[This decision has been published in Ohio Official Reports at
91 Ohio St.3d 1225.]
DEROLPH ET AL., APPELLEES, v. THE STATE OF OHIO ET AL., APPELLANTS.
[Cite as DeRolph v. State, 2001-Ohio-265.]
Schools—Funding—Motion for order to pay costs of unfunded mandates, to file
master plan, and to file subsequent progress reports—Evidence ordered to
be filed.
(No. 99-570—Submitted January 9, 2001—Decided January 25, 2001.)
APPEAL from Perry County Court of Common Pleas, No. 22043.
__________________
{¶ 1} This cause is pending before the court as an appeal of right from the
Court of Common Pleas of Perry County. On December 8, 2000, appellees filed a
motion for an order requiring appellants to pay the costs of the unfunded mandates,
to file a master plan, and to file subsequent progress reports.
{¶ 2} On May 11, 2000, this court ordered that this matter be continued to
June 15, 2001, at which time the court would establish a briefing schedule. To
facilitate the court’s consideration of this matter prior to July 1, 2001, which begins
the fiscal years 2002-2003 biennial budget period,
{¶ 3} IT IS ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that the parties file any
evidence they intend to present as early as practicable but no later than June 15,
2001.
{¶ 4} IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties and amicus curiae file
their merit briefs no later than June 18, 2001. Responsive briefs and stipulated
extensions of time pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. XIV(3)(B)(2)(a) will not be permitted.
{¶ 5} IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that oral argument is set for June 20,
2001, with time and length of oral argument to be set by further order of the court.
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and LUNDBERG
STRATTON, JJ., concur.
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
DOUGLAS, RESNICK and F.E. SWEENEY, JJ., concur separately.
COOK, J., dissents to the entry and to the separate concurring opinion.
__________________
ALICE ROBIE RESNICK, J., concurring.
{¶ 6} I write separately to underscore the fact that DeRolph v. State (2000),
89 Ohio St.3d 1,
728 N.E.2d 993 (“DeRolph II”), set June 15, 2001, as a deadline
for the state to comply with the decisions of this court. In its decision of May 11,
2000, in DeRolph II, a majority of this court indicated that a briefing schedule
would be set.
Id. at 38,
728 N.E.2d at 1022. However, this detail in no way
diminishes the fact that the date of June 15 was set as a deadline for the state to
provide each child in Ohio with a thorough and efficient system of common schools
as mandated by the Constitution. The state, on that date, should be prepared to file
with this court a complete account of its enactments that will reflect compliance
with the decisions of this court in both DeRolph I and DeRolph II. See DeRolph v.
State (1997),
78 Ohio St.3d 193,
677 N.E.2d 733 (“DeRolph I”). These enactments
should include, but are not limited to, a complete set of statewide academic
standards, requirements that all school buildings be brought up to fire and building
codes, elimination of overreliance on local property taxes, funding for all state
mandates, and an accurate determination of the per-pupil cost of an adequate
education to be funded immediately.
{¶ 7} It is of the utmost importance to require the state to address all of the
requirements set forth in the DeRolph decisions by the deadline of June 15, 2001.
As the entry reads, simply requiring briefing by both sides by June 18, 2001 does
not emphasize the finality of the June 15 deadline and may unnecessarily prolong
the resolution of the constitutionality of school funding in Ohio to some unknown
future date. As the entry is drafted, it implies that this issue may continue after the
June 15 deadline as set by this court on May 11, 2000, in DeRolph II.
2
January Term, 2001
{¶ 8} This issue is of grave importance, and the state will have had ample
time by June 15 to arrive at specific enactments of law that will ensure a thorough
and efficient system of public schools for every child in Ohio. The burden is upon
the state to establish that it has complied with the orders of this court.
DOUGLAS and F.E. SWEENEY, JJ., concur in the foregoing opinion.
__________________
3
