Crisis in Colorado: By law, no scholarships for kids of government employees

Parents Forum
21

<p>It doesn’t matter how one might interpret the law if the givers of the grants and scholarships don’t want even the chance of running afoul of the law. They are the ones withdrawing the offers. The most prestigious of the state scholarships, the Boetcher, gives full rides to many Colorado students. Almost half of those this year went to students who are related to government employees. Same with the other biggie - the Daniels, with grants up to $37,000. They are withholding them until it gets sorted out. Both are preparing lawsuits.</p>

<p>The sickening thing is that even if this is straightened out at some point, it will be too late for this year’s graduates.</p>

22

<p>Is there more to this than meets the eye? It sounds like the AG may have been aligned with those who opposed the ballot initiative (which sure sounds like it was not very carefully crafted) before it was passed, and this is a kind of “I told you so.” Hat and digimedia, since you sound like you’re from Colorado, can you fill us in?</p>

23

<p>MM - I don’t know for sure, but I get the same impression you do, that the AG is saying, “I told you so!” If that’s the case, it’s disgraceful to ruin the lives of so many students to make a point.</p>

24

<p>To infer that anyone who doesn’t work in the private sector is a parasite is insulting. And I work in the private sector!! </p>

<p>You might need one of those “parasites” if your house is burning down or if some idiot tries to run you off the road in his car. Plus for a myriad of other things that I don’t have the time to list.</p>

<p>Digimedia, I’ve also been reading about this. H and I both work in the private sector, so it doesn’t affect our kids. But I do hope it gets all straightened out soon. Unfortunately too late for kids this year.</p>

<p>As an aside, Digimedia, both D and her boyfriend were Boetcher semi-finalists last year. Nearly all of the scholarship winners were from rural areas, at least according to a friend of mine whose VERY well-qualified daughter from Cheyenne Mountain made the finals but didn’t get a scholarship (she’s at Yale now). Kinda odd to my (biased) way of thinking. The suburban/urban kids weren’t as qualified? It’s supposed to be need-blind, but that doesn’t seem to be the way the game was played.</p>

25

<p>not to ask a stupid question, but didn’t the AG read the ballot initiative before the election? Did he just wake up rip-van-winkle style? Does the state not have any law schools with lawyers just sitting around opining on everything?</p>

26

<p>Great illustration of the dangers of legislating through “ballot initiative” instead of the debate process in the legislature. </p>

<p>In CA, where we live, people are always thrusting petitions at you in the shopping center parking lot to get you to put new initiatives on the ballot. Half the time people don’t even read these things. They just hear the petition hawker say it’s to “improve education” or “lower gas prices” or some simplistic thing so they sign. Then we end up with bonehead legislation or spending bills that can’t be undone without new petitions and more advertising. Bah humbug. </p>

<p>Even worse that they amended the constitution to produce this fiasco.</p>

27

<p>I am a state government employee (not in Colorado) so this thread caught my eye. </p>

<p>Does this issue apply only to scholarships given by the state of Colorado or all scholarships? For example, National Merit Scholarships given by the National Merit Corporation, merit scholarships given by a particular college (inside or outside Colorado), small local scholarships like those given out on high school awards night by various in-school and community organizations??? It sounds crazy to me.</p>

<p>Secondly, I hesitate to even respond to the “parasite” comment by kassos (who I believe is a student, not a parent), but most people pretty much take for granted a lot of what state government does (outside of some of the obvious things mentioned above.) Here is a short, non-inclusive list of a few things I can think of off the top of my head: administering and maintaining state parks, beaches, and forests; building and maintaining roads; permitting and monitoring discharges of pollutants into air and water; issuing permits to ensure that new drinking water wells are installed properly; investigating disease outbreaks and many other public health issues. The salaries for professionals in state government are usually lower than in the private sector, although the hours of work may be shorter than those of a professional in a similar job in the private sector. I can assure you, though, that we are definitely not parasites.</p>

<p>For what it’s worth - my particular state is rather short of money right now, and many of us have been attending necessary professional conferences at our own expense (including registration fees and, in some cases, overnight out-of-state travel expenses and plane fares) in order to learn the latest information on topics necessary to do our jobs and to present our own information to others who need it to do their jobs.</p>

28

<p>Here in New Jersey we have more important fish to fry. We are trying to remove the word “idiot” from the state constitution. Lawmakers apparently are afraid that they will be denied the right to vote, instead of just the mentally incompetent.</p>

29

<p>Finally, this may be a little more off-topic, but since I have worked for state government for over 20 years, my family does not qualify for financial aid, even for the expensive private colleges attended by both my kids. The same is true for many of my co-workers (who have an employed spouse and thus a two-income family). It seems to be the ultimate irony the kids of someone like me in Colorado would not be able to accept scholarships awarded for their own academic or other achievements. If someone like me (in Colorado) had stayed home and not worked the whole time their kids were growing up, they might be getting need-based financial aid from their kid’s schools AND their kids would be allowed to accept merit scholarsips. Wow! There are so many things wrong with this that it boggles my mind!</p>

30

<p>DIGMEDIA I would assume also that this effects all military personnel in CO as well since they are all federal employees - or is this directed at only state employees??</p>

31

<p>NJres–Sorry? didn’t get that distinction the “instead of” in your last sentence seemed to imply. Please clarify. Thanks!</p>

32

<p>One last comment (sorry - more ideas keep coming to me as I think about this more): So if a kid of a Colorado state employee was a recruited athlete by a Division I school, he or she could not accept the athletic scholarship??</p>

33

<p>I had a colleague who was offered a chair at the University of Colorado, and turned it down because of this new amendment. What he was told is that many people in Colorado tried to warn voters that this would be the outcome of such a poorly written law. Of course, it’s pretty difficult to get voters anywhere to actually consider the consequences of their votes. This is why pure democracy is a terrible form of government.</p>

<p>kassos:</p>

<p>I suppose I’m a parasite, since I work for a state-supported institution, though that support has been on the wane, of late. I suppose the students here are parasites, too, since their tuition is subsidized by the state.</p>

<p>As others have pointed out, your list of parasites includes fire, police, and other emergency personnel. I’ll add soldiers, sailors, airmen and women, park rangers, state department personnel, letter carriers, air traffic controllers, SEC investigators, DAs, prison guards, public school teachers, many farmers (if they take subsidies of any kind), border guards, bank examiners, street cleaners, snow plow operators, fire jumpers, grass mowers, tree planters, and a host of other people who make your life worth living.</p>

<p>I’m fairly certain that the parents of a number of your friends are “parasites” in one way or another. And so are any of your friends who took summer jobs with any government entity or one supported by the government. In fact, even in the so-called “private” sectors, you will find many people who get their paychecks from money that comes in whole or part from our taxes.</p>

<p>I find your statement reprehensible.</p>

34

<p>Just for grins, I actually looked up the text of this law. Sure enough, it’s an amendment to the constitution of the state of Colorado, and it’s very, very specific. I’m not a lawyer, but I saw no room for interpretation by the state legislature except in the matter of reporting and organization. Not in the meat of the amendment, itself.</p>

<p>Here’s a link. Section 3 has most of the prohibitions.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.commoncause.org/atf/cf/{FB3C17E2-CDD1-4DF6-92BE-BD4429893665}/A41%20Ballot%20Language.pdf[/url]”>http://www.commoncause.org/atf/cf/{FB3C17E2-CDD1-4DF6-92BE-BD4429893665}/A41%20Ballot%20Language.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>It appears to me that, if I lived there, I would be unable to speak in front of any organization that is not non-profit or that receives more than 5% of its funds from a non-profit entities. Note that this is “entities” and not “entity.” That sort of speaking engagement would be very difficult to find, and nearly impossible in some cases. Of course, other than professional pride, why would I want to speak? Honoraria are banned. Based on my reading, it seems very clear that money from the Nobel Prize, MacArthur Foundation, or any other academic award is banned.</p>

<p>It also seems clear that scholarships for children of state employees are banned. I don’t see any other reasonable interpretation.</p>

<p>It’s just a badly written law.</p>

35

<p>Tarhunt:
I was thinking the same as you regarding how many highly qualified individuals will now no longer consider working for a Colorado government position to the state’s loss.</p>

<p>To add to the list of those considered ‘parasites’ by kassos - anyone in the private sector working under government contract which includes almost anyone in the defense industry (Boeing, Grumman, Ford, GM, etc.), many construction contractors (building roads, government buildings), and countless others. It’s difficult to name an industry that doesn’t have some tie to the government.</p>

<p>Actually I just dismissed kassos’ statement as soon as I read it.</p>

36

<p>Is there any talk of challenging the amendment in the US Supreme Court? It wouldn’t be the first Colorado amendment struck down by higher courts.</p>

37

<p>I am not a lawyer either, but it does say “dependent child” so does that mean that the scholarship money can be accepted by a student as long as they have turned 18?</p>

38

<p>ICargirl:</p>

<p>I don’t know the answer, personally, but on what grounds do you suppose it could be struck down? Free speech? Seems iffy to me, but I’m no expert by a long shot.</p>

39

<p>MotherOfTwo:</p>

<p>I don’t believe it defines “dependent child,” so I suppose that’s somewhat open to interpretation. Having said that, most businesses, health care providers, the IRS, and the like define it as getting the majority of support from one’s parents. So, you can still claim your 18-year-old children on your 1040.</p>

<p>BTW, that’s usually up to a certain age.</p>

40

<p>MotherofTwo:</p>

<p>Just saw your comment about athletic scholarships. There’s something in there about giving something of equal or greater value. I assume this means that football coaches, for instance, can still do commercials and sign shoe contracts and the like because their “presence” is greater of equal value, but that’s an assumption on my part.</p>

<p>That MIGHT apply to athletic scholarships, as well, but it does raise an interesting question about whether a scholarship is remuneration and, therefore, taxable. Not to mention whether it makes the college kid a pro.</p>

<p>Hmmm.</p>