Opinion #6956

The following opinion is presented on-line for informational use only and does not replace the official version. (Mich Dept of Attorney General Web Site - www.ag.state.mi.us)

STATE OF MICHIGAN

FRANK J. KELLEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL

PUBLIC SCHOOL ACADEMIES:

SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS:

Judicial review of and civil liability for revocation or nonrenewal of public school academy contract

An authorizing body's decision to revoke a contract or to decline to renew a contract for the operation of a public school academy under the Revised School Code, 1976 PA 451, is not subject to judicial review under state law.

An authorizing body is immune from civil liability under state law for its decision to revoke a contract or to decline to renew a contract for the operation of a public school academy under the Revised School Code, 1976 PA 451.

Opinion No. 6956

September 23, 1997

Honorable Kirk A. Profit
State Representative
The Capitol
Lansing, MI 48913

You have asked two questions concerning the decision by an authorizing body to revoke or to decline to renew a contract for the operation of a public school academy. You first ask if an authorizing body's decision to revoke a contract or to decline to renew a contract for the operation of a public school academy under the Revised School Code (the Code), 1976 PA 451, MCL 380.1 et seq; MSA 15.4001 et seq, is subject to judicial review under state law.

In Part 6A of the Code, the Legislature provided for the organization and operation of public school academies. Sections 501-507. The Ingham County Circuit Court initially declared Part 6A of the Code unconstitutional and enjoined the state from paying state school aid to public school academies organized under that part. See, Council of Organizations and Others for Education About Parochiaid v Governor (Docket No. 94-78461-AW), affirmed in 216 Mich App 126; 548 NW2d 909 (1996). In response to that ruling, the Legislature passed 1994 PA 416, which added Part 6B to the Code providing an alternative mechanism for public school academies to organize and operate until all appeals regarding the constitutionality of Part 6A had been exhausted. See, former sections 511-518 of the Code.

1994 PA 416 contained a provision stating that Part 6B of the Code would be repealed in the event Part 6A was declared constitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction. See section 518. On July 30, 1997, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed the Ingham County Circuit Court's ruling that Part 6A was unconstitutional and further held that the provision repealing Part 6B (section 518 of the Code) is "valid and enforceable." See, Council of Organizations and Others for Education About Parochiaid v Governor, ___ Mich ___; 566 NW2d 208 (Docket Nos. 106092-106094, 106106-106111, Decided July 30, 1997), slip op, p 32. Accordingly, all public school academies must now operate under Part 6A of the Code and the analysis in this opinion will be confined to that part.

A public school academy is defined as a "public school" and a "governmental agency." Section 501. In order to organize and operate a public school academy, a person or entity must apply to an authorizing body for a contract. Section 502(3). An authorizing body can be the board of a school district that operates grades K through 12, an intermediate school board, the board of a community college, or the governing board of a state university. Section 502(2). An authorizing body "is not required to issue a contract to any person or entity." Section 503(1).

Section 507(1), which provides for revocation of a contract by an authorizing body, states in part, as follows:

The decision of an authorizing body to revoke a contract under this section is solely within the discretion of the authorizing body, is final, and is not subject to review by a court or any state agency.

(emphasis added).

The Legislature has provided, in clear and unambiguous language, that an authorizing body's decision to revoke a public school academy contract is not subject to judicial review under state law. Where the Legislature clearly and unambiguously expresses its intent, no additional interpretation is necessary. Owendale-Gagetown School Dist v State Bd of Education, 413 Mich 1, 8; 317 NW2d 529 (1982). The Legislature has the authority to preclude public school academies from challenging a decision to revoke a contract since, like school districts, public school academies are statutory entities created by the state. In Michigan the law is settled that school districts are local state agencies of legislative creation. Attorney General, ex rel Kies v Lowery, 131 Mich 639, 644; 92 NW 289 (1902), aff'd 199 US 233; 26 S Ct 27; 50 L Ed 167 (1905). Public schools have no power to challenge their creator regarding the term of their existence. East Jackson Public Schools v Michigan, 133 Mich App 132, 139; 348 NW2d 303, lv den 419 Mich 943 (1984).

Part 6A of the Code does not address the length of public school academy contracts, the manner by which they may be renewed, or the availability of judicial review for decisions regarding the renewal or nonrenewal of the contracts. Moreover, the Legislature has not established any procedure to judicially review an authorizing body's decision declining to renew a public school academy contract. Statutory provisions are to be construed collectively and in a harmonious manner. Dussia v Monroe County Employees Retirement System, 386 Mich 244, 248; 191 NW2d 307 (1971). Statutes addressing similar topics should be interpreted in a like manner. Sills v Oakland General Hosp, 220 Mich App 303, 310; 559 NW2d 348 (1996). The Legislature has left the issuance and revocation of public school academy contracts to the authorizing body's discretion. Sections 503(1) and 507(1). The Legislature has expressly precluded judicial review of an authorizing body's decision to revoke a contract. Section 507. To construe these provisions harmoniously, it is reasonable to conclude that an authorizing body's decision declining to renew a public school academy contract is likewise not subject to judicial review under state law.¹

It is my opinion, therefore, in answer to your first question, that an authorizing body's decision to revoke a contract or to decline to renew a contract for the operation of a public school academy under the Revised School Code, 1976 PA 45l, MCL 380.1 et seq; MSA 15.4001 et seq, is not subject to judicial review under state law.

You next ask if an authorizing body is immune from civil liability under state law for its decision to revoke a contract or to decline to renew a contract for the operation of a public school academy under the Revised School Code, 1976 PA 451, MCL 380.1 et seq; MSA 15.4001 et seq.

Section 507(2) of the Code provides immunity to an authorizing body for its public school academy contract revocation decisions.

An authorizing body that revokes a contract under this section is not liable for that action to the public school academy, public school academy corporation, a pupil of the public school academy, the parent or guardian of a pupil of the public school academy, or any other person.

(Emphasis added.)

There is no provision in Part 6A of the Code that addresses an authorizing body's civil liability for its decision declining to renew a public school academy contract. However, consistent with the Legislature's expressed intent to eliminate the liability of an authorizing body for its decision to revoke an academy contract, coupled with the fact that public school academies have no constitutional right to due process or equal protection, East Jackson Public Schools, supra, it is reasonable to conclude that the Legislature also intended to eliminate civil liability under state law for an authorizing body's decision declining to renew a contract.²

It is my opinion, therefore, in answer to your second question, that an authorizing body is immune from civil liability under state law for its decision to revoke a contract or to decline to renew a contract for the operation of a public school academy under the Revised School Code, 1976 PA 451, MCL 380.1 et seq; MSA 15.4001 et seq.

FRANK J. KELLEY
Attorney General

¹ This conclusion is bolstered by the fact that non-renewal is tantamount to revocation. Even if nonrenewal of an academy contract were subject to judicial review, a renewed contract remains subject to revocation, an action not subject to judicial review.

² There may be situations in which the authorizing body and a public school academy agree on the length of an academy contract and the manner in which its renewal takes place. To the extent that an academy contract contains provisions governing renewal of a public school academy contract, they would control, so long as those provisions are consistent with the Revised School Code.