TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INFORMATIONAL STATEMENT . iv II. JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT . vii III. POINT ON APPEAL AND PRINCIPAL AUTHORITIES .......................................x IV. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ............................ xi V. ABSTRACT ...................................... Abs 1 A. Hearing on Motion to Dismiss . Abs 1 1. Argument by Counsel for Beebe, et al. ........ Abs 1 2. Argument by Counsel for Deer/Mt. Judea . Abs 5 3. Argument by Counsel for Beebe, et al. ....... Abs 14 5. Statement by the Circuit Court . Abs 18 VI. STATEMENT OF THE CASE .......................SoC 1 A. Introduction ..................................SoC 1 i B. School Funding Generally . SoC 2 VII. ARGUMENT ..................................... Arg 1 A. Standard of Review ............................ Arg 1 B. The Claim Preclusion Aspect of Res Judicata ....... Arg 2 C. Post-Lake View Educational Outcomes . Arg 4 D. Constitutional Compliance is an Ongoing Task Requiring Constant Study, Review and Adjustment . Arg 11 E. The Events Giving Rise to Deer/Mt. Judea’s Complaint .................................. Arg 13 1. Failure to Comply with Act 57 . Arg 13 2. Extra Help for Struggling Students . Arg 18 3. Professional Development for Teachers . Arg 21 4. Transportation Funding and Excessive Transportation Time ...................... Arg 25 F. Conclusion.................................. Arg 30 IX. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.......................... xiv XI. ADDENDUM ........................................xv ii A. Pleadings. 1. Deer/Mt. Judea’s Complaint, Record (“R”) 1 ..........................Add 1 2. Beebe, et al., Motion to Dismiss, R 123 .....Add 113 3. Beebe, et al., Motion to Dismiss Brief, R 126 . Add 116 4. Darr, Moore and Bookout Motion to Dismiss, R 720 ................Add 162 5. Darr, Moore and Bookout Motion to Dismiss Brief, R 723 ............Add 165 6. Deer/Mt. Judea’s Response to Motion to Dismiss, R 726 ................Add 168 7. Deer/Mt. Judea’s Motion for Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice, R 741 ........Add 183 8. Order Granting Motion for Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice, R 744 ........Add 186 9. Order on Motion to Dismiss, R 746 .........Add 188 10. Notice of Appeal, R 749 .................Add 191 iii I. INFORMATIONAL STATEMENT I. ANY RELATED OR PRIOR APPEAL: None II. BASIS OF SUPREME COURT JURISDICTION: (__) Check here if no basis for Supreme Court Jurisdiction is being asserted, or check below all applicable grounds on which Supreme Court Jurisdiction is asserted. (1) X Construction of Constitution of Arkansas (2) ___ Death penalty, life imprisonment (3) ___ Extraordinary writs (4) ___ Elections and election procedures (5) ___ Discipline of attorneys (6) ___ Discipline and disability of judges (7) ___ Previous appeal in Supreme Court (8) ___ Appeal to Supreme Court by law III. NATURE OF APPEAL (1) ___ Administrative or regulatory action (2) ___ Rule 37 (3) ___ Rule on Clerk (4) ___ Interlocutory appeal (5) ___ Usury (6) ___ Products liability (7) ___ Oil, gas, or mineral rights iv (8) ___ Torts (9) ___ Construction of deed or will (10) ___ Contract (11) ___ Criminal Deer/Mt. Judea School District (“Deer/Mt. Judea”) alleged that the State failed to conduct adequacy studies in compliance with Ark. Code Ann. § 10-3-2102 (commonly referred to as “Act 57") in 2008 and 2010 and to make necessary adjustments to maintain an education system in compliance with the Arkansas Constitution article 14, section 1 and articles 2, 3 and 18. Deer/Mt. Judea asserted causes of action pursuant to Arkansas Constitution article 16, section 13 (public funds illegal exaction); the Arkansas Declaratory Judgment Act, Ark. Code Ann. §§ 16-111-101 to -111; and, the Arkansas Civil Rights Act of 1993, Ark. Code Ann. §§ 16-123-101 to -108. The Circuit Court (the Honorable Chris Piazza presiding) dismissed Deer/Mt. Judea’s complaint finding it was barred by the doctrine of res judicata based on this Court’s decision in Lake View Sch. Dist. No. 25 v. Huckabee, 370 Ark. 139, 257 S.W.3d 879 (2007). Deer/Mt. Judea appeals. v IV. IS THE ONLY ISSUE ON APPEAL WHETHER THE EVIDENCE IS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE JUDGMENT? No. V. EXTRAORDINARY ISSUES? ( x ) appeal presents issue of first impression, (__) appeal involves issue upon which there is a perceived inconsistency in the decisions of the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court, (__) appeal involves federal constitutional interpretation, ( x ) appeal is of substantial public interest, ( x ) appeal involves significant issue needing clarification or development of the law, or overruling of precedent, ( ) appeal involves significant issue concerning construction of statute, ordinance, rule, or regulation. VI. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION (1) Does this appeal involve confidential information as defined by Section III (A)(11) and VII (A) of Administrative Order 19? Yes x No (2) If the answer is “yes”, then does this brief comply with Rule 4- 1(d)? Yes No vi II. JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT 1. Deer/Mt. Judea School District (“Deer/Mt. Judea”) alleged that the State failed to conduct adequacy studies in compliance with Ark. Code Ann. § 10-3-2102 (commonly referred to as “Act 57") in 2008 and 2010 and to make necessary adjustments to maintain an education system in compliance with the Arkansas Constitution article 14, section 1 and articles 2, 3 and 18. The Circuit Court (the Honorable Chris Piazza presiding) dismissed Deer/Mt. Judea’s complaint finding it was barred by the doctrine of res judicata based on this Court’s decision in Lake View Sch. Dist. No. 25 v. Huckabee, 370 Ark. 139, 257 S.W.3d 879 (2007). Does the claim preclusion aspect of res judicata bar Deer/Mt. Judea’s Complaint based on this Court’s decision in Lake View Sch. Dist. No. 25 v. Huckabee, 370 Ark. 139, 257 S.W.3d 879 (2007)? 2. I express a belief, based on a reasoned and studied professional judgment, that this appeal raises the following questions of vii legal significance for jurisdictional purposes: • The case presents an issue of first impression: No Arkansas appellate court has considered the extent to which this Court’s decision in Lake View Sch. Dist. No. 25 v. Huckabee, 370 Ark. 139, 257 S.W.3d 879 (2007) precludes subsequent claims that the education system violates the Arkansas Constitution article 14, section 1 and article 2, sections 2, 3 and 18. • The appeal is of substantial public interest: Intelligence and virtue being the safeguards of liberty and the bulwark of free and good government, the people of Arkansas have a substantial interest in securing the advantages and opportunities of education. See Ark. Const. art. 14, § 1. • The appeal involves significant issue needing clarification or development of the law, or overruling of precedent: The claim preclusive effect of Lake View Sch. Dist. No. 25 v. Huckabee, 370 Ark. 139, 257 S.W.3d 879 (2007) needs clarification. For these reasons, the Supreme court should hear and decide this viii case. By Cl~l~:"uy!IL.1L:1i'~~~ Attorney for Appellant Deer/Mt. Judea School District IX III. POINT ON APPEAL AND PRINCIPAL AUTHORITIES Does the claim preclusion aspect of res judicata bar Deer/Mt. Judea’s Complaint based on this Court’s decision in Lake View Sch. Dist. No. 25 v. Huckabee, 370 Ark. 139, 257 S.W.3d 879 (2007)? Baptist Health v. Murphy, 2010 Ark. 358. Lake View Sch. Dist. No. 25 v. Huckabee, 370 Ark. 139, 257 S.W.3d 879 (2007). x IV. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page A. Cases Baptist Health v. Murphy, 2010 Ark. 358 .................. Arg 1, 3 Koch v. Adams, 2010 Ark. 131 ............................ Arg 2 Henry v. Continental Cas. Co., 2011 Ark. 224 ............... Arg 1 Lake View Sch. Dist. No. 25 v. Huckabee, 370 Ark. 139, 257 S.W.3d 879 (2007) .................... SoC 1, Arg 1, 3, 11, 12 Lake View Sch. Dist. No. 25 v. Huckabee, 364 Ark. 398, 220 S.W.3d 645 (2005) ............................. Arg 16, 17 Lake View Sch. Dist. No. 25 v. Huckabee, 358 Ark. 137, 189 S.W.3d 1 (2004) ....................................SoC 5 Lake View Sch. Dist. No. 25 v. Huckabee, 351 Ark. 31, 91 S.W.3d 472 (2003) .............................. Arg 17, 21 Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist., 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990) ........................... Arg 30 Thomas v. Pierce, 87 Ark. App. 26, 184 S.W.3d 489 (2004) ................................. Arg 1 xi B. Statutes and Rules Ark. Const., art. 14, § 1 ..................................SoC 1 Ark. Const., art. 2, §§ 2, 3 and 18 . SoC 1 Ark. Const., amend. 74 ................................SoC 4, 5 Ark. Code Ann. § 6-20-2301 to-2307 . SoC 2, 3 Ark. Code Ann. § 6-20-2305..............................SoC 5 Ark. Code Ann. § 10-3-2101 to-2104 . SoC 3 Ark. Code Ann. § 10-3-2104 ............................ Arg 13 Ark. Code Ann. § 10-3-2102 . SoC 1, Arg 14 Act 1604 of 2007, § 1 ............................... Arg 28, 29 Act 1573 of 2007, § 60 ................................. Arg 28 Act 1452 of 2005, § 2 .................................. Arg 28 C. Books and Treatises None. D. Miscellaneous None. xii V. ABSTRACT A. Hearing on Motion to Dismiss 1. Argument by Counsel for Beebe, et al. Scott Richardson with the Attorney General’s office. R 754. The exhibits attached to our motion to dismiss are public records that the Court can take judicial notice of without converting the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment. We would like to keep this a motion to dismiss. R 762. There’s lots of revenue going into the Deer/Mt. Judea School District to support education there. R 770. The Complaint kind of goes all over, and it complains about a lot of different aspects of the State's educational system. I think very telling in the Complaint is several places where it says that the problem is that the State hasn't forced school districts to do what's supposed to be done. That's interesting in light of a 2007 Lake View opinion which concluded Abs 1 with the statement that the State's funding system is now constitutional, and the obligation of providing adequacy passes to the school districts.