Shelby County Attorney Kelly Rayne was already doing a lot right in the few months after being appointed a few months ago by Mayor Mark Luttrell, but her stock goes up even higher with us with the release of her opinion on the seminal questions regarding consolidation of city and county schools and creation of a special school district by county schools
In the past, county attorneys seemed work to make sure that their legal opinions were inaccessible to ordinary citizens. They could go on for pages and pages without ever managing to clearly answer what amounted to a yes or no question. The new format adopted by Ms. Rayne, as seen in her recently released opinion, is outstanding in the context of past opinions, but in the context of the current controversy, it’s nothing short of exceptional.
Most of all, it shows that when Mayor Luttrell, along with Memphis Mayor A C Wharton Jr., said he would act as honest broker in this controversy, he was dead serious. This opinion advances the discussion with the facts and legal foundation that have largely been missing.
With this opinion, Ms. Rayne provided the most definitive research and answers we have been given since the debate about charter surrender of Memphis City Schools began. On balance, we find much in it to support the growing momentum behind school consolidation and to undercut the unfounded scare tactics by Shelby County Schools officials. That said, we think you should read it for yourself and not take our word for it.
To read the county attorney’s opinion for yourself, click here.
SCM,
Thanks for the link. Attorney Rayne acknowledges some of the ambiguity here and, on the most important question, reports that her office needs to do more research.
Some alternate theories:
1) Rayne says SSD would require a private act. According to attorney Cagle of Nashville, the creation of an SSD is accomplished via a general act of local application. The difference is important: Private acts require the concurrence of the local legislative body; general acts do not.
2) Does the private act require support of the local delegation? Rayne concludes that Senate rules would require the support of 3/4 of the Senators representing Shelby County. I’m not a lawyer, but the excerpt of Senate rules she included says 3/4 must be present; does not say they most vote in favor.
3) Rayne says no referendum is required to create an SSD; in fact, she says it is prohibited. She relies on the principal that the legislature cannot delegate its authority to make law. TCA 49-2-106(3) instructs the TN BOE to establish standards for establishing new SSDs including “The expressed willingness of the people of the city or special school district, as indicated by a majority of its legal voters in a referendum, to raise local funds,”. The legislature is not delegating its authority to make law; they are instructing the state board of education to determine whether or not this particular proposal meets their standard for a viable school district. The referendum is detailed as part of that standard.
6) This is the same referendum question. To eliminate the referendum requirement, TCA 49-2-106(3) would have to be changed.
17. Rayne says Shelby County may be able to allocate funds on something other ADA basis if SCS gets taxing authority. I think her logic on this one is strained. She cites an AG opinion, built on Gibson County, that says counties have no responsibility to fund SSDs. True. Gibson County is completely covered by special and municipal school districts. The Gibson County Commission provides no education funds from property taxes. Rayne takes that “no responsibility” opinion and uses it to supercede the ADA statute. Wrong. IF the county commission provides education funds for operations, those funds must by allocated on an ADA basis. Rayne even cites the relevant statute, TCA 49-3-315(a) “All school funds for current operation and maintenance purposes collected by any county, except the funds raised by any local special student transportation tax levy as authorized in this subsection (a), shall be apportioned by the county trustee among the LEAs in the county on the basis of the WFTEADA maintained by each, during the current school year.”
I realize it is pretty bold for an Industrial Engineer to assert that he has a better understanding of the law than a trained lawyer high in the government. Rayne answered 20 unique questions and got 17 of them right. Keep this post and lets calculate my batting average on the three I believe she got wrong.
Ken
An amazing document.
I wish that these mega-PDFs would be released in text rather than image form so we could search through them (and quote them easily). The unsuccessful charter used the same image form.
In typical SCS fashion (avoiding their real responsibility), instead of looking at this as an opportunity to succeed at educating students at an appropriate funding level where others (MCS) have failed, they look at it as an “unwanted responsibility” (that they already have, but, conveniently pay others to do very badly) which they don’t care about as long as it’s out of their sight.
They could accept this and get it done right and come out heros of civil rights etc. Instead they opt to get a corrupt politician involved to re-institutionalize racism.
WOW.
Pathetic.