brief in opposition to motion to dismiss - Colorado Attorney General

More documents

Recommendations

Info

local over state control of instruction” by the intentional creation of a “constitutional division ofpower between the state and local boards.” Id., 92 P.3d at 940 and 943-44. The Court also holdsthat local control over instruction is clearly, but not exclusively, linked to funding, andparticularly locally-raised funds. Id., 92 P.3d at 941-43.Article IX, section 15, therefore, is a source of constitutional authority and a legallyprotected interest of the boards of education of school districts. This authority is different fromand, in fact, directly counter-balances the authority of the State in matters affecting instruction inthe schools. The Plaintiff School Districts have a specific constitutional interest in this actionthat is not subsumed within those of the Defendants, and the standing to assert that interest.Even in the absence of a constitutional base such as Article IX, §15, the KentuckySupreme Court held, that school districts had standing to sue the state directly under theeducation clause:The Council 33 and the local school boards as plaintiffs in this case are statutorilyobligated to promote public education for their respective constituents – the students intheir school districts. The local districts are part and parcel of a system of commonschools created by the General Assembly, which purports to be constitutionally efficient.If the system is not efficient, the local school boards’ duty is to make every effort toremedy that situation. Included in that responsibility is the filing of this lawsuit. Thelocal school board and the Council have a judicially recognizable interest in a system ofefficient common schools, and we so recognize and declare.Rose, supra, 790 S.W.2d at 2001.CONCLUSIONFor the foregoing reasons, the Motion to Dismiss should be denied.38
Respectfully submitted this 29 th day of September, 2005Original signature on fileAlexander HalpernATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFOriginal signature on fileKathleen J. GebhardtATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF33The Council for Better Education, Inc., was a nonprofit corporation whose members weresixty-six Kentucky school districts.39
Page 1 and 2: DISTRICT COURT, CITY AND COUNTY OFD
Page 3 and 4: system of public schools throughout
Page 5 and 6: Amendment 23 was not intended to an
Page 7 and 8: evenues they can raise, receive, an
Page 9 and 10: electorate, reacting against the de
Page 11 and 12: State to fund a thorough and unifor
Page 13 and 14: People v. District Court, 196 Colo.
Page 15 and 16: with an informal foster family.Ther
Page 17: In his concurring opinion, Justice
Page 20 and 21: Implicit are supportive services: (
Page 22 and 23: if the districts lack sufficient fu
Page 26 and 27: judicial power; that the executive
Page 28 and 29: The general assembly can reprioriti
Page 30 and 31: state auditor and treasurer from is
Page 32 and 33: There is nothing fair or just about
Page 34 and 35: Defendants offer revenues raised in
Page 36 and 37: a state must be deemed commensurate
Page 40: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEI hereby cert

brief in opposition to motion to dismiss - Colorado Attorney General

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?