{ "id": 9081062, "name": "FRANCINE DELANY NEW SCHOOL FOR CHILDREN, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee v. ASHEVILLE CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "Francine Delany New School for Children, Inc. v. Asheville City Board of Education", "decision_date": "2002-05-21", "docket_number": "No. COA01-420", "first_page": "338", "last_page": "347", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "150 N.C. App. 338" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "70 S.E.2d 575", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1952, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "235 N.C. 484", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8625551 ], "year": 1952, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/235/0484-01" ] }, { "cite": "213 S.E.2d 291", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1975, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "295", "parenthetical": "citing Ballard v. Charlotte, 235 N.C. 484, 70 S.E.2d 575 (1952)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "287 N.C. 76", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8561054 ], "year": 1975, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "80", "parenthetical": "citing Ballard v. Charlotte, 235 N.C. 484, 70 S.E.2d 575 (1952)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/287/0076-01" ] }, { "cite": "398 S.E.2d 40", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "42" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "100 N.C. App. 603", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8527319 ], "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "606" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/100/0603-01" ] }, { "cite": "96 S.E.2d 129", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1956, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "245 N.C. 249", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8609545 ], "year": 1956, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/245/0249-01" ] }, { "cite": "131 S.E.2d 335", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1963, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "259 N.C. 672", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8561989 ], "year": 1963, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/259/0672-01" ] }, { "cite": "192 S.E.2d 463", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "471" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "282 N.C. 208", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8564043 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "219" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/282/0208-01" ] }, { "cite": "507 S.E.2d 894", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "895" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "349 N.C. 520", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 571692 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "522" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/349/0520-01" ] }, { "cite": "186 S.E.2d 897", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 5, "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "901" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "280 N.C. 513", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8572831 ], "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "518" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/280/0513-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 768, "char_count": 23062, "ocr_confidence": 0.748, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.9035419503873e-07, "percentile": 0.9338177631205525 }, "sha256": "74044bbe872b0d354c63d1d51b6ae6b60154bd9ca3ebc99222655da4deb12e38", "simhash": "1:6f2d82662dac226a", "word_count": 3620 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:52:10.836930+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges MARTIN and TIMMONS-GOODSON concur." ], "parties": [ "FRANCINE DELANY NEW SCHOOL FOR CHILDREN, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee v. ASHEVILLE CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendant-Appellant" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "BRYANT, Judge.\nThis appeal arises out of the interpretation of statutes that provide public and charter schools with local funding.\nI. Background\nPlaintiff, Francine Delany New School for Children, Inc. [Delany School], is a charter school operating within the Asheville City Schools Administrative Unit. Defendant, Asheville City Board of Education [Board], operates public schools also within the Asheville City Schools Administrative Unit.\nCharter schools are public schools. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 115C-238.29E(a) (2001). As such, they are eligible for state and local funding. Section 115C-238.29H(b) provides that \u201c[i]f a student attends a charter school, the local school administrative unit in which the child resides shall transfer to the charter school an amount equal to the per pupil local current expense appropriation to the local school administrative unit for the fiscal year.\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 115C-238.29H(b) (2001).\nBy statute, all North Carolina public schools must adhere to a uniform budget format. See N.C.G.S. \u00a7 115C-426(a) (2001). Under this format, funding for public schools comes from three sources: 1) the State Public School Fund; 2) the local current expense fund; and 3) the capital outlay fund. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 115C-426(c) (2001). At issue in this appeal are revenues from fines and forfeitures and from supplemental school taxes accruing to the local current expense fund.\nThe local current expense fund contains revenues from several sources accruing to the local school administrative unit [LSAU] for the public school system\u2019s current operating expenses. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 115C-426(e) (2001). The local current expense fund includes:\nrevenues accruing to the local school administrative unit by virtue of Article IX, Sec. 7 of the Constitution, moneys made available to the local school administrative unit by the board of county commissioners, supplemental taxes levied by or on behalf of the local school administrative unit pursuant to a local act or G.S. 115C-501 to 115C-511, State money disbursed directly to the local school administrative unit, and other moneys made available or accruing to the local school administrative unit for the current operating expenses of the public school system.\nN.C.G.S. \u00a7 1160426(e); see N.C. Const, art. IX, \u00a7 7.\nThe parties stipulated that these revenues include Buncombe County\u2019s annual appropriation to the local current expense fund of the Asheville City Schools. Delany School received an equal per pupil share of Buncombe County\u2019s annual appropriation to the Board\u2019s local current expense fund, but received no share of the revenues collected from the supplemental school tax or penal fines and forfeitures. Delany School requested that the Board include revenues from supplemental school taxes and penal fines and forfeitures as part of the funds transferred on a per pupil basis. The Board refused, despite the fact that revenues from supplemental taxes and from penal fines and forfeitures are included in the per pupil funding to non-charter public schools. Delany School received an average of $1075.38 per pupil from the Board during its first three years of operation. Had Delany School received revenues from supplemental taxes and penal fines and forfeitures, the per pupil allocation would have been an additional $1100.\nDelany School requested an Advisory Opinion from the North Carolina Attorney General\u2019s Office regarding whether local school boards authorized to levy supplemental school taxes must transfer a share of the levied tax to charter schools. The Attorney General\u2019s Office issued an Advisory Opinion on 23 September 1998, stating that in its opinion, the local school boards were required to transfer a share of the levied tax because the tax is part of the local current expense fund, which is indistinguishable from the local current expense appropriation to the local school administrative unit. Advisory Opinion by Special Deputy Attorney General Thomas J. Ziko and Assistant Attorney General Laura E. Crumpler, Charter School\u2019s Entitlement to Supplemental Tax Funds, to C. Frank Goldsmith, Jr., Goldsmith, Goldsmith & Dews, RA. 2-3 (Sept. 23, 1998), http://www.ius.state.nc.us/opinion/advisorv/advs98.htm#[3811 (last modified Feb. 4, 1999). In response, attorneys for the North Carolina School Boards Association, the North Carolina Association of School Administrators and four other school law attorneys sent to the Attorney General\u2019s Office a letter disputing the Advisory Opinion.\nDelany School filed a complaint in the Superior Court of Buncombe County on 7 September 1999, seeking: 1) a judgment declaring as unlawful the Board\u2019s refusal to share funds received from the supplemental school tax; 2) a judgment declaring as unlawful the Board\u2019s refusal to share the funds received from the collection of penal fines and forfeitures; 3) an order enjoining the Board from refusing to include the above-mentioned funds in the Board\u2019s calculation of the per pupil local current expense appropriation; and 4) an order requiring the Board to remit to Delany School the difference between the per pupil local current expense appropriation actually transferred by the Board from the 1997 to the 1999 school years, and the amount which should have been transferred, i.e., the per pupil local current expense appropriation for those years calculated to include funds from the supplemental school tax and penal fines and forfeitures, plus interest. The Board answered, and both parties moved for summary judgment.\nThe trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Delany School and entered an Amended Judgment on 5 January 2001. In reaching summary judgment, the trial court stated that the terms \u201cfund\u201d and \u201cappropriation\u201d are used interchangeably in Chapter 115C. The trial court enjoined the Board from withholding the funds received from the supplemental school tax and from penal fines and forfeitures in the calculation of the per pupil local current expense appropriation. The trial court also ordered the Board to pay Delany School the difference between the per pupil local current expense appropriation actually transferred by the Board for the school years in question and the per pupil local current expense appropriation for those years calculated to include funds received by the Board from the supplemental school tax and penal fines and forfeitures, plus interest. The Board appealed.\nThe Board raises two assignments of error. First, that the trial court erred in concluding that the phrase \u201clocal current expense appropriation\u201d in the Current Operations Appropriations and Capital Improvement Appropriations Act of 1998 [Charter School Funding Statute], N.C.G.S. \u00a7 115C-238.29H(b), is synonymous with the phrase \u201clocal current expense fund\u201d in the School Budget and Fiscal Control Act, N.C.G.S. \u00a7 115C-426(e). Second, that the trial court erred in concluding that Delany School is entitled to a share of supplemental school taxes and penal fines and forfeitures received by the Board. We disagree with the Board and affirm the trial court.\nII. Scope of Review\nUpon motion, summary judgment is appropriate where \u201cthe pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 56(c) (2001). An issue is material if \u201cthe facts alleged would constitute a legal defense, or would affect the result of the action, or if its resolution would prevent the party against whom it is resolved from prevailing in the action.\u201d Koontz v. City of Winston-Salem, 280 N.C. 513, 518, 186 S.E.2d 897, 901 (1972). An issue is genuine if it is supported by substantial evidence. Id. Our task is to determine, after reviewing the entire record: 1) whether a genuine issue of material fact exists;.and 2) whether Delany School was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The parties have stipulated to the material facts; therefore, this Court need only determine whether Delany School is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.\nIII. \u201cAppropriation\u201d and \u201cFund\u201d\nThe Board argues that the trial court erred in concluding that there is no material difference between \u201clocal current expense appropriation\u201d and \u201clocal current expense fund.\u201d The trial court stated, \u201cThe fact that the School Budget and Fiscal Control Act refers to local operating expenses as the \u2018local current expense fund\u2019 whereas the Charter School Funding Statute refers to such expenses as the \u2018local current expense appropriation\u2019 is not a material distinction.\u201d In its order the court noted that the terms \u201cfund\u201d and \u201cappropriation\u201d are used interchangeably in Chapter 115C. The trial court concluded that \u201clocal current expense appropriation\u201d includes supplemental school taxes because \u201cthe definition of local current expense fund in N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 115C-426(e) expressly refers to the monies generated by the supplemental tax and by penal fines and forfeitures as becoming a part of county appropriations.\u201d (Emphases added.). We agree with the trial court\u2019s interpretation of the definition of \u201clocal current expense fund.\u201d\nThe specific issue is whether N.C.G.S. \u00a7 115C-238.29H(b) of the Charter School Funding Statute, which refers to the \u201clocal current expense appropriation\u201d to the LSAU, when construed with N.C.G.S. \u00a7 115C-426(e), which refers to the local current expense fund, requires the Board to transfer to Delany School money other than the county\u2019s annual budget appropriation to the LSAU under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 115C-429. The Board argues that Delany School is not entitled to an apportionment of the county\u2019s fines and forfeitures or supplemental school taxes because N.C.G.S. \u00a7 115C-238.29H(b) requires the LSAU to transfer funds amounting to the per pupil local current expense appropriation to the LSAU. The Board contends that an appropriation is \u201cthe authorization by a governmental body to spend up to a certain amount of money for a specified purpose.\u201d A \u201cfund,\u201d the Board argues, is \u201cdefined by statute as an \u2018independent fiscal and accounting entity,\u2019 consisting of cash and other resources, together with related liabilities and equities, for the purpose of carrying on specific activities or obtaining certain objectives.\u201d (citing N.C.G.S. \u00a7\u00a7 115C-423(5), 159-7(b)(8)). Therefore, \u201cappropriation\u201d and \u201cfund\u201d have different meanings. Furthermore, the Board argues that the language of N.C.G.S.\u00a7 115C-238.29H(b) is critical because \u201c[a]n appropriation by a governmental body is akin to an expenditure, because it authorizes future expenditures. An appropriation to a governmental body is a revenue source to that governmental body (and is an expenditure by the other governmental body which made the appropriation).\u201d\nDelany School, on the other hand, argues that the distinction between \u201cappropriation\u201d and \u201cfund\u201d is one without a difference. Delany School argues that the definition of \u201clocal current expense fund\u201d in N.C.G.S. \u00a7 1150426(e)\nexpressly includes \u201cappropriations\u201d in a way that clearly refers to the local supplemental tax and fines and forfeitures: \u201cThese appropriations shall be funded by revenues accruing to the local school administrative unit by virtue of Article IX, Sec. 7 of the Constitution . . ., supplemental taxes . . ., and other moneys made available or accruing to the local school administrative unit for the current operating expenses of the public school system.\u201d\n(alterations in original) (quoting N.C.G.S. \u00a7 115C-426(e)). Delany School also argues that because the North Carolina Constitution uses \u201cappropriate\u201d to refer to the transfer of fines and forfeitures, then, according to the Board\u2019s argument, \u201cthe drafters of the Constitution erred in using the wrong verb to describe the disposition of these funds.\u201d Finally, Delany School argues that to use the Board\u2019s construction of the statutes would fly in the face of the Legislature\u2019s intent that charter schools be treated as public schools. We agree. We begin with a discussion of the language of the statutes and the mechanics of school funding.\nA. Local Current Expense Fund\n1. Board of County Commissioners\nThe county budget approval by the board of county commissioners is governed by N.C.G.S. \u00a7 115C-429. The county superintendent of schools submits the budget to the board of education. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 115C-429(a) (2001). The board of education approves the budget, then submits it to the board of county commissioners. Id. The board of county commissioners determines the amount of county revenues to appropriate to the LSAU for the budget year. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 115C-429(b) (2001). The board of county commissioners then appropriates the revenues to the LSAU school finance officer. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 115C-437 (2001). These revenues are included in the local current expense fund for the LSAU\u2019s operating expenses. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 115C-426 (2001).\n2. Penal Fines and Forfeitures\nArticle IX, Section 7 of the North Carolina Constitution provides that \u201cthe clear proceeds of all penalties and forfeitures and of all fines collected in the several counties for any breach of the penal laws of the State . .. shall be faithfully appropriated and used exclusively for maintaining free public schools.\u201d N.C. Const, art. IX, \u00a7 7. The appropriation of fines and forfeitures is governed by N.C.G.S. \u00a7 115C-452, entitled \u2018Fines and forfeitures,\u2019 and N.C.G.S. \u00a7 115C-430, entitled \u2018Apportionment of county appropriations among local school administrative units.\u2019 Fines and forfeitures are collected in the General Court of Justice in each county. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 115C-452 (2001). The proceeds are remitted by the clerk of superior court to the county finance officer, who determines the amount to apportion to each LSAU if there is more than one LSAU in the county. Id. If there are multiple LSAUs, \u201call appropriations by the county to the local current expense funds of the units, except appropriations funded by supplemental taxes levied less than countywide ... must be apportioned according to the membership of each unit.\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 115C-430 (2001) (emphasis added).\nFines and forfeitures are apportioned according to the projected average daily membership of each LSAU. Id. County appropriations are properly apportioned when the dollar amount obtained by dividing the amount appropriated to each unit by the total membership of the unit is the same for each unit. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 115C-430 (2001). The county finance officer then remits the proper portion to the LSAU finance officer. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 115C-452 (2001). These revenues \u00e1re included in the local current expense fund for the LSAU\u2019s operating expenses. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 115C-426 (2001).\n3. Supplemental School Taxes\nSupplemental school taxes may be levied to supplement state and county funds and operate schools of a higher standard. N.C.G.S. \u00a7\u00a7 115C-501 to -511 (2001).\nElections may be called by the local tax-levying authority to ascertain the will of the voters as to whether there shall be levied and collected a special tax in the several local school administrative units, districts, and other school areas, including districts formed from contiguous counties, to supplement the funds from State and county allotments and thereby operate schools of a higher standard by supplementing any item of expenditure in the school budget.\nN.C.G.S. \u00a7 115C-501. Residents of the Asheville City School District approved a supplemental school tax in a school tax election on 27 August 1935. Based on such an election, the board of county commissioners is thereafter authorized to levy a tax on property within the LSAU to supplement the local current expense fund. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 115C-511(a) (2001). The county collects the tax and remits it to the LSAU. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 115C-511(b). The tax revenues are included in the local current expense fund for the LSAU\u2019s operating expenses. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 115C-426 (2001). Residents of the Asheville City School District have paid annual supplemental school taxes since 1935 to operate schools in the Asheville City Schools Administrative Unit on a higher standard than that provided for by the State.\nB. Legislative Intent\nWe first address our rules of statutory construction. The meaning of a statute is controlled by legislative intent. Brown v. Flowe, 349 N.C. 520, 507 S.E.2d 894 (1998). \u201cTo determine legislative intent, a court must analyze the statute as a whole, considering the chosen words themselves, the spirit of the act, and the objectives the statute seeks to accomplish.\u201d Brown, 349 N.C. at 522, 507 S.E.2d at 895. If the language of a statute is unambiguous on its face, then we must construe the statute according to its plain meaning. Lutz v. Gaston County Bd. of Educ., 282 N.C. 208, 192 S.E.2d 463 (1972); Davis v. Granite Corp., 259 N.C. 672, 131 S.E.2d 335 (1963); Hedrick v. Graham, 245 N.C. 249, 96 S.E.2d 129 (1956). However, where the language of the statute is ambiguous and its meaning is unclear, legislative intent controls. Whittington v. N.C. Dep\u2019t of Human Resources, 100 N.C. App. 603, 606, 398 S.E.2d 40, 42 (1990). Statutes on the same subject matter must be construed together and harmonized to give effect to each. Lutz, 282 N.C. at 219, 192 S.E.2d at 471.\nN.C.G.S. \u00a7 115C~238.29E(a) states, \u201cA charter school that is approved by the State shall be a public school within the local school administrative unit in which it is located.\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 115C-426(a) states, \u201cThe State Board of Education, in cooperation with the Local Government Commission, shall cause to be prepared and promulgated a standard budget format for use by local school administrative units throughout the State.\u201d After reviewing the language of the education statutes, we hold that the trial court did not err in concluding that there is no material distinction between \u2018local- current expense fund\u2019 in the Fiscal Control Act and \u2018local current expense appropriation\u2019 in the Charter School Funding Statute. Legislative history gives us insight into the intent of the Legislature in providing funding for charter schools.\nThe Legislature clearly intended for charter schools to be treated as public schools subject to the uniform budget format. See N.C.G.S. \u00a7 115C-239E(a) (\u201cA charter school. . . shall be a public school. . . .\u201d) and N.C.G.S. \u00a7 115C-424 (\u201cIt is the intent of the General Assembly . . . to prescribe for the public schools a uniform system of budgeting and fiscal control.\u201d). The Legislature also clearly intended that the operating expenses of the public school systems be included in a single local expense fund which expressly includes penal fines and forfeitures and \u201csupplemental taxes levied by or on behalf of the local school administrative unit.\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 115C-426(e). Construing the Charter School Funding Statute with other public funding statutes in Chapter 115C, it is clear that the Legislature intended that supplemental taxes as well as penal fines and forfeitures be included in the operating budget of the school \u2014 the local expense fund.\nFines and forfeitures are apportioned according to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 115C-430. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 115C-452 and N.C.G.S. \u00a7 115C-430 state that, if there are multiple LSAUs in a county, \u201call appropriations by the county to the local current expense funds of the [LSAUs], except appropriations funded by supplemental taxes levied less than countywide . . . , must be apportioned according to the membership of each unit.\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 115C-430. Reading \u00a7 115C-452 and \u00a7 115C-430 in pari materia, as we must, it is clear that fines and forfeitures are appropriated to the local current expense fund. The local current expense fund is used for the LSAU\u2019s current operating expenses. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 115C-426. Therefore, the appropriations included in the local current expense fund \u2014 fines and forfeitures, supplemental school taxes and county budgetary appropriations \u2014 are local current expense appropriations to the LSAU. \u201cA [statutory] construction which operates to defeat or impair the object of the statute must be avoided if that can reasonably be done without violence to the legislative language.\u201d State v. Hart, 287 N.C. 76, 80, 213 S.E.2d 291, 295 (1975) (citing Ballard v. Charlotte, 235 N.C. 484, 70 S.E.2d 575 (1952)). The Legislature has clearly expressed its intent that charter schools approved by the State be treated as public schools within the LSAU. We will not interpret the statutes at issue in this appeal in such a way as to defeat that intent.\nV. Conclusion\nBased on the foregoing, we hold that the trial court did not err in concluding that the phrase \u201clocal current expense appropriation\u201d in the Charter School Funding Statute, N.C.G.S. \u00a7 115C-238.29H(b), is synonymous with the phrase \u201clocal current expense fund\u201d in the School Budget and Fiscal Control Act, N.C.G.S. \u00a7 115C-426(e). We further hold that the trial court did not err in concluding that Delany School is entitled to a share of supplemental school taxes and penal fines and forfeitures received by the Board. Therefore, Delany School is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, we affirm.\nAFFIRMED.\nJudges MARTIN and TIMMONS-GOODSON concur.\n. We note that Webster\u2019s Dictionary defines \u201cappropriation\u201d as \u201cmoney set aside for a specific use,\u201d Webster\u2019s New World College Dictionary 70 (4th ed. 1999), and defines \u201cfund\u201d as \u201ca sum of money set aside for some particular purpose.\u201d Id. at 573. We do not, however, base our decision on the common definitions of these words.\n. Prior to the vote, the Citizens Committee for the School Supplement told voters, \u201cEvery penny provided by the Supplement will be spent under the supervision of the Asheville School Board and for the improvement of the Asheville City Schools.\u201d", "type": "majority", "author": "BRYANT, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Goldsmith, Goldsmith & Dews, P.A., by C. Frank Goldsmith, Jr., for plaintiff-appellee.", "Schwartz & Shaw, P.L.L.G., by Richard A. Schwartz and Brian C. Shaw, for defendant-appellant.", "Haywood, Denny & Miller, L.L.P., by Robert E. Levin, for Financial Reform for Excellence in Education, amicus curiae." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "FRANCINE DELANY NEW SCHOOL FOR CHILDREN, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee v. ASHEVILLE CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendant-Appellant\nNo. COA01-420\n(Filed 21 May 2002)\nSchools and Education\u2014 charter school funding \u2014 supplemental school tax, penal fines and forfeitures\nThe trial court did not err by granting summary judgment for a charter school which sought additional funding from a school board where the charter school received an equal per pupil share from the board\u2019s local current expense fund but received no share of revenues collected from the supplemental school tax or penal fines and forfeitures. The Legislature clearly intended that charter schools be treated as public schools subject to the uniform budget format and that the operating expenses of the public school systems be included in a single local expense fund which expressly includes penal fines and forfeitures, and supplemental taxes.\nAppeal by defendant from amended judgment entered 5 January 2001 by Judge Ronald K. Payne in Buncombe County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 10 January 2002.\nGoldsmith, Goldsmith & Dews, P.A., by C. Frank Goldsmith, Jr., for plaintiff-appellee.\nSchwartz & Shaw, P.L.L.G., by Richard A. Schwartz and Brian C. Shaw, for defendant-appellant.\nHaywood, Denny & Miller, L.L.P., by Robert E. Levin, for Financial Reform for Excellence in Education, amicus curiae." }, "file_name": "0338-01", "first_page_order": 368, "last_page_order": 377 }