Legal Battle Surrounds Michigan School Safety Grants
Michigan’s education sector is embroiled in a legal dispute over whether schools should relinquish certain legal privileges to qualify for state grants aimed at enhancing mental health and school safety. This contentious issue was recently presented in front of a state Court of Claims judge.
The controversy stems from a stipulation in the state budget, which mandates that schools accepting safety grant funds must agree to a thorough investigation should a “mass casualty event” occur, thereby waiving their rights to withhold information.
Attorney Scott Eldridge, representing over 30 school districts challenging this requirement, argues that the language is excessively vague. He contends that the lack of defined time limits for waiving rights and the disconnection from specific investigations hinder districts in safeguarding their legal rights while striving for safety improvements.
“Without knowing what this language means, it paralyzes them. And so much that they’re declining hundreds of thousands of dollars in money that they actually need. This is the first time that the legislature has put this kind of condition on the receipt of school aid,” Eldridge stated post-hearing.
Eldridge has petitioned the court to nullify the clause, labeling it as unconstitutionally ambiguous. He warns that, as it stands, schools might indefinitely waive their rights in scenarios unrelated to casualty incidents.
Conversely, the state maintains that the requirement is not vague, asserting that the waiver pertains specifically to a designated investigation.
The pertinent section of the state’s recent school funding legislation insists that to receive funding, schools “must agree to be subject to a comprehensive investigation, must affirmatively agree to waive any privilege that may otherwise protect information from disclosure in the event of a mass casualty event, and must agree to comply with a comprehensive investigation.”
Assistant Attorney General Adam de Bear acknowledged the provision’s broad nature but emphasized its clarity and intent.
“[Schools] can’t simply deny all of the document requests through attorney-client privileges; they can’t use attorney-client privilege if there’s an interview and it’s the school district in their official capacity being deposed. It ensures that the state gets more information because, in past experiences, investigations haven’t gone as well as they could have,” de Bear explained.
In addition to the state court case, a federal lawsuit has been filed in the Eastern District of Michigan, and a hearing is set for next Thursday.
—
Read More Michigan News
