By Spencer Hunt
Enquirer Columbus Bureau

COLUMBUS - Confronted with a Supreme Court order to dramatically change the way Ohio's schools are funded, Gov. Bob Taft and several legislative leaders have seemingly just said no.

How can they do that?

The answer is both simple and politically complex. The governor and the General Assembly have responded to three high court orders over the past five years and spent billions more on public schools.

WHAT'S NEXT?

What's next for school funding?House Speaker Larry Householder, R-Glenford, has promised to convene a bipartisan group of lawmakers to study changes to the state's school funding and public education systems.   Gov. Bob Taft will include school funding ideas in his two-year budget proposals this January.   The General Assembly has until July 1, 2003, to either agree to the governor's proposals or, more likely, compromise on a two-year funding plan. That plan will include the funding mechanism for Ohio's schools.   What is the answer to Ohio's school funding problem?

The Ohio Constitution provides checks and balances so that none of the three co-equal branches of state government can tyrannically order the others around.

Almost as powerful as law is the common doctrine of respect among those branches of government. An outright refusal to respond to the high court tramples on that tradition, said Stephen Chappelear, president of the Ohio State Bar Association.

"We've had 199 years of state government based on that respect," Mr. Chappelear said. "Legislators are citizens, they have the same rights and the same responsibilities in government, which includes to honor the rule of law."

The rule of law in this case is last week's 4-3 Supreme Court decision that says Ohio's funding system remains unconstitutional despite a reform proposal passed more than a year ago that pumped an additional $1.4 billion to schools.

The biggest unresolved problem is schools' dependence on property taxes as their main source of funding. That has created rich and poor schools in Ohio, where the quality of the education children receive hinges on the value of their homes and nearby businesses.

Since the schools lawsuit began, state funding for K-12 public education has nearly doubled, increasing from $4 billion in 1992 to a projected $7.9 billion next year. Wednesday's ruling notes these increases, but still challenges lawmakers on the basic principles, saying more needs to be done to narrow the gap between rich and poor schools.

"Accordingly, we direct the General Assembly to enact a school-funding scheme that is thorough and efficient," Justice Paul E. Pfeifer wrote for the majority.

The justices involved in this decision chose to end their control of the case. That means lawmakers no longer have to come right back to the court to defend what they've done.

In the wake of that decision, Mr. Taft and Senate President Richard Finan (R-Evendale) declared the case over. In their own interpretation, the ruling means the current funding system is constitutional unless a new lawsuit is filed and a future court rules otherwise.

"They've dismissed the case," Mr. Finan said. "It's going to be up to a new court to determine if it's constitutional or not."

Although the justices say that's incorrect, Mike Griffith, a policy analyst with the Denver-based Education Commission of the States, said their decision to end the case may have inadvertently encouraged the open defiance.

"There's got to be a feeling that the pressure's been taken off," Mr. Griffith said.

With an impending budget crisis, lawmakers are anxious not to go even farther into the red. Faced with a likely deficit of $3 billion or more over the next two years, lawmakers are struggling to avoid raising taxes just to fund all government services.

Also, the high court soon could take a fundamental shift in its judicial philosophy. The election of Republican Lt. Gov. Maureen O'Connor to replace retiring Justice Andrew Douglas in January is seen by many as the death knell for the high-court majority that's declared the school funding system unconstitutional three times.

While Ms. O'Connor won't discuss future cases, Republican leaders and business interests believe she'll see things differently than Justice Douglas.

Even considering all these factors, it's unusual to see leaders openly flouting a supreme court order.

"I know of no other case where that's happened," said Mr. Griffith, who monitors similar unsettled funding lawsuits in 17 other states. Mr. Griffith said it's more common for lawmakers to offer plans that don't completely meet high court demands, or to offer minimal solutions while actively campaigning to oust justices.

"Maybe you do only 70 percent of something, then you take it to court and see what happens," he said. "The other hope is that the Supreme Court changes over time. Get a different court, get a different ruling."

What no one wants to discuss is what would happen in a constitutional crisis, in which one branch of government openly defies the other.

Supreme Court Justice Alice Robie Resnick once suggested that the high court could declare the General Assembly in contempt of its ruling, raising the prospect of closing schools or even jailing legislative leaders until the funding system was fixed.

The Ohio Constitution gives lawmakers the ability to increase or decrease the number of justices on the high court's bench with two-thirds votes of both the House and Senate. Members of the conservative think tank The Buckeye Institute once openly advocated shrinking the court to three members to get rid of the court's four "activist" judges.

Neither option has ever been seriously pursued. In the wake of Wednesday's ruling, it appears some lawmakers are willing to formulate a response.

House Speaker Larry Householder, R-Glenford, said Thursday more work needs to be done on the school funding plan, though he doubts that would include any major overall increase in tax dollars.

Chief Justice Thomas Moyer, also expressed optimism that the Legislature won't openly challenge the high court.

"The General Assembly, I think, has certainly made good faith efforts to comply with the court's orders," Justice Moyer said. "I don't have any reason to think it won't, notwithstanding what's been said."

E-mail shunt@enquirer.com

What is the answer to Ohio's school funding problem?