Topeka ? State legislators remained at odds Thursday over how much money to give schools and whether to restrict the Kansas Supreme Court’s authority – even as they hoped for more time to work out a solution.

Atty. Gen. Phill Kline filed a motion Thursday asking the court to extend today’s deadline for lawmakers to take action.

Otherwise, Kline said the court could try to suspend funds for education that go to the school districts through the State Board of Education, because the board is one of the defendants in the lawsuit.

“The No. 1 priority is to allow schools to open this fall,” Kline said.

On June 3, the Kansas Supreme Court said the school finance system was unconstitutionally inadequate. It gave the Legislature until today to increase funding by $143 million.

While there has been much speculation on how the court would enforce its order, the bottom line is that no one knows, legislators and Kline said.

Alan Rupe, the attorney representing plaintiffs who won the lawsuit that was first filed in 1999, said he would oppose Kline’s motion before the court today.

“The plaintiffs and similarly situated students have waited six years to receive suitable funding,” Rupe said. “Time is of the essence.”

Senate Democratic Leader Anthony Hensley of Topeka said Kline’s request to give the Legislature more time was a bad idea. “The longer we are here, matters only get worse,” he said.

Two plans advance

On the ninth day of the first special session in 16 years, lawmakers produced two school finance proposals and sent them to a House-Senate conference committee to try to negotiate an agreement.

The plan approved by the House would increase school funding by $86 million, and provide $33 million more after the completion of an education cost study later this year, and another $20 million in the 2006-2007 school year for at-risk programs. It also contains several provisions that would limit school districts’ ability to file school finance litigation.

The plan also is contingent on the House and Senate approving a proposed constitutional amendment that would prohibit courts from ordering the Legislature to make appropriations.

The amendment, which would require two-thirds’ majorities in the House and Senate, has already failed once in the House, but advanced on a voice vote Thursday and may be up for a final vote today. If approved, it could be on the ballot for statewide voter consideration in mid-August.

The Senate school finance plan would cost $160 million and provide $30 million in property tax relief for low-wealth school districts.

As of now, both plans would be funded through existing state fund reserves and higher-than-anticipated tax receipts. Proposals to expand casino gambling have failed and tax increases have been taken off the table for consideration.

Combined with an earlier approved increase in school funding, the Lawrence school district would receive $3.9 million in additional funds for the upcoming school year under the House plan and $4.5 million under the Senate plan, according to the state education department.

Sebelius criticizes Mays

Sebelius supports the $160 million school finance plan that was put together by a bipartisan coalition, and said House Speaker Doug Mays’ push for a smaller plan tied to a constitutional amendment restricting courts was irresponsible.

“The House leadership unfortunately continues to put its own political agenda ahead of the needs of Kansas children, parents and taxpayers, playing what amounts to a game of chicken,” Sebelius, a Democrat, said.

Mays, R-Topeka, responded, saying, “The House and its leadership will continue to take the high road and avoid cheap shots and partisan remarks.” Mays has announced his intentions to run for governor in 2006; Sebelius is likely to seek re-election.

When told some lawmakers were losing their hotel rooms because of incoming conventions this weekend, Sebelius said, “I can see a tent city.”

Sebelius said she was uncomfortable with the court ordering the Legislature to increase school funds by a specific amount, but she said the first priority of the special session should be complying with the court order.

Lawmakers could tackle the issue of whether to try to change the constitutional authority of courts during the regular session, which starts in January, she said.