2015 COA 71
Colo. Ct. App.2015Background
- Associations allege DPS violated the Innovation Schools Act by implementing plans at 11 schools without pre-submission majority consents.
- District designated 14 schools as innovation schools; plans were approved/implemented between 2010 and 2012, with various statuses (existing conversion, new conversion, new schools).
- The Act requires evidence of majority consent from administrators, teachers, and the SAC before plan submission (§ 22-32.5-104(3)(f)).
- State Board designation, once granted, waives certain statutory provisions and triggers post-designation collective bargaining waivers by secret ballot (§ 22-32.5-108, -109).
- District court granted partial relief, injuncting only Swigert and McAuliffe; it denied relief for the other nine schools.
- DPS cross-appeals arguing lack of jurisdiction and challenges to the mandamus relief and interpretation of the consent requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court had jurisdiction to issue mandamus relief | Associations rely on C.R.C.P. 106(a)(2) to compel performance of statutory duties. | DPS contends lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and that mandamus is inappropriate. | District court had subject-matter jurisdiction; mandamus proper to compel statutory duty. |
| Whether pre-submission majority consent was required for new conversion and new schools | Subsection 104(3)(f) requires majority consent of teachers and SAC before submission. | DPS argues substantial compliance may suffice; post-designation consent could validate plans. | Pre-submission majority consent is mandatory for new conversion and new schools; no substantial-compliance substitute. |
| Whether the plans for the 11 schools complied with 104(3)(f) before board/state approval | Plans lacked evidence of majority consent, violating the statute. | Consent could be demonstrated post-designation; plans should be validated by later approvals. | Plans did not include required majority consents; remand for compliance and possible redesign. |
| Whether Swigert and McAuliffe can be treated under the Act despite not failing academically | Act applies to new schools regardless of failure status; these schools could be designated. | The district court incorrectly treated these as outside the Act. | Act applies to new schools; designation invalid where plans lack prior consent evidence; remand consistent with ruling on other schools. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hansen v. Long, 166 P.3d 248 (Colo. App. 2007) (mandamus requires ministerial duty; not discretionary power)
- County Rd. Users Ass'n v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 11 P.3d 432 (Colo. 2000) (three-part test for mandamus; no other remedy must exist)
- Minto v. Lambert, 870 P.2d 572 (Colo. App. 1993) (subject matter jurisdiction focuses on authority, not correctness)