Face the State

Chairwoman says debate over merits of case "not our job"
Face The State Staff Report

In the face of pending litigation over a statewide increase in property tax revenue, the state Board of Education has been holding closed door meetings to debate their support of the lawsuit. Multiple board members are now questioning that secrecy and pushing for a public vote on the issue.

On March 5, the board went into executive session to “receive information” from attorneys at Sherman & Howard, a firm previously retained by the board in January to file a motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by a coalition of taxpayer activists. The coalition claims that a new school funding law championed by Gov. Bill Ritter, a Democrat, during the 2007 legislative session amounts to an unconstitutional tax increase because of the way it calculates the state’s mill levy formula.

That session was not simply utilized to "receive information" about the board's unsuccessful efforts to have the lawsuit dismissed. Instead, according to a statement read after the closed-door vote, the board decided to continue retaining Sherman & Howard. The move, supported by the board's official record, reflects the fact that on March 6, Chairwoman Pamela Jo Suckla, R-Slickrock, read a prepared statement into the record indicating that the board had instructed Sherman & Howard to continue defending against the lawsuit. No public vote was taken.

According to a letter obtained by Face The State through the Colorado Open Records Act, the process raised the concerns of Vice-Chairman Bob Schaffer, R-Fort Collins. In a March 29 e-mail, Schaffer requested of Suckla that the Board take a formal position by way of a public vote on whether the department would “defend the lawsuit or [agree with] the claims against the state.”

In a separate email dated February 21, Schaffer said such a vote would establish the board’s support for the “Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights principle that the legislature ask the voters first before socking them with $3.8 billion in new property taxes.”

Ritter has since volunteered to intervene in the case, and is expecting to spend $150,000 of taxpayer money to pay for outside legal council.

Schaffer tells Face The State he believes that the board should take a public vote so that taxpayers are aware of where individual board members stand.

Additional documents obtained through Colorado's open records law reveal growing discontent over the department's handling of the lawsuit. Board members Peggy Littleton, R-Colorado Springs, and Randy DeHoff, R-Littleton, question the statewide increase in property taxes, saying Ritter is now using the new funds for different programs than he originally advocated. In response to news that money raised from the controversial tax would be used to fund Ritter’s “Building Blocks” program expanding low-income health care coverage and other social programs Littleton wrote, “Not only is what they did unconstitutional, but they misled the public about what the funding will be used for. 3.8 billion dollars of taxpayer $ squandered.”

In a March 13 e-mail to Suckla, DeHoff warned the chairwoman that the “board is revolting over this.”

Suckla replied to Schaffer’s request for a public vote on the lawsuit, stating she would not add an agenda item for a public vote on the mill levy issue. “We all want to be responsible to our constituents and I believe we are proceeding in that direction," she wrote. "While it might serve you to debate this case it is not in the best interest of this board to debate the issue and the case’s merits in a public forum. That is not our job. No matter what the outcome, either way, this issue still needs to be decided by a court of law.”

In spite of Suckla's response, Schaffer shows no signs of giving up his fight for a public vote. "Our obligation is to the Constitution, not the Legislature or the governor," he said in an e-mailed reply to the board. "It's an easy obligation to maintain in our case, as the $3.8 billion tax increase is a massive shift of wealth from rural Colorado to urban."

Face The State attempted to contact Suckla for a response Friday, but as of press time Monday, she had not yet responded to questions emailed to her.