocation." 20-A M.R.S.A. § 15603(28). Adjustments are not included within either the foundation allocation or the debt service allocation. See also, 20-A M.R.S.A. § 15602(4).

[2] 20-A M.R.S.A. § 15602(1) states "it is the intent of the Legislature to provide at least 55% of the cost of the total allocation from General Fund sources or a percentage no less than that provided in the year prior to the year of allocation, whichever is greater." This expression of intent is merely precatory and is not binding upon succeeding legislatures. Therefore, there is no minimum percentage of state funding that is "required by law."

[3] Section II-1 made its original appearance in slightly different form as part of the minority report on the supplemental appropriations bill. (See L.D. 275, § I-1) This language was later added to the bill containing the majority report (L.D. 274) and amended several times in both bodies before its enactment into law. The mandate language was mentioned several times in floor debate and was the subject of one roll call vote. Although the triggering event was not specifically discussed, several legislators expressed uncertainty as to exactly what the mandate language meant. (See 1991 Legis. Record S-162, 171, 173, 185-88; 248, 249; H-196, 272 (proof ed.))