Falling short . . .

In a March post I once again shared information on the struggles lawmakers face with meeting the State Supreme Court directive by April 30th to present a plan for full funding by the 2018-19 school year.  e knew following the recent session that they would not be able to do this and in this Tacoma News Tribune piece we learn that the response will fall far short of a funding plan.

A joint committee of legislators met with attorneys on Monday to go overt he directive and how to respond. Instead of a funding plan the Court will be presented with a summary of what the legislators have done including bills introduced this year that did not pass.

It will be interesting to see how this resonates considering the Court's previous order and this comment from a Crosscut piece suggesing that those providing guidance to the legislators understand the expectation.

"The court said estimates of a shortfall is not a plan," Kristen Fraser, counsel for the House Appropriations Committee, told the joint report-writing committee.

The joint committee will meet on the 29th to finalize the report if they can reach a consensus on what to include.  Whatever it ends up being, it will fall short of the expectation and create a difficult situation for the Court.  How will the Court respond?  Will all of this end up with full funding by 2018-19 or will we see it play out in a constitutional battle between the Court and legislature?  What do you want to see the Court do in response to the requested funding plan and expected response on April 30th?