Center family key plaintiffs



STAFF REPORT

CENTER — A lawsuit initiated by Anthony Lobato and family of Center along with 14 San Luis Valley school districts and other districts statewide will go before the state Supreme Court sometime early next year, according to attorney Kathleen Gebhardt.

Lobato vs. the State Board of education went before the Court of Appeals in Denver for oral argument Jan. 7 of this year. The Appeals Court quickly returned a decision stating that the State had no jurisdiction in the matter, so the case could not be referred for trial to the appropriate court.

The Colorado Supreme Court later agreed to hear the case.

Gebhardt said that the Colorado Association of School Boards, the Colorado Education Association and the Colorado Association of School Executives support the lawsuit.

The suit was filed against the State Board of Education, Commissioner Maloney and Gov. Bill Owens in June 2005 in Denver District Court. It challenges the constitutionality of the finance system for public schools in Colorado and questions the tax structure underlying school finance.

The suit claims that the state has failed to meet the laws laid down in the Colorado State Constitution guaranteeing students a quality education and local school boards control in the instruction of students in their districts.

The Public School Finance Act (PSFA) is condemned in the suit for failing to provide adequate funding for children with special needs, children learning English and gifted and talented students. The suit also points to a lack of funding for capital construction projects and questions the fiscal advisability of charter schools and schools of choice.

Plaintiffs advancing the suit believe that all school districts in Colorado have been adversely impacted by PSFA and as a result have suffered from a lack of funding as guaranteed by Colorado State law.

In 2006, a Denver district court dismissed the case after the Attorney General argued that the courts are not qualified to interpret uniform guarantee laws and the adequacy of school funding. The state also cited Amendment 23 as a ceiling on such funding and maintained that school taxes do not fall under the uniformity law.

During a local meeting with educators this week, Gebhardt explained that if Amendment 59 is passed in November, “the state’s argument will be moot.” Amendment 59 would provide a “savings account created from state income tax revenues and other sources to provide additional funding for Colorado schools.”

Amendment 51 also is seeking funds through an increase in the state’s use and sales taxes to provide long-term services for persons with developmental disabilities. Both amendments would help provide services for Colorado children with special needs.

Gebhardt pointed out that when Amendment 23 was passed, it set a ceiling on school funding based on 1988 spending levels. “Most school financial systems don’t last for 10 years and ours was passed in 1994,” Gebhardt pointed out.

The current Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) law further limits the amount of funds schools receive. TABOR requires that schools set aside a certain reserve in their budgets as a hedge against government growth, requiring that any excess funds in given years be returned to taxpayers.

“This has really ratcheted down the government’s ability to provide funds for schools,” Center Schools Superintendent George Welsh commented. While he feels the law was intended to be beneficial, legislators failed to foresee the negative effects it could have on school funding, he said.

Gebhardt pointed out that the state believes that because TABOR is in the State Constitution, “It trumps all else, but TABOR is just a formula we have to deal with.” The state, however, claims that the Lobato case has prevented other lawsuits, including but not limited to prisoners’ rights and water cases, from going forward. Gebhardt feels that TABOR could be a problem in these cases as well, pointing to possible defects in TABOR itself.

Gebhardt says she is “working hard” to prepare her arguments for the case. She hopes that amicus briefs from other educational organizations supporting the litigation will help overturn the Appeals Court’s decision.

“There is no way to predict the outcome, but it’s hard to imagine the worst opinion,” Gebhardt said. The current financial situation, however, is placing a hold on a lot of things, she noted.

The best-case scenario, Gebhardt said, would be that the Supreme Court would reverse the ruling of the Appeals Court, send the case to trial and indicate in some way in what direction the suit should go. “I strongly believe our constitution has been violated,” Gebhardt said. “If the court reverses the decision, the State Legislature will have to deal with us.”