Bacon v. New Jersey State Dep’t of Education, 443 N.J. Super. 24 (App. Div. 2015). Many of us know about so-called “Abbott school districts,” districts in economically distressed urban areas that are named for the Abbott v. Burke cases, which have challenged New Jersey’s method of school funding as unconstitutionally insufficient as applied to those urban districts. But there is another group of “rural and property-poor” school districts, the Bacon districts, which have likewise asserted that their students have been deprived of a “thorough and efficient” education in violation of the constitution.
Judge Haas, writing for the Appellate Division recently addressed the latest phase of the Bacon districts’ litigation. There had been a lengthy procedural history but, in summary, the Department of Education in 2009 issued sixteen individualized needs assessments, focusing on “the unique issues that affected each individual district at that time.” The needs assessments discussed funding issues, but “lacked a global statement about all the Bacon districts or whether fully funding SFRA would provide the Bacon district students with a thorough and efficient education.” Plaintiffs did not appeal those needs assessments.
The State reduced SFRA funding for the 2011 fiscal year. Plaintiffs took no action until September 2014. At that time, they filed a summary action to an enforce an agency order, under Rule 4:67-6, seeking to “enforce final determinations” by the Department that plaintiffs contended were embodied in the needs assessments. Plaintiffs sought very broad relief, including an order that the Department calculate the aid to Bacon districts under the SFRA for years going forward and then ask the Legislature to provide those funds. The State moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, which the Law Division granted. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed.
Judge Haas applied plenary review. He then discussed the function of Rule 4:67-6, which he noted is “analogous to a motion for enforcement of litigant’s rights under Rule 1:10-3 in a judicial proceeding.” In order to proceed under Rule 4:67-6, Judge Haas said, a litigant must show that there is a “specific and unequivocal” order that provides “specific relief” to the party seeking to enforce that order. Plaintiffs’ case did not meet that test.
Though they labeled the 2009 needs assessments as “final determinations,” those needs assessments “belie[d]” that characterization, since “[t]here is no overall report that draws conclusions about the state of the Bacon districts as a group.” The SFRA recommendations varied by district, but plaintiffs sought “identical relief” for all Bacon districts. “Significantly, none of the needs assessments concluded that fully funding the SFRA is necessary to ensure that students in the Bacon districts receive a thorough and efficient education.” There were simply no “clear findings” and “no directives” in the needs assessments. “Without any directives or an omnibus order, there was nothing for the trial court to enforce and plaintiffs’ complaint was therefore properly dismissed.”
Plaintiffs also argued that the Appellate Division should exercise its original jurisdiction and declare that the Department had violated the New Jersey Constitution by failing to ensure that all Bacon districts received full SFRA funding. Judge Haas rejected that idea. Plaintiffs did not offer the original jurisdiction argument until their reply brief, which is impermissible. The argument was thus waived. Besides, original jurisdiction is exercised only “with great frugality and in none but a case free of doubt.” The record was not adequate for original jurisdiction even if plaintiffs had not waived that contention.