Summary
In Durant, 424 Mich. 392, our Supreme Court expressly stated that § 29 unambiguously forbids the state from reducing categorical aid below that portion paid by the state in 1978-79.
Summary of this case from Durant v. Department of EducationOpinion
Docket No. 51431.
Decided October 19, 1981. Leave to appeal applied for.
Clark, Hardy, Lewis, Fine Pollard, P.C. (by Dennis R. Pollard and Gary Pollack), for plaintiffs.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, and Gerald F. Young and James E. Riley, Assistants Attorney General, for defendants.
Plaintiffs seek mandamus to compel defendants to fund the Fitzgerald Public Schools in the same proportion those schools were funded in fiscal year 1978-1979, pursuant to the so-called Headlee Amendment, Const 1963, art 9, §§ 25-34.
Plaintiffs claim that the state has provided for a smaller percentage of operating revenues for general public education in the Fitzgerald Public Schools, in addition to special education and driver education, than is required under the Headlee Amendment. Defendants deny that less money has been provided and dispute plaintiffs' standing to bring this suit. This Court issued an order to show cause, GCR 1963, 816.2(2)(c), thereby bringing the issues presented before us for plenary consideration.
Our consideration of the briefs and arguments convinces us that the issues presented involve questions of fact and mixed questions of fact and law, as well as questions of law. See Deziel v Difco Laboratories, Inc, 394 Mich. 466, 475; 232 N.W.2d 146 (1975). Although there may be exceptions for extraordinary circumstances, in general mandamus will not lie in cases involving disputed or doubtful facts. Powers v Secretary of State, 309 Mich. 530; 16 N.W.2d 62 (1944).
While plaintiffs assuredly have standing to contest the appropriations for public education, Waterford School Dist v State Board of Education, 98 Mich. App. 658; 296 N.W.2d 328 (1980), Const 1963, art 9, § 32, the fact that standing has been conferred does not alter the general principles applicable to prerogative writs. Lepofsky v City of Lincoln Park, 48 Mich. App. 347, 356; 210 N.W.2d 527 (1973).
Where an administrative remedy exists, mandamus will lie only to compel the administrative agency to carry out its statutorily assigned function. Mandamus will not be utilized to usurp the powers and duties of the administrative agency. Sears v Dep't of Treasury, 57 Mich. App. 218; 226 N.W.2d 63 (1974). This principle flows from the general rule that a precondition to judicial relief is exhaustion of administrative remedies. Oak Construction Co v Dep't of State Highways, 33 Mich. App. 561; 190 N.W.2d 296 (1971). The only exceptions to this rule are those situations in which resort to an alternative remedy would obviously be a useless effort, Welfare Employees Union v Civil Service Comm, 28 Mich. App. 343; 184 N.W.2d 247 (1970), lv den 384 Mich. 824 (1971), or declaratory judgment actions challenging the constitutionality of the administrative remedy. Trever v Sterling Heights, 37 Mich. App. 594; 195 N.W.2d 91 (1972), Dation v Ford Motor Co, 314 Mich. 152; 22 N.W.2d 252 (1946).
In the present case, the Legislature has chosen to establish an administrative remedy by creating the local government claims review board, 1979 PA 101; MCL 21.240; MSA 5.3194(610). The statute creating this agency does not appear to be unconstitutional on its face, cf. Request for Advisory Opinion on the Constitutionality of 1979 PA 57, 407 Mich. 60; 281 N.W.2d 322 (1979), and 407 Mich. 506; 286 N.W.2d 686 (1979), inasmuch as Const 1963, art 9, § 34 directs the Legislature to "implement the provisions of Sections 25 through 33, inclusive, of this Article". It is thus particularly appropriate for this Court, at this time, to defer to the Legislature and the remedy it has provided to resolve these issues of first impression. Rostker v Goldberg, ___ US ___; 101 S Ct 1646; 69 L Ed 2d 478 (1981).
After the duly designated administrative authorities have had the opportunity to consider plaintiffs' claims on a suitable evidentiary record, plaintiffs, if still aggrieved, will have available adequate review in a judicial forum. MCL 600.631; MSA 27A.631, Harper Hospital Employees' Union v Harper Hospital, 25 Mich. App. 662, 666-667; 181 N.W.2d 566 (1970).
On this record, however, we cannot say that the administrative remedy afforded is patently useless or facially unconstitutional. Accordingly, in light of the existence of alternate remedies, mandamus must be denied. Oakland County Board of Road Comm'rs v State Highway Comm, 79 Mich. App. 505, 508; 261 N.W.2d 329 (1977), lv den 402 Mich. 907 (1978), Hunt v State Highway Comm'r, 350 Mich. 309; 86 N.W.2d 345 (1957).
The complaint for mandamus is therefore denied, without prejudice to the right of plaintiffs to pursue alternate remedies provided by law.