Attorneys for substitute and part-time teachers say new tallies show two class-action lawsuits for back pay could cost the state as much as $100 million, including interest, but it’s unclear when the teachers will see the money given the bleak fiscal situation.

It has been a year since the state Supreme Court said it would not take up the state’s appeal in the substitute teachers case, sending it back to Circuit Court for the state and teachers to make an agreement on how much was owed and when the money would be paid.

Substitute teachers were told they would get their money in nine to 12 months.

But there have been a number of delays, said the teachers’ attorney, Paul Alston.

The work of calculating what is owed teachers has been tough, since records go back years and some appear incorrect. Also, he said, any award must be allocated by the state Legislature, which didn’t fund any legal claims against the state last legislative session.

"Analyzing and confirming literally half a million payroll records is not easy," Alston said, adding the Department of Education is now "confirming the accuracy" of the figures for back pay his firm calculated. "It goes back 11 years. We have engaged experts who have done an analysis and reset (teachers’) compensation at the proper rates."

As many as 30,000 substitute or part-time teachers are affected by the class-action lawsuits, which argued that the state failed to calculate their wage correctly and didn’t come through on pay raises. Though the state cannot appeal the case involving substitute teachers, it may still pursue an appeal in the case involving part-time teachers.

Attorneys for teachers said their claim will be submitted in the upcoming session, barring any other delays. Alston said no claim was submitted in the past session because both parties were still working to calculate the amount owed in back pay.

The $100 million figure could be opposed by the state, and it’s unclear when an agreement on the final figure will be reached. The state, for example, could raise issue with paying the millions of dollars in interest included in Alston’s calculations.

For teachers the long legal process has been stressful and trying.

John Hoff, founder of the Substitute Teachers Professional Alliance, said substitute teachers want to get what’s owed them and don’t understand why money hasn’t been released. "What really concerns me is if they don’t have a figure by the end of this year, that will give the Legislature another excuse to not fund the money," he said.

"It’s the typical bureaucratic stall."

Hoff said he has calculated the state owes him about $14,000 for five years of back pay.

Patricia Florens, a substitute teacher in Windward Oahu, said substitute teaching is a pretty thankless job, with no benefits and no guarantee of work. She said she has grown increasingly frustrated as the months have dragged on with no mention of an award.

"I’m just wondering, have they forgotten?" Florens said. "I haven’t heard a word."

State Sen. Jill Tokuda, chairwoman of the Senate Education Committee, said the Legislature is waiting for an agreed payout amount in the case and expressed hope the issue would be resolved this legislative session. "This has been an ongoing issue," she said. "We do need to settle these particular issues. It’s not going to go away."

The substitute class action stems from a 2002 complaint from Maui teacher David Garner, who claimed the state violated a 1996 law pegging pay for substitutes to rates for Class II teachers — those who have a bachelor’s degree but no advanced training.

From 1996 to 2005, for example, pay for substitute teachers increased 11 percent, compared with 40 percent for Class II teachers. Although substitute teachers claimed they were illegally underpaid from 1996, the courts ruled they could only receive back pay for the period from November 2000 to June 2005, when the state changed pay guidelines.

In court the state argued the law on substitute teacher pay was unclear.

The class action for part-time teachers is related to the one for substitute teachers because part-time teachers are paid an hourly rate tied to what substitutes get. The suit, filed by teacher Dianne Kawashima in 2006, was decided in favor of teachers in April.