Face the State repeated falsehood that "none of the extra revenue" from mill levy freeze "was specially earmarked for education"

Summary: A report on the "news" website Face the State repeated the false claim that "none of the extra revenue" generated by legislation known as the Colorado Children's Amendment "was specially earmarked for education." Colorado Media Matters repeatedly has pointed out that a legislative analysis and the text of the bill freezing mill levy rates indicate that the measure includes specific increases for spending on preschool education and minimum per pupil funding.

In a June 30 Staff Report, the "news" website Face the State reported that "none of the extra revenue" generated as a result of a mill levy freeze enacted as part of the 2007 School Finance Act (SB 199) "was specially earmarked for education." In fact, as Colorado Media Matters noted after Face the State made the same claim on August 28, 2007, the bill's fiscal note, prepared by the nonpartisan Colorado Legislative Council Staff, estimated that because of initiatives mandated by the legislation, SB 199 would increase spending on preschool education by $6.7 million in FY 2007-08 and by $19.1 million in FY 2008-09. Additionally, the law phases in an increase in minimum per pupil state funding above levels mandated by the Colorado Constitution at an additional combined cost for FY 2007-08 and FY 2008-09 of $19.6 million.

Face the State reported on a purported controversy over Colorado State Board of Education member Pamela Jo Suckla's perceived support for the board's decision to defend against a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the mill levy freeze, which was a part of the School Finance Act known as the Colorado Children's Amendment. On May 30, Denver District Court Judge Christina M. Habas ruled in favor of the lawsuit filed by Independence Institute President Jon Caldara, who also has claimed repeatedly through the media that the legislation did not direct that state revenue freed up by the freeze would go to the benefit of students, as Colorado Media Matters has noted (here, here, here, and here). Face the State's founder and managing editor, conservative activist Brad Jones, has worked as a research associate at the Independence Institute.

As The Denver Post reported on June 1, Gov. Bill Ritter's (D) spokesman "said the state will appeal the ruling to the Colorado Supreme Court and also ask for a stay of the ruling so that the state can continue to collect revenue from the mill-levy freeze in the next fiscal year."

From the June 30 Face the State Staff Report, "ED BOARD CHAIR SUCKLA FACES FLAK FROM VOTERS":

Voters from Colorado's 3rd Congressional District are accusing Pamela Jo Suckla, chairwoman of the state Board of Education, of not representing their best interests after her recent refusal to take a public stand against Gov. Bill Ritter's appeal of a Denver District Court Judge's ruling that a mill levy freeze amounts to an unconstitutional tax increase.

Republicans hold a 4-3 majority on the board, and without the support of Suckla, a Republican, Democrats would not have had the authority to move forward with the appeal. Previously, an open records request in April revealed that Suckla was denying the Board an opportunity to vote publicly about whether to defend the mill levy lawsuit, leaving insiders to believe that she supported it. Vice Chairman Bob Schaffer, R-Fort Collins, and Peggy Littleton, R-Colorado Springs, are the only two board members to have publicly opposed the lawsuit and Ritter's appeal. Both have advocated for a public vote on the matter.

"Bob and I are the only ones willing to stand up for the taxpayers," said Littleton.

Mesa County Commissioners and aggrieved property owners originally brought the lawsuit against the state Board, arguing that the freeze was an unconstitutional tax increase because it generated additional tax revenue for the state. Under Colorado's Taxpayer's Bill of Rights, any tax increase requires a vote of the people. Ritter voluntarily intervened in the case, and after Judge Christina Habas handed down her decision, he announced his intent to appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court.

Suckla represents CD 3, which includes much of Western and Southern Colorado. Ritter's mill levy tax increase, pushed by Democrat state lawmakers, will cost her constituents nearly $30.8 million, with Mesa County bearing $8.7 million of the increase. The increase also hits Suckla close to home. Her cattle ranch covers San Miguel, Dolores and Montezuma Counties, where the mill levy tax increase has already generated more than $2 million. Statewide the mill levy tax increase has resulted in $118 million of extra revenue. Over the next ten years that number is expected to reach almost $3.4 billion.

"[Suckla] is not representing the 3rd Congressional District very well," said Mesa County Commissioner Janet Rowland. "As a Republican and fiscal conservative I am very surprised that she is not upholding the intent of the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights."

Evan Gluckman, a leading plaintiff in the case and owner of the Main Street Café in Grand Junction, expressed outrage over the board's decision to join the appeal. "If [Suckla] could show me where in [the bill] it say this money is specific for education then I'd support her decision," he said. He has seen his property taxes go up by almost $1,000 this year because of the mill levy freeze. Though the mill levy freeze was incorporated into the 2007 School Finance Act, none of the extra revenue was specially earmarked for education. Consequently, the money could be used on any number of public programs.

—E.B.