Case: Tobeluk v. Lind/Molly Hootch Consent Decree

This is a case about the creation of the modern secondary school system for Alaskans. Before the 1900s, a dual school system emerged unofficially in Alaska as resentment grew among the relatively few whites over the emphasis on education for Natives and a belief that integrated schools would give only inferior education. Segregated schools existed in towns with proportionately greater white populations. There was only a secondary school for non-Natives in at least 12 of these communities. In 1900, Congress provided for the establishment and local control of independent schools for whites within incorporated towns. Two statutes enacted by Congress in the early 1900's gave official sanction to this dual system. The Alaska Organic Act and the Nelson Act.

In August 1972, 28 Native Alaskans of secondary school age filed this class action lawsuit against the Alaska State-Operated School System ("ASOSS") and the Commissioner of Education of the Alaska Department of Education in state trial court  (Superior Court, Third Judicial District of Anchorage, Alaska). They sought to represent a class of  Alaska Native children of secondary school age who resided in communities in the unorganized borough wherein (1) a public elementary school was operated or an elementary school was operated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs; (2) a secondary school comprising grades 9-12 is not so operated, nor is daily transportation to such a secondary school available; and (3) a majority of resident children eligible to attend secondary school are Native. The case was assigned to Judge James K. Singleton, Jr. 

Plaintiffs’ amended complaint in the superior court advanced four claims for relief: (1) denial of the right to education contained in Alaska’s Constitution, statutes, and regulations, (2) denial of equal protection of the US Constitution by racial discrimination, (3) denial of equal protection by geographical discrimination, and (4) redress for past discrimination. Hootch v. Alaska State-Operated School System, 536 P.2d 793 (1975). After discovery, plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on Claim I, arguing that there were no genuine issues of material fact and that the legal framework for education in Alaska guaranteed plaintiffs the right to attend secondary school in their residence communities. The Superior Court denied the motion, holding that the cited constitutional, statutory, and regulatory provisions did not compel the state to provide secondary education in plaintiffs' communities of residence as a matter of law. Defendants consequently moved to dismiss Claim I for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Thereafter, the superior court severed Claim I from the remainder of the plaintiffs' claims under Alaska R.Civ.P. 54(b), enabling an immediate appeal to the Alaskan Supreme Court. 

On May 23, 1975, the Alaskan Supreme Court held that the Alaskan Constitution imposes a duty upon the state legislature, and it confers upon Alaska school-age children a right to education. However, unlike most state constitutions, the Alaskan Constitution did not require uniformity in the school system. The court held, based on reference to the events preceding the ratification of the Alaska Constitution, that the drafters were aware that the principal Alaska opposition to statehood was based on arguments that the territory could not afford the costs of a state government. “To have proposed that the new constitution mandate secondary schools in all rural communities having eight school children would have been considered preposterous at that time in view of the grave financial problems which confronted the new state. Moreover, if the delegates had intended that secondary education be provided in each rural community, they certainly would have expressed themselves more directly and clearly than by use of the phrase ‘open to all’.” Hootch v. Alaska State-Operated School System, 536 P.2d 793 (1975). The court did not rule on the equal rights issues, preferring that the trial court first rule on the matter.

Soon afterward, the parties initiated settlement negotiations. A year of protracted negotiations followed, during which this case was the focus of much political attention. The parties reached a tentative agreement in December 1975, but it was interrupted when the governor presented to the legislature a bond proposal for one-half the amount called for in the draft consent decree. In May 1976, the State Board of Education adopted a set of regulations implementing local secondary school programs, which the parties had negotiated, and, thereafter, incorporated.

In September 1976, the parties finalized a settlement agreement consisting of a statement of agreed facts, intended to prevent discrimination from repeating and a consent decree. The so-called "Tobeluk Consent Decree" defined the villages that would have high schools constructed. The consent decree required the state to engage in a $20 million construction program for local secondary schools and to initiate steps to secure funding through bond initiatives for secondary school construction in the 126 villages where the members of the plaintiffs' class resided. This changed Alaska's education system dramatically, ending the state's unequal system in which Native children who lived in rural villages and wanted a secondary education were sent to boarding schools or boarding home programs, while non-Native children attended school in their home communities. The implementation of the Tobeluk consent decree led to the opening of 105 secondary schools in rural Alaska, providing Alaska Native children throughout the state the option to attend high school in their own home communities. Additionally, the superior court retained jurisdiction over the case and required the Department of Education to submit progress reports on implementing the decree every four months. No termination period was mentioned. A final court order approving the settlement was entered in October 1976.

The plaintiffs then filed a notice of taxation of costs with the clerk of trial courts, requesting fees and costs incurred between October 1974, when the plaintiffs began discovery related to the prosecution of their equal protection claim, and October 1976, when the settlement was finally approved. The total amount sought was $219,379.32, covering 3,085.75 hours of work by the attorneys and the costs of taking depositions, interviewing witnesses, and conducting the settlement negotiations. The matter of costs and fees was again assigned to Judge James K. Singleton. 

On April 22, 1977, Judge Singleton held that the plaintiffs could not appropriately be deemed the prevailing party without demonstrating that their legal position would have been vindicated had the case gone to trial. He reasoned that the plaintiffs' status as "prevailing party" could not be inferred from the settlement because of the political nature of the case. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Alaska held that the trial court did not err in holding that the settlement agreement didn’t render the plaintiffs the “prevailing party,” noting that they had lost on the merits of the only issue that was litigated and that the state had already begun implementing a program and policy for rural secondary school programs before this lawsuit was initiated.