Judges: DUANE WOODARD, Attorney General
Filed Date: 8/29/1986
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
Calvin M. Frazier Commissioner of Education Colorado Department of Education 201 E. Colfax Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203
Dear Commissioner Frazier:
This opinion letter is in response to your July 14, 1986 letter, in which you inquired whether local school districts could expend funds to support litigation asserting the unconstitutionality of the statute under which they receive state funding for public education, i.e., the Public School Finance Act, sections
QUESTION PRESENTED AND CONCLUSION
Your request for an attorney general's opinion presents the following question:
Can local school districts expend funds to support litigation asserting the unconstitutionality of the PSFA?
I find no authority under current Colorado law for such expenditures by school districts.
ANALYSIS
Your request for an attorney general's opinion arises in part from legislative inaction following the supreme court's decision in Lujan v. Colorado State Board of Education,
As the majority opinion implies, the Colorado school finance system is not without fault and should be revised by the General Assembly to correct the disparity in the educational opportunities which are available in the different counties and school districts in Colorado. . . . Both dissenting opinions fairly and accurately detail valid reasons for the General Assembly to formulate amendments to the school financing plan to correct its deficiencies. . . . I would not, [however], under the rational basis test for equal protection, substitute our judgment for that of the legislature in this difficult area without giving it an opportunity to correct the deficiencies presently inherent in the system.
Id. at 1025-26.
Since Lujan, the legislature has not amended the PSFA in any substantial manner. Recently, school districts were asked, in a July 13, 1986 letter from Western Services Systems, Inc., to contribute $.85 per student for each of 3 years in support of state court litigation attacking the legality of the PSFA. Even if school districts do not eventually choose to be plaintiffs, their contributions would be used to finance the costs of the litigation.
School districts have only those powers expressly conferred on them by the constitution or statutes and such incidental powers as are necessarily implied from those specifically granted.Union High School District No. 2 v. Paul,
The issue then is whether school districts may act, pursuant to their authority to "sue and be sued," to challenge the legality of the PSFA. This, in turn, depends upon whether the constitution or the legislature has created a legally protected interest for school districts and hence granted them standing to sue. Courts of other jurisdictions are divided over this question.Compare Buse v. Smith
It is difficult to imagine a greater interest in the outcome of litigation than that of . . . [the school] District. The interests of the District are not theoretical; they involve actual financial constraints imposed upon the District by the challenged system itself. . . . [W]hat could be more fundamental to the maintenance of schools, and an educational program, than an action seeking to obtain sufficient revenue to keep a district operating with its basic programs intact so as to comply with [constitutional mandates]. . .? What could be more fundamental than [the] . . . District's need for review of a system of public school financing that undermines its means of existence?
Seattle School District No. 1 v. Washington, supra,
This statement eloquently sets forth the rationale favoring standing for school districts here. In Colorado, however, political subdivisions of the state and their officers lack standing to challenge the constitutionality of state statutes directing their performance. E.g., Board of CountyCommissioners v. Fifty-first General Assembly,
The only exception to this rule is where the constitution or a specific statute expressly or impliedly grants to a political subdivision the right to challenge the constitutionality of state statutes. Board of County Commissioners v. Fifty-firstGeneral Assembly, supra; Adams County Boardof County Commissioners v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.,
Arguably, school districts receive authority to bring this litigation by virtue of their duty "[t]o cause an educational program to be maintained and operated within or . . . outside the territorial limits of the district for the school-age children resident therein." Section
One caveat must be added to my conclusion here. The specific legal bases for the present challenge to the PSFA have not been made known to me nor have the interests to be asserted by school districts been specifically articulated to me. While I have not identified any constitutional provision or law which would create a protectable interest in school districts and would form the basis for their standing to sue, I cannot conclusively rule out the possibility that such may exist. See SchoolDistrict No. 23 v. School Planning Committee,supra; United States v. Alabama,
This opinion addresses only the issue of the expenditure of school district funds to support litigation challenging the PSFA. It should not be interpreted in any way to deter efforts of local and state educational leaders to pursue legislative initiatives designed to correct deficiencies of the PSFA pursuant to Justice Erickson's special concurring opinion in Lujan.
SUMMARY
Under the facts provided, I am unable to ascertain any Colorado authority permitting school districts to expend their funds in support of litigation challenging the Public School Finance Act.
Very truly yours,
DUANE WOODARD Attorney General
SCHOOL DISTRICTS LITIGATION
Section
Colo. Const. art.
EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF
School districts lack authority to finance litigation challenging the constitutionality of the Public School Finance Act, pursuant to which they receive state funding for public education.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMRS. OF COUNTY OF DOLORES v. Love , 470 P.2d 861 ( 1970 )
Seattle School District No. 1 v. State , 90 Wash. 2d 476 ( 1978 )
East Jackson Public Schools v. State , 133 Mich. App. 132 ( 1984 )
Union High School District No. 2 v. Paul , 105 Colo. 93 ( 1939 )
united-states-of-america-john-f-knight-jr-plaintiffs-intervenors-v , 791 F.2d 1450 ( 1986 )
Hazlet v. Gaunt , 126 Colo. 385 ( 1952 )
Bd. of Cty. Com'rs, Etc. v. City & Cty., Etc. , 571 P.2d 1094 ( 1977 )
Board of County Commissioners v. Fifty-First General ... , 198 Colo. 302 ( 1979 )
Buse v. Smith , 74 Wis. 2d 550 ( 1976 )
Washakie County School District Number One v. Herschler , 606 P.2d 310 ( 1980 )
Denver Urban Renewal Authority v. Byrne , 1980 Colo. LEXIS 761 ( 1980 )
Denver Ass'n for Retarded Children, Inc. v. School District ... , 188 Colo. 310 ( 1975 )