JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. – After two hours of discussion and debate, the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules found merit on both sides of a disagreement between Nixa School District and the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE).
Nixa, a district near Springfield, opposes a new rule proposed by DESE which would change the funding formula for lease agreements of early childhood special education facilities. At the heart of the dispute lies such a facility built by Nixa for which DESE is mandated to pay due to a 1992 Supreme Court decision that requires the state to pay for programs mandated by the state. As such, school districts could essentially ask for any amount of money to build a facility or set up a program that would go towards mandated programs.
Nixa argues their newly built early childhood center, modeled after a center built recently by the Springfield School District, was promised money by DESE before DESE blindsided them with the new rule that would create a new formula to determine the amount of funding provided to schools that asked for centers like Nixa’s. DESE had promised the money to the facility to Nixa in emails, but the rule would retroactively take some of those funds away as Nixa would not meet the requirements of the new formula.
“The rule is so arbitrary and capricious as to create a substantial inequity and unreasonable burden on Nixa,” said Lowell Pearson, a Husch Blackwell attorney representing the Nixa district.
Committee chair Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Glendale, responded to Pearson, stating that throwing out the entire rule for Nixa was a “challenge for the committee.”
“We will have rejected a legitimate rule in the sense of controlling costs prospectively, as well as addressing your concerns,”
DESE countered Pearson’s arguments by stating that the rule was necessary in part because the high cost of Nixa and Springfield’s new facilities could make the program that funds early childhood special education across the state insolvent should other districts follow suit. The department stated the highest ever lease (a year-to-year expenditure) approved by them for such a facility was $110,000. Nixa wanted at least double that for their facility, and Springfield was approved for a $343,000 lease.
“Nixa is still getting paid the full two year reimbursement, and they have been approached with a buyout,” Cynthia Quetsch, a coordinator of legal services for DESE. “We do want to help them have their facilities, but they can’t ask for everything they want.”
However, Schmitt agreed with Pearson that DESE left Nixa out to dry.
“Based on the emails and testimony presented, it would be hard to refute the idea Nixa was not led to believe by DESE these costs would be covered,” Schmitt said. “It would be hard for one not to expect Nixa is left in a bit of a lurch now with a promise on a retrospective rule.”
The committee eventually determined that both sides had merit to their argument and essentially that committee members need time to decide on the best course of action. Vice-Chair Rep. Jay Barnes, R-Jefferson City, called it a conundrum.
“There’s no good answer for this committee to this proposal before us,” Barnes said. “There is nothing wrong with the rule… justifications for both sides. Given the extent to which this is an outlier, the boss needs to talk to the boss, but we can’t go back in time 24 months and change that.”
Barnes and Schmitt determined that the committee would recess until Wednesday, Oct. 21 to determine the best course of action and make a decision on whether to approve of the rule or not.
