Blythewood Online 691

Tag: Mitford

  • Mitford Case Gets Final Hearing

    COLUMBIA – Attorneys for the Fairfield and Chester county school districts made their final pitches Thursday morning before the highest court in the state in the battle between the district over which district should pay to educate the approximately 200 students living in the Mitford community in Fairfield County but attending Chester County schools.

    Armand Derfner, a Charleston attorney representing Fairfield County Schools, argued that the special legislation introduced and passed in 2010 mandating that Fairfield fork over tuition for the Mitford students (based on a formula of 103 percent of Chester’s per-pupil costs) was unconstitutional. That argument failed to gain traction in the lower courts, and in July of 2012, Fifth Circuit Court Judge J. Ernest Kinard ruled in favor of Chester County and released nearly $2 million in back payments.

    Derfner again made that argument before the State Supreme Court Thursday, and said a general law should be applied to the Mitford conflict, a law that would apply to every district in the state. But Derfner faced some hard questions from the five-judge panel.

    “Where do we draw the line?” Chief Justice Jean H. Toal asked. “We have school districts all over the state that are governed by special law. If we adopt your view, we’re going to interrupt a lot of long-term arrangements that have been in place for some time.”

    But, Derfner argued, the Mitford legislation was different than all of the other special laws that govern school districts in South Carolina.

    “No other statute that I know of sets tuition the way this one does,” Derfner said. “It may be a good idea, but it is a revolutionary idea and should be dealt with with a general law.”

    John M. Reagle, of the Childs and Halligan law firm in Columbia, also faced a tough cross examination from the judges in his argument for Chester and the validity of the law.

    “How is it appropriate to treat Fairfield differently than any other county in the state?” Justice Kaye G. Hearn asked.

    Reagle said the general law requires appropriate arrangements to be made between school districts in cases where a large number of students cross district lines. In the case of Mitford, those arrangements were not made between the Chester and Fairfield districts. In fact, an arrangement did exist between the districts from 1972 to 2007, during which time Fairfield paid Chester $25,000 a year. When those payments abruptly stopped under then Superintendent Samantha Ingram and then Chairwoman Catherine Kennedy, Coleman stepped in to negotiate a deal between the districts. In early 2010, an agreement had been struck to bring the payments up to date, but after sending $50,000 to Chester, Fairfield again ceased payments. Coleman then introduced local legislation to ensure the continuation of the payments. Coleman’s bill (S.1405) called for Fairfield to annually pay Chester 103 percent of Chester’s prior year per-pupil cost for each Mitford student enrolled in Chester schools.

    “Why should Fairfield pay to educate these kids?” Justice Donald M. Beatty asked.

    “Because it is the right thing to do,” Reagle answered. “This relationship was fostered for 40 years.”

    In his lower court ruling, Judge Kinard noted that Article III of the S.C. Constitution “generally prohibits special legislation where a general law can be made to apply,” but also said that “the prohibition of special legislation is not absolute, and special legislation is not unconstitutional where the General Assembly has a logical basis and sound reason for resorting to special legislation.”

    Kinard’s ruling stated that the Fairfield County School District “presented no evidence” that the General Assembly had abused its discretion in enacting this special legislation. The ruling also stated that the General Assembly did, in fact, have “a logical basis and sound reason” for enacting this special law.

    The Court recessed Thursday giving no indication of when a ruling would be forthcoming.

  • Freed-Up Funds Flow into Chester

    Although the Fairfield County School Board voted 5-2 in a special called meeting last week to appeal a July 16 ruling by a Circuit Court judge in the Mitford case, one detail of that ruling remained unaddressed – whether or not to seek a court order to delay the delivery to Chester County Schools funds currently being held at the Fairfield County Treasurer’s Office, pending the outcome of the appeal.

    Tuesday night, the Board held their third special called meeting in as many weeks to address that issue, and after more than an hour in executive session, took no action.

    According to Judge J. Ernest Kinard’s ruling, the Treasurer was to release those funds – approximately $1.8 million accrued over the last three years – within 30 days of the July 16 court order. At the time the Board convened Tuesday night, the Board had literally hours before the funds were to be transferred. Any last-minute effort to delay those funds with a court order could have cost the District no less than $5,000, sources close to the School District reported. In the event the District wins the appeal, the funds will be returned with interest, the source said.

    After the meeting, Board Chairwoman Andrea Harrison declined to answer questions about how much the appeal was expected to cost the school district or if the Board would muster an eleventh-hour attempt to delay the delivery of funds to Chester County and how much any such attempt might cost. Instead, Harrison said, the District’s attorney, Armand Derfner, would make a statement on the Board’s behalf.

    However, reached by phone after the meeting, Derfner said he had no such statement.

    “I really think you should get it from them (the School Board),” Derfner said. “They’re really in control of the statement, so you would want to talk to them.”

    Follow-up phone calls to Harrison were not returned to The Voice at press time.

  • Fairfield County School Board to Appeal Mitford Ruling

    The Fairfield County School Board voted 5-2 Tuesday night to pursue an appeal of a Circuit Court decision in the legal battle between the Chester County School District and Fairfield County Schools.

    Judge J. Ernest Kinard ruled July 16 that Fairfield must pay Chester approximately $3,452 in local funds for each student living in the Mitford area of Fairfield County and attending Chester County schools. It is estimated that between 100 and 200 students would have been affected by the ruling.

    “We send three buses to the Mitford area every day, during school,” Board member Henry Miller said prior to the vote. “The children in the Blair community, some of them come 28 miles from their residences to the high school. The claim is that they’re (Mitford students) traveling so far. The children in the Blair area are traveling further. Also, we don’t know, maybe later, our legislators may come and say ‘we’re going to let the children in the Ridgeway area go to schools in Richland County.’ I think it’s dangerous and it’s something this board needs to fight.”

    Miller voted for the appeal, as did Andrea Harrison, Marchella Pauling, Danielle Miller and Annie McDaniel, who joined the meeting by phone.

    Board members Bobby Cunningham and Beth Reid voted against the appeal.

    “We’ve already spent, I would estimate, over $300,000 on this thing,” Cunningham said. “We cannot make those children come to Fairfield County schools.”

    And the federal money and the state money, Cunningham noted, follows the students.

    “This was a sleeping dog that should have been left alone,” Cunningham said.

    Kinard’s ruling stated that, based on Fairfield County’s local per student funding level of $8,875 versus Chester County’s local per student funding level of $3,452, Chester County Schools are “not unduly profiting” from the arrangement and Fairfield County Schools are not being “unreasonably burdened.”

    “(The Fairfield County School District) is actually spending over $5,000 less per student than its per student revenue,” the ruling states.

    The lawsuit was brought by the Fairfield County School District in June of 2010 following an act of local legislation providing for the continued funding of the approximately 200 Mitford area students who attend Chester County Schools. The District’s lawsuit claimed the legislation, introduced and passed by Sen. Creighton Coleman and Rep. Boyd Brown in the spring of 2010, was unconstitutional in that it conflicted with general law as set forth by Article III, Section 34 of the S.C. State Constitution.

    In his ruling Judge Kinard noted that Article III “generally prohibits special legislation where a general law can be made to apply,” but also said that “the prohibition of special legislation is not absolute, and special legislation is not unconstitutional where the General Assembly has a logical basis and sound reason for resorting to special legislation.”

    Armand Derfner, the Charleston attorney handling the case for the Fairfield County School District, said that is, essentially, what the whole case boils down to – special law versus general law.

    “What it comes down to is can a general law be made or is this situation so unique that it requires a special law,” Derfner said. “Fairfield says a general law is in place. Chester says no, that this situation requires a special law.”

    Kinard’s ruling stated that the Fairfield County School District “presented no evidence” that the General Assembly had abused its discretion in enacting this special legislation. The ruling also stated that the General Assembly did, in fact, have “a logical basis and sound reason” for enacting this special law.

  • Judge Rules for Chester in Mitford Case

    After more than two years of litigation and nearly $2 million in invoices from the Chester County School District, a Fifth Circuit Court judge handed down a ruling Monday afternoon in what has commonly become known as the “Mitford Case.”

    Judge J. Ernest Kinard ruled Monday in favor of Chester County Schools and against the Fairfield County School District in the two-year battle over who should pay for students living in the Mitford area of Fairfield County and attending schools in the Great Falls area of Chester County. Judge Kinard also authorized the Fairfield County Treasurer to release to Chester County Schools nearly $2 million in funds, for which Chester has invoiced Fairfield since the 2009-2010 school year and which had been held by the Treasurer by order of the Court.

    The lawsuit was brought by the Fairfield County School District in June of 2010 following an act of local legislation providing for the continued funding of the approximately 200 Mitford area students who attend Chester County Schools. The District’s lawsuit claimed the legislation, introduced and passed by Sen. Creighton Coleman and Rep. Boyd Brown in the spring of 2010, was unconstitutional in that it conflicted with general law as set forth by Article III, Section 34 of the S.C. State Constitution.

    In his ruling Judge Kinard noted that Article III “generally prohibits special legislation where a general law can be made to apply,” but also said that “the prohibition of special legislation is not absolute, and special legislation is not unconstitutional where the General Assembly has a logical basis and sound reason for resorting to special legislation.”

    Kinard’s ruling stated that the Fairfield County School District “presented no evidence” that the General Assembly had abused its discretion in enacting this special legislation. The ruling also stated that the General Assembly did, in fact, have “a logical basis and sound reason” for enacting the special law.

    “I think it’s a fair ruling,” Coleman said Tuesday afternoon. “It seems to me that the Fairfield County School District could have come to the table and could have resolved it a lot easier and a lot cheaper for the taxpayers, but they chose to litigate it.”

    The ruling details some of the circumstances that led up to the litigation, particularly that, for several decades between 100 and 200 students living in the Mitford area have attended Chester County Schools and, since at least 1973, the two districts had agreed upon a financial arrangement in order to cover the cost of educating those students. That agreement began breaking down in 2007, the Court document states, and finally ended in the 2009-2010 school year when no agreement was reached. Prior to that time, the Fairfield County School District had transferred $25,000 annually to Chester County Schools to help offset the cost of educating Mitford students.

    The ruling also notes that, on May 21, 2010, Annie McDaniel, then Chairwoman of the Fairfield County School Board, wrote to Sen. Coleman “and made clear (the Fairfield County School District) had no agreement with (Chester County Schools) for payments to educate the Mitford students and that (the Fairfield County School District) ‘does not pay tuition for students desiring to attend schools out of the District’.”

    Because of that stance by the Fairfield County School District, the court document states, the General Assembly enacted special legislation to provide for the Mitford students.

    Kinard’s ruling also stated that, based on Fairfield County’s local per student funding level of $8,875 versus Chester County’s local per student funding level of $3,452, Chester County Schools are “not unduly profiting” from the arrangement and Fairfield County Schools are not being “unreasonably burdened.”

    “(The Fairfield County School District) is actually spending over $5,000 less per student than its per student revenue,” the ruling states.

    Under the Coleman-Brown special legislation, the Chester County School District is to be reimbursed by Fairfield County Schools based on Chester County’s level of local per pupil funding.

    Andrea Harrison, current Chairwoman of the Fairfield County School Board, declined comment on the ruling at press time.