The Kingfisher County Excise Board acted within its lawful duties and Kingfisher Public Schools doesn’t meet the burden needed to obtain a writ of mandamus.

That’s according to a response filed by District Attorney Tommy Humphries with the Oklahoma Supreme Court last week.

Humphries represents the excise board, which voted late last month to amend the estimate of needs of the school district by nearly $2 million.

That prompted the district to file an emergency application to assume original jurisdiction and petition for writ of mandamus Oct. 18 with the state’s highest court.

In it, KPS attorneys argued the excise board “exercised arbitrary, capricious and unlawful” authority with its move.

Further, the district argued the excise board not only “acted outside the scope of its authority,” but that the district would not be able to operate unless the requested estimate of needs of just over $16.2 million was met.

Included in the filing was a declaration signed by Interim Superintendent Andy Evans that said the alteration of the estimate of needs by the board would leave the district with an “untenable balance” to operate for the school year and would further affect the district’s state aid in 2025-26 as well.

In the response, which was due - and filed - last Friday, Humphries said the excise board doesn’t argue the court’s authority to assume original jurisdiction, but that KPS isn’t entitled to a writ of mandamus.

A writ of mandamus is a legal order from a higher court, the Supreme Court in this case, that orders a lower court or government official, the excise board, to perform its duties or to correct a ruling.

“Specifically, respondent (excise board) did not refuse or fail to perform a duty which does not involve an exercise of discretion,” Humphries wrote in the response, citing a 1997 case in which the Supreme Court ruled county excise boards “do in fact have discretionary authority to strike from budget requests items that are in excess of needs.”

The district argued that it submitted an estimate of needs that sought “lawful appropriations and appropriation requests for lawful purposes.”

Also, according to the school district’s filing, the excise board’s move to reduce the general fund budget was “in objection to the petitioner’s (school district’s) sinking fund obligation.”

Neither claim was disputed by Humphries in his filing.

When the school district settled a $5 million civil lawsuit with Mason Mecklenburg, part of the stipulations called for $1.25 million per year, plus interest, be paid from the district’s sinking fund over a three-year period.

That sinking fund is fed by ad valorem taxes paid by homeowners and property owners within the school district, meaning they would see a tax increase during the life of that judgment.

That fact has caused public outcry, both at school board and excise board meetings.

Humphries did state the district “has other available relief, including a district court’s authority to grant relief based upon petitioner’s assertion it will suffer irreparable harm” as well as a taxpayer protest process with the state Auditor and Inspector’s Office.

Also, according to the response, the district should have addressed the payment of the settlement in its estimate of needs “and not simply request the maximum amount of appropriation available by law and allow the court judgment to be passed on to the taxpayers.”

Humphries again cited the 1997 case (Clay v. Independent School District No. 1 of Tulsa County).

In that case, according to the response, the Supreme Court stated, “Instead of allowing a sinking fund judgment for unbudgeted annual fiscal expenses and thereby penalize the taxpayers, we adopt the view that officials should use the appropriate remedies to insure that such items are properly budgeted and paid.”

Humphries also argued the excise board and its advisors previously met with members of the board of education and former Superintendent David Glover, who is now deceased, prior to the estimate of needs being completed and approved.

His response also stated the district “took the position it was not required to participate in (the excise board’s) statutory process and obligation to adequately review and approve the estimate of needs.”

According to the response, without additional information from the district “despite attempts to have questions answered,” the excise board took the position that the district’s $3.36 million carryover plus its $16.2 million in the estimate of needs “was in excess of its needs.”

According to the case’s docket, no other deadlines have been set.

KPS had filed an emergency application and petition and was seeking a ruling prior to Nov. 1.

Although the two sides could be called to make arguments before the court, the docket currently states an “oral argument is not contemplated.”