OUR VIEW: D-11 spends children's money on 'investment' in lawsuit (vote in poll)

Anyone who wonders why Colorado voters amended their constitution to include the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights should consider how the District 11 School Board voted recently to spend $50,000 of its limited recession-era budget. In essence, the board will spend the money to support a lawsuit known as Lobato v. State of Colorado. The suit, which seeks to increase spending on education, will achieve nothing in the unlikely event the plaintiffs prevail.

Sure, its a small amount of cash relative to this large school district's budget. But imagine what the board could have done with this $50,000, which it apparently had lying around in need of a cause.

With $50,000 — an amount the district receives for educating about nine children for a year — the board could have bought 100 or more computers for kids. It could have paid a teacher’s salary for year. It could have bought band instruments for disadvantaged students. It could have created a scholarship. It could have used the money in countless ways that would have benefited a student or students directly.

Instead, the board voted in special session to give $50,000 to this frivolous lawsuit, which seeks a court order to force the Colorado Legislature to spend a billion dollars more each year on education. The board members did not make this decision at the behest of D-11 constituents. Instead, they spent this money at the request of the Colorado Association of School Boards and the Colorado Association of School Executives, which sent a joint letter to school districts asking for cash. It appears most districts aren’t so gullible, as more than half the $90,000 raised from all school districts so far has come from D-11.

But don’t worry, we’re told the board didn’t really spend $50,000. No, the board apparently expects a return. Here’s what board president Tom Strand had to say about it in an interview with 5 News First of Colorado Springs.

“We really don’t see it as an expenditure as much as an investment,” Strand said.

An investment? Does he think we’re stupid?

Amendment 23 of the Colorado Constitution already requires the Legislature to make education spending a top priority. Furthermore, Colorado voters tend to elect pro-education politicians. As a result, nearly 45 percent of the state government’s budget goes to schools. In the unlikely event the state loses this suit, and plaintiffs survive appeals, the schools would gain nothing. That’s because the Colorado Supreme Court can’t force a tax increase, and the Legislature doesn’t have an extra billion dollars sitting around. One of the first lessons of law is to avoid litigation against non-collectible defendants. Why? Because it’s a poor investment in which a win is no different than a loss.

(Please vote in poll to the right in red type. Must vote to see results. Thanks!)

Furthermore, state government doesn’t print money, it must maintain a balanced budget, and the state’s economy probably can’t come up with another billion dollars to finance government. Even the talking points published by the association of school boards and the association of school executives speak of the lawsuit’s frivolity: “While a favorable decision in this lawsuit would not in itself be a solution, winning would force action that could lead to positive changes in how our schools are funded. A victory would still require legislative action and possibly a positive response from Colorado voters...”

If you still don’t believe this lawsuit is foolish, listen to an expert. Channel 5 interviewed University of Colorado-Colorado Springs Political Science professor Joshua Dunn, who has researched and written extensively on education funding. Dunn says lawsuits of this sort typically don’t work. On the rare occasion the plaintiffs prevail, the children don’t come out ahead. In other words, victory in these cases isn’t much different than loss.

“If the plaintiffs win and they actually do manage to extract more resources out of the state legislature... it’s very doubtful that the money will lead to substantial changes in the quality of education,” Dunn said.

So the district, which exists only for the benefit of children, spent $50,000 pursuing a victory that almost certainly won’t happen. If it does happen by some miracle, the children won’t win.

An investment? No way.

It’s not even a high risk junk investment with the small possibility of a big return. It is, in fact, a complete and total waste of $50,000 that will net no return for the students and parents of District 11. The money could have been spent on kids. Instead, it was tossed to some pie-in-the-sky lawsuit that’s little more than a poor attempt at political theater. — Wayne Laugesen, editorial page editor, for the editorial board

Friend the author of this editorial on Facebook