It is argued by the appellants that the so-called permissive taxes, [FN12] are at least part of the solution to equalizing local financial efforts. There are two easy answers that dispose of this argument. First, the taxes are permissive. Responding to obvious voter resistance to the imposition of taxes, 89 districts have enacted the tax on gross utility receipts; 5 districts have enacted the occupational tax; 82 districts have also enacted a special building tax, normally for a specific project for one time only, and not affecting teacher pay, instructional equipment, or any of the specific needs of educational opportunity. As the nature of the taxes is permissive, in many districts they are not adopted and therefore do not produce one cent in additional local revenue. [FN12. See supra note 6 and accompanying text.] Secondly, according to the testimony of the expert witnesses, even if all the permissive taxes were enacted, the financial effort would still be inadequate, and because the population of the districts is in direct proportion to the amount of money that could and is raised by these taxes, the overall problem of an unequal local effort would be exacerbated by such action. Clearly, the permissive taxes are not the solution to the problems. Rather, they contribute to the disparity of per pupil expenditures. Additionally, because the assessable and taxable real and personal property in the 177 districts is so varied, and because of a lack of uniformity in tax rates, the local school boards' tax effort is not only lacking in uniformity but is also lacking in adequate effort. The history of school financing in Kentucky, certainly corroborates the trial court's finding as to the lack of uniformity and the lack of adequacy of local and state funding of education in the state. Based on the record before us, it is beyond cavil that the trial court's finding was correct. Having discussed the procedure, the contentions of the parties, the history of school finance, and having briefly analyzed the facts, we now proceed to discuss the legal arguments raised before us by the parties. VI. DO THE LOCAL SCHOOL BOARDS AND THE COUNCIL FOR BETTER EDUCATION, [FN13] INC. HAVE THE LEGAL AUTHORITY TO SUE THE LEGISLATORS AND DO THEY HAVE THE STANDING TO MAINTAIN THE ACTION? [FN13. Hereinafter referred to as Council.] There are two clear and distinct issues to be decided: (1) Do the Council and the local school districts have legal authority to sue two members of the General Assembly; and (2) Do those same plaintiffs-appellees have the legal standing to sue? In considering these issues, we note again that the Council is a non-profit corporation, consisting of sixty-six local school districts. It is a separate, legally constituted authority, formed under the laws of Kentucky. [FN14] The several local county and independent school districts are also formed under Kentucky statutes. [FN15] [FN14. KRS Ch. 273.] [FN15. KRS Ch. 160.]