Lawrence schools could have more than $6 million extra funds in their coffers this year, thanks to the bitterly fought school finance lawsuit.
Now the school district could roll as much as $40,000 of that new money back to help pay for the continuing litigation against the state.
Schools may have won the finance battle against the state this year, one lawyer said, but the war will continue.
"If everybody in the state of Kansas thinks that (recent) special session was contentious, they have no idea what's coming down the pipe in the next special session," said Alan Rupe, lead attorney for plaintiff school districts.
The board has been asked to pay $4 per student to help finance the lawsuit. The district's enrollment is about 10,000. The school board in a meeting this week added the matter as a soft line item and will have more talks before deciding whether to contribute.
The suit was first filed in 1999 by the Salina and Dodge City school districts, which argued the state was not properly and equitably funding education.
Other districts joined the suit, but Lawrence - because of tight finances - wasn't able to contribute to the effort.
But a flush of funds could give the board some leeway this year.
"We have clearly benefited from the lawsuit, and all Kansas kids have," board member Rich Minder said. "This is an investment that reaps future return."
And board member Sue Morgan said the district might consider joining the suit as a full-fledged plaintiff.
"That's not out of the question," Morgan said.
Representatives from the plaintiff districts have approached several school districts, starting with those that saw the greatest increases in per-pupil funding, said Fred Kaufman, the Hays school superintendent and head of the Schools for Fair Funding coalition.
"We have simply picked out some districts whose help we would like to have, and we've started with them," Kaufman said. "The next session will be very, very critical."
If Lawrence opts to support the suit, the funds would come from the district's local option budget which is funded by local tax dollars, Lawrence Supt. Randy Weseman said.
That's because districts can't use general fund dollars for attorney fees or other costs supporting litigation against the state. But schools were allowed to expand their local option budgets under the new finance plan.
The money would be used for attorneys, experts, lobbying and other activities and getting the legislature to increase funds for education, Rupe said.
The Lawrence board members are unresolved on making a contribution.
"There's definitely merit in continuing the suit," board member John Mitchell said. "I won't make up my mind until we talk specifically about the amount of money."
Kaufman said the goal is to broaden participation in the suit.
"What's really scary about it is I'm not sure it will ever end," he said. "Some of the attitudes I've seen lead me to believe this will not end."
The next legislative session begins in January.
School Finance
More about school finance
- Webcast of live arguments before the Kansas Supreme Court (requires Windows Media Player)
- Brief of the Montoy suit (.pdf)
- Timeline of events in school finance lawsuit
- 6News video: School finance bill to face court
- Plaintiffs: School finance bill fails grade (06-13-06)
- State wants high court to dismiss school suit (06-02-06)
- Legislature approves school finance plan (05-10-06)
- Chat with Bob Corkins, Kansas Education Commissioner (02-02-06)
- House roll call on $148.4 million school finance plan (07-07-05)
- Supt. Weseman's contingency plan (07-06-05)
- More about school finance »
Related documents
- Conference Committee on Senate Bill 549
- House bill info
- Senate bill info
- Kansas public schools cost study
- Kansas public schools cost study executive summary
- Public Education Finances 2004 (.pdf)
- Senate roll call on $148.4 million school finance plan
- Supreme Court's Show Cause Order (07-02-05)
- Supreme Court's Order Denying Extension (.pdf)
- Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 1603 (.pdf)
- Supplemental Note on Resolution No. 1603 (.pdf)
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
LawrenceMommy (anonymous) says…
So they're going to use our tax money to sue the state to get even more of our tax money? What a load of c**p!
LawrenceMommy (anonymous) says…
Besides...what's the point of extra money? Every extra penny is going to be demanded by the Teachers' Union...again. @@
Godot (anonymous) says…
For $40,000 they could have hired another teacher, or 3 custodian, or 80 laptops, or 26,667 blue felt dry erase markers. (Rich Minder, are you listening?)
We taxpayers are at the mercy of an out-of-control school administration. This irks me as much as when the district spends money on special flyers and advertising to generate support for passage of a school bond. Hello, school administration!! We aren't paying you to put out self aggrandizing propaganda, or to sue us to circumvent legislative action. We are paying you to educate our children.
We are in really bad shape when we hire administrators (local and regents) based on their political acumen as opposed to their administrative talent.
gontek (anonymous) says…
Its like a love triangle with no love. Our legislature shorts the schools on the budget money. Then the courts order the legislature to pay the schools more money. Then the legislature stalls to spite the court order and says they will pay the money now if the court doesn't order them around in the future. Then they fight over the constitutanilaty and legality of that. Now here comes the schools suing the state, using the money granted by the legislature and the court, while tying up both the state and the court.
Who loses? the taxpayers of kansas, the students, the schools, the legislature and the courts.
Who wins? Mostly the lawyers, and hopefully the schools a little bit.
I suppose that $40,000 is a investment in insuring their future income - speculative, but it will probably pay off, since the courts are already involved anyway and standing up for the needs of the schools. The schools are now standing up for themselves against this legislature - they are pretty much playing the role of the plaintiff already.
gontek (anonymous) says…
LawrenceMommy and Godot, you wouldn't happen to be realted to some teachers, or even teachers yourselves, would you? I promise not to tell!
aidan (anonymous) says…
Sadly enough, $40,000 will pay for almost 2 brand new, fresh-out-of-undergrad teachers. Even sadder, adding that $40,000 to the funds used to pay teachers would give each of them far less than $100 raise...However, successfully forcing the legislature to (do their duty, and) fund an equitable and suitable public eduation for all Kansas children will get us a lot farther than 26,667 dry erase markers ever could...
LawrenceMommy (anonymous) says…
Gontek - I'm not a teacher. All 4 of my grandparents were, as are 2 aunts, an uncle, 2 cousins, and my brother-in-law. My sister and father were teachers, but left to do something less political. I have taught, but not in the public school system...I taught in graduate school and at a vocational school. When my grandparents taught they did it because they loved it. And it wasn't political. They didn't get involved in politics or labor unions and they actually knew the subjects they taught. I wish I could say the same about my relatives currently teaching, but several of them chose teaching as a profession because it was the easiet major they could hack. Sad...but true.
merrill (anonymous) says…
I say go for it. Solidarity could be very important in this matter. On the long term USD 497 will reap benefits.
Does anyone USD 497 should finance it self? Why or why not?