Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes

RAYMOND ARTHUR ABBOTT, A MINOR, BY HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM, FRANCESABBOTT; ARLENE FIGUEROA, FRANCES FIGUEROA, HECTOR FIGUEROA, ORLANDOFIGUEROA AND VIVIAN FIGUEROA, MINORS, BY THEIR GUARDIAN AD LITEM,BLANCA FIGUEROA; MICHAEL HADLEY, A MINOR, BY HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM,LOLA MOORE; HENRY STEVENS, JR., A MINOR, BY HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM,HENRY STEVENS, SR.; CAROLINE JAMES AND JERMAINE JAMES, MINORS, BYTHEIR GUARDIAN AD LITEM, MATTIE JAMES; DORIAN WAITERS AND KHUDAYJAWAITERS, MINORS, BY THEIR GUARDIAN AD LITEM, LYNN WAITERS; CHRISTINAKNOWLES, DANIEL KNOWLES, AND GUY KNOWLES, JR., MINORS, BY THEIRGUARDIAN AD LITEM, GUY KNOWLES, SR.; LIANA DIAZ, A MINOR, BY HERGUARDIAN AD LITEM, LUCILA DIAZ; AISHA HARGROVE AND ZAKIA HARGROVE,MINORS, BY THEIR GUARDIAN AD LITEM, PATRICIA WATSON; AND LAMARSTEPHENS AND LESLIE STEPHENS, MINORS, BY THEIR GUARDIAN AD LITEM,EDDIE STEPHENS, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. FRED G. BURKE,COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION; EDWARD G. HOFGESANG, NEW JERSEY DIRECTOROF BUDGET AND ACCOUNTING; CLIFFORD A. GOLDMAN, NEW JERSEY STATETREASURER; AND NEW JERSEY STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION,DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS, AND BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CITY OF ASBURYPARK, BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CITY OF BRIDGETON, BOARD OF EDUCATION OFCITY OF BURLINGTON, BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CITY OF EAST ORANGE, BOARDOF EDUCATION OF CITY OF ELIZABETH, BOARD OF EDUCATION OF GLOUCESTERCITY, BOARD OF EDUCATION OF TOWN OF HARRISON, BOARD OF EDUCATION OFKEANSBURG BOROUGH, BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CITY OF PASSAIC,STATE-OPERATED SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PATERSON, BOARD OF EDUCATIONOF PEMBERTON TOWNSHIP, BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CITY OF PERTH AMBOY,BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CITY OF PLAINFIELD, BOARD OF EDUCATION OFSALEM CITY, BOARD OF EDUCATION OF TOWN OF PHILLIPSBURG, AND BOARDOF EDUCATION OF CITY OF TRENTON, INTERVENORS-MOVANTS, AND BOARD OFEDUCATION OF CAMDEN CITY, BOARD OF EDUCATION OF IRVINGTON, BOARD OFEDUCATION OF MILLVILLE, BOARD OF EDUCATION OF STATE-OPERATED SCHOOLDISTRICT OF THE CITY OF NEWARK, BOARD OF EDUCATION OF PLEASANTVILLE,AND BOARD OF EDUCATION OF VINELAND, INTERVENORS.

This matter having come before the Court on the application of sixteen Intervenor Districts seeking clarification of the Court's Order of May 9, 2006, in respect of the following:

(1) Whether the Court intended an expedited schedule for Department of Education (DOE) determinations and district appeals of the 2006-2007 budgets and, if so, what is the expedited schedule;
(2) Whether the Court intended funding for facilities coming on-line in 2006-2007 to be independent of the flat-funded budgets in accordance with the Attorney General's representation that approximately $40 million had been set aside for those new facilities and, if so, whether the Court intended to preserve the districts' right to appeal if the DOE's determination on new facilities' funding is inadequate to meet a district's needs;
(3) Whether the Court intended the districts' right to appeal to be limited to existing demonstrably needed programs, services, or positions; (4) Whether the Court intended to incorporate the Attorney General's representation at oral argument that supplemental funding will remain at FY2006 levels; and
(5) Whether the Court granted or denied the State's request to increase the tax levy of eight Abbott districts.

And plaintiffs having submitted a letter brief in support of Intervenors' application,

And defendants having submitted a letter brief in opposition to the motion,

And the Court having determined that the request for clarification of its Order in respect of the DOE's determinations and district appeals for FY 2007 budgets has been addressed by the State's representation that DOE does not anticipate taking more than two weeks to issue its budget decisions once a district has submitted a budget with all requested information,

And the Court having further determined that the request for clarification of the its Order in respect of funding for the opening of new and renovated facilities has been addressed by the State's representation that it is committed to provide all funds necessary to bring the new and renovated facilities "on line,"

And the Court having determined that its May 9, 2006, Order addresses the remaining issues raised by movants so that clarification is not warranted,

And good cause appearing;

IT IS ORDERED that DOE shall issue its budget decisions no more than fourteen days from the later of May 31, 2006, or the date it receives a district's budget that includes all requested information; and it is further

ORDERED that the time frames for district budget appeals, as set forth in N.J.A.C. 6A:10A-9.8, shall otherwise remain in effect; and it is further

ORDERED that DOE shall apply Educational Opportunity Aid (EOA) monies that become available as a result of increased tax levies in designated districts to support funding for all new and renovated facilities opening in FY 2007; and it is further

ORDERED that the State shall fund, in accordance with its representations at oral argument and as supplemented by application of the foregoing paragraph, the opening expenses for all new and renovated facilities that come "online" in FY 2007, and that there shall be a right of appeal should a district claim that such necessary funding has not been made available; and it is further

ORDERED that the remaining requests for clarification of the Court's May 9, 2006, Order are denied.

For granting in part; denial in part — Chief Justice PORITZ and Justices LONG, ZAZZALI, ALBIN and WALLACE — 5.

For concurrence in part; dissent in part — Justices LaVECCHIA and RIVERA-SOTO — 2.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

ABBOTT EX REL. ABBOTT v. BURKE
(May 22, 2006)