Face The State Staff Report
Republican state lawmakers are outraged by a provision in this year’s state budget that earmarks a $150,000 for litigation Gov. Bill Ritter is voluntary engaged in to defend a $3.8 billion property tax increase he championed during the 2007 legislative session.
“Ritter does not have to be involved in this lawsuit," said Rep. David Balmer, R-Centennial. "It is selective litigation on his part, and taxpayers shouldn’t have to pay for that."
During a heated House debate last week on the budget bill, also known as the "Long Bill", Balmer introduced an amendment that would have removed the $150,000 line item and forced Ritter to use private resources to pay for private council. House Democrats killed Balmer’s amendment.
The property tax increase was inserted into last year's annual School Finance Act, and will cost the public $3.8 billion over the next 10 years. Consequently, the Colorado Department of Education finds itself the target of a lawsuit brought by the Mesa County Commissioners and aggrieved property owners. The legal action is organized by the Independence Institute, a free-market think tank.
In most cases, it is the role of Attorney General John Suthers to represent the executive branch in court, but Suthers has publicly stated that the mill levy freeze signed by Ritter violates Colorado's Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, which requires a vote of the people for “any tax policy changes resulting in a net revenue gain.” Now, Ritter has hired outside council to defend the property tax increase.
The State Board of Education claimed that the CDE was the wrong agency to be targeted and asked the court to be removed as the defendant, but their request was declined. Ritter has since intervened as a defendant in the case. To represent him, Ritter hired Mark Grueskin, a favorite litigator among Democrat activists. The School Finance Act changes the mill levy formula in state statute, resulting in a net property tax increase for most Colorado property owners.
“The governor is spending taxpayer resources to defend a policy position,” said attorney Richard Westfall, who is representing the plaintiffs.
nice bias
On April 4th, 2008 uglywalrus says:
You know, Brad, you generally do a pretty good job covering your bases so as not to appear as a Republican operative, but this particular story is really just ridiculous and makes you look like a partisan shill.
First of all, you apparently didn't even try to contact the governor's office to see what they had to say on it. You just quoted Balmer and Westfall slamming Ritter, with no rejoinder from the person you're attacking.
Second, while you do note that the Independence Institute brought the lawsuit, you don't really stress that Suthers pretty much had to recuse himself from the case because of his formal opinion, which naturally created a conflict of interest. So what, exactly, was the governor supposed to do in this situation? He was basically forced into a corner by Caldara and the Republicans. If there is another viable option for him instead of spending $150k, you don't point it out, and you should have. If Balmer was suggesting that the cost of attorney's fees should have come out of the CDE's budget, then it's still taxpayer dollars being used to pay for the case.
Besides, based on the facts here, you could also argue that the Independence Institute is responsible for the waste of taxpayer dollars because they're the ones who filed the lawsuit, which will probably be defeated anyway.
I'm not saying there isn't a story here or that Republicans don't have a valid reason to be upset. My point is only that you should try and do justice to the entire situation.
And it's Grueskin, not Grusekin.
The more balanced you are, or at least the more you strive for balance (and a semblance of truth), the better a reporter and writer you'll be. Because you do have talent. You're a good reporter and writer. I'd just like to see it turned more toward the interest of public service instead of Republican service.