Educ. ReEnvisioned BOCES v. Colo. Literacy & Learning Ctr.
| Decision Date | 03 November 2022 |
| Docket Number | 21CA0708 |
| Citation | 2022 COA 128 |
| Parties | Education ReEnvisioned BOCES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Colorado Literacy and Learning Center, Third-Party Defendant-Appellee, and Colorado Springs School District 11, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
SUMMARY
A division of the court of appeals interprets section 22-5-111(2), C.R.S. 2022, of the Boards of Cooperative Services Act of 1965 (the BOCES Act). The division concludes that under a plain reading of the section, the General Assembly did not grant BOCES extraterritorial authority and therefore BOCES cannot locate schools in nonmember school districts without those districts' permission.
El Paso County District Court No. 20CV31562 Honorable Laura N Findorff, Judge
Sparks Willson, P.C., Eric V. Hall, Julie B. Petersen, Colorado Springs, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee and Third-Party Defendant-Appellee
Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP, Brent E. Rychener, Deborah S Menkins, Suzanna A. Crespo, Colorado Springs, Colorado, for Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant
KUTZ & Bethke LLC, William B. Bethke, Lakewood, Colorado, for Amicus Curiae Colorado BOCES Association, Colorado Rural Schools Alliance, Colorado Association of School Boards, and Colorado Association of School Executives
Nussbaum Speir Gleason PLLC, Ian Speir, Andrew Nussbaum Colorado Springs, Colorado, for Amicus Curiae Independence Institute
Kris Gomez, Erik G. Bradberry, Denver, Colorado, for Amicus Curiae Colorado Education Association
Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General, Julie C. Tolleson, First Assistant Attorney General, Joseph A. Peters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for Amicus Curiae Colorado State Board of Education
Daniel E. Burrows, Lakewood, Colorado, for Amici Curiae Jacqueline Gatlin and Danielle Babb
¶ 1 In this action under the Boards of Cooperative Services Act of 1965 (the BOCES Act), we are asked to decide whether the General Assembly intended to allow school district cooperatives to open and operate schools within the geographic boundaries of nonmember school districts that do not consent. We conclude section 22-5-111(2), C.R.S. 2022, does not grant such extraterritorial authority and, therefore, we reverse the district court's order.
¶ 2 The BOCES Act was "enacted for the general improvement and expansion of educational services of the public schools in the state of Colorado." § 22-5-102, C.R.S. 2022. It enables two or more school districts to cooperate in providing services authorized by law through the creation of "boards of cooperative services" (BOCES). Id. Finally, it sets forth the BOCES' powers and duties.
¶ 3 Plaintiff, Education ReEnvisioned BOCES (Education ReEnvisioned), is such a school district cooperative. At the time the dispute in this case arose, its members were Falcon School District 49, Creede Consolidated School District 1, Durango School District 9-R, and Pikes Peak Community College. Defendant and third-party plaintiff, Colorado Springs School District 11 (District 11), is not a member of Education ReEnvisioned.
¶ 4 Education ReEnvisioned and third-party defendant, Colorado Literacy and Learning Center (the Learning Center), entered into an agreement for the Learning Center to operate Orton Academy, a contract school serving students with reading challenges. They located Orton Academy within the geographic boundaries allocated to District 11, without seeking or obtaining permission from the District 11 school board.
¶ 5 District 11 objected, and Education ReEnvisioned filed a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment that it could continue operating Orton Academy at its current location without District 11's permission. District 11 filed a counterclaim against Education ReEnvisioned and a third-party claim against the Learning Center, seeking an opposite declaratory judgment and an injunction against further operation of Orton Academy within its boundaries. Since there were no disputed facts, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on their declaratory judgment claims.
¶ 6 The district court concluded that the language of section 22-5-111(2) then in effect gave Education ReEnvisioned and the Learning Center the authority to locate Orton Academy within District 11's geographic bounds without District 11's permission. It therefore denied District 11's motion for partial summary judgment and granted Education ReEnvisioned and the Learning Center's motion for summary judgment.
¶ 7 District 11 now appeals.
¶ 8 Ordinarily, an order denying a motion for summary judgment isn't appealable. Dep't of Nat. Res. v. 5 Star Feedlot Inc., 2019 COA 162M, ¶ 36, aff'd on other grounds, 2021 CO 27. But when a district court rules on cross-motions for summary judgment - denying summary judgment for one party and granting summary judgment for the other - the judgment is final, and we may review the denial. Id. We review such an order de novo. Poudre Sch. Dist. R-1 v. Stanczyk, 2021 CO 57, ¶ 12. "Because we apply the same standard as the district court in our review, we must 'determine whether a genuine issue of material fact existed and whether the district court correctly applied the law.'" Id. (quoting City of Fort Collins v. Colo. Oil & Gas Ass'n, 2016 CO 28, ¶ 9).
¶ 9 We also review questions of statutory interpretation de novo. Id. at ¶ 13. "Our primary goal when interpreting a statute is 'to effectuate the legislature's intent.'" Id. (citation omitted). "To accomplish this, 'we look to the entire statutory scheme in order to give consistent, harmonious, and sensible effect to all of its parts, and we apply words and phrases in accordance with their plain and ordinary meanings.'" Id. (citation omitted). We must "avoid constructions that would render any of the statutory language superfluous or that would lead to illogical or absurd results." Harvey v. Cath. Health Initiatives, 2021 CO 65, ¶ 16. A statute's "plain meaning may also be discerned from the placement and interaction of subsections within the statutory framework." Kirkmeyer v. Dep't of Loc. Affs., 313 P.3d 562, 568 (Colo.App. 2011). If the statute's plain language is clear and unambiguous, we apply it as written and need not resort to other tools of statutory construction. Harvey, ¶ 16.
¶ 10 The district court based its summary judgment order on the following language in section 22-5-111(2):
The boards of education of the school districts participating in a cooperative service agreement may jointly, separately, or, after approval of each participating board of education, as a board of cooperative services construct, purchase, or lease sites, buildings, and equipment for the purpose of providing the facilities necessary for the operation of a cooperative service program at any appropriate location, whether within or without a school district providing the money for the facilities.
(Emphasis added.)[1] It concluded that "any appropriate location" unambiguously means any location, regardless of in which school district, because "to interpret the provision as District 11 asserts assumes information that is not present in the statute."
¶ 11 But while we agree with the district court that the statute is unambiguous, the district court's interpretation does not give effect to the qualifying language "within or without a school district providing the money for the facilities." § 22-5-111(2). And while "[w]e do not add words to or subtract words from a statute," Nieto v. Clark's Mkt., Inc., 2021 CO 48, ¶ 12 (citation omitted), we must also "aim to give effect to every word and presume that the legislature did not use language idly," id. at ¶ 21.
¶ 12 Keeping in mind the "placement and interaction of subsections within the statutory framework," Kirkmeyer, 313 P.3d at 568, we read the plain language "any appropriate location, whether within or without a school district providing the money for the facilities," § 22-5-111(2), to mean any location in the geographic bounds of a participating member school district, whether or not that school district is contributing to the cost of the facilities.
¶ 13 Our interpretation is supported by the balance of the statutory framework. The General Assembly provided BOCES with specific enumerated powers in section 22-5-108, C.R.S. 2022. This section incorporates by reference certain portions of the statute providing powers to individual school boards - namely, section 22-32-110, C.R.S. 2022, of the School District Organization Act of 1992. The General Assembly did not grant BOCES all the same powers as individual school boards, however. Instead, it incorporated certain provisions from section 22-32-110 and omitted others.
¶ 14 Importantly, among the powers the General Assembly gave to individual school boards but withheld by omission from the BOCES Act is the power to hold real property within or outside the district's territorial limits. See § 22-5-108(1)(a) (). While the General Assembly has amended sections 22-5-108 and 22-32-110 multiple times since their enactments, adding and subtracting powers for both individual school boards and BOCES, it has never included unrestricted extraterritoriality in a BOCES' enumerated powers. We decline to read this grant of authority into section 22-5-111, the section governing "[b]uildings and facilities." Cf. Connell v. Lima Corp., 988 F.3d 1089, 1109 (9th Cir. 2021) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Summaries of Published Opinions
...Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to sever the trials. The judgment of conviction was affirmed. 2022 COA 128. No. 21CA0708. Education ReEnvisioned BOCES v. Colorado Literacy and Learning Center. Boards of Cooperative Services Act of 1965—BOCES—Location......