Lake Shore board debates legal risks of Michigan 31aa school safety funds after court ruling

At a Dec. 29 special meeting, the Lake Shore Board of Education discussed whether to accept Section 31aa funding from Michigan’s School Aid Act amid ongoing litigation and an expedited Court of Appeals schedule.

District staff told the board there were "no major changes" to the district’s 31aa funding and recommended remaining opted in for now. Dr. DiPonio said the district has already received one payment of $138,000 and noted that some previously used expenditures — including Fortis officers — are no longer an allowable expense under the program; the district currently pays Fortis costs from the general fund at "just under $400k," he said.

Board member Amy Thomas-August read from Judge Sima G. Patel’s Dec. 17, 2025 conclusion in the Court of Claims (Case No. 25-000175-MZ), quoting the judge: "Section 31aa (9) is coercive but does not coerce the relinquishment of a constitutional right in exchange for essential public funding." Thomas-August said that, while she is not a lawyer, she believes the judge’s language supports accepting the funds to pay for security and mental-health supports that could help prevent tragedies.

Board member Keneth Gulock countered that the statute as written risks requiring districts to waive constitutional protections. In a direct statement he said, "Section 31aa of the SSAA violates the 5th amendment of the constitution by forcing schools to surrender protected rights in exchange for essential public funding. ... My conviction is that it does not and I choose to Opt Out." Gulock also referenced the statewide pool of money being discussed in two different terms in the meeting record — $300 million and, in his remarks, "$321 million" — a discrepancy noted during the discussion.

Trustees asked for clarification about the investigatory component tied to accepting the funds. Dr. DiPonio said acceptance of 31aa obligates districts to cooperate with state investigations and provide privileged communications when required; he said the district’s SRO is called in on all threat-assessment situations. Susan DeLong said she intends to remain opted in. No board motion or formal vote to change the district’s opt-in status was recorded during the meeting; Dr. DiPonio said rescinding an opt-in would require a future board vote.

Why this matters: The outcome affects how the district may use grant money — for example, for early childhood supports, kindergarten interventions and perimeter security — and whether cooperation with state investigators could require disclosure of privileged information. Any formal change to the district’s position would require a subsequent board action.

The board adjourned at 7:06 p.m.