ALERT - Under the cloak of justice

By Jim Stergios
July 15th, 2008

In June Mike Rebell, an experienced litigator with expertise in taking on states in funding “adequacy” lawsuits, held an advocacy conference in D.C. It was called the 7th Annual Quality Education Conference, and one of the speakers on the program was Justice John Greaney of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. Justice Greaney gave what to many will seem a shocking presentation.

The document gives remarkable insight into what the good Judge would have done in taking over the state’s education business, had his side prevailed in the Hancock v. Driscoll (2005) case.

Greaney’s June presentation is striking for, as a friend as put it,

Its breathtaking arrogance and the Judge’s elevated view of the court’s “special skills,” independence from special interests — all of whom he says he would then invite to participate in the remedy! — and ability at “truth finding.”

At the same time, he dismisses the majority opinion in Hancock as “utterly unpersuasive” (evidently they don’t have the same ability at “truth finding” that he possesses), and attributes the decision to “what can happen when membership on the court changes.” So perhaps he’s saying that the court membership is not so independent after all?

He seems pretty upset by the fact that his colleagues on the court had the wisdom to see the quagmire they faced. As Scot Lehigh of the Boston Globe, in a piece published the day after the Hancock decision in February 2005 noted:

[T]he high court dealt a stunning loss to those who had hoped to sidestep the political process to achieve court-ordered remedies. That includes the Massachusetts Teachers Association and the Massachusetts Federation of Teachers, two unions that had provided most of the funding for the so-called Hancock lawsuit alleging serious underfunding.

Lehigh was spot on in noting that “the high court actually ended its long-running role in monitoring the state’s educational efforts.”

He was also right to note that “[i]n arriving at its decision, the SJC ignored the recommendations of [then] Superior Court Judge Margot Botsford, whom it had appointed to make a finding of fact on the case.”

The problem is that Judge Botsford now sits on the state’s Supreme Judicial Court, appointed by Governor Deval Patrick. With the membership of the court changed, and with Botsford now sitting on the bench beside Greaney, the MTA knows that it is one seat away from clear sailing…

The implication of this presentation is crystal clear: As court membership changes, Judge Greaney and the MTA are all for court control of the schools.