[Vision2020] conciliation

[Shirley Ringo]

Visionaries:

 

I endorse the specifics of Sue Hovey’s response to the conciliation
petition.  The 1995 document Gerry Weitz waves around is from a deputy
attorney general who was then serving in the State Department of Education.
It was not an official opinion of the attorney general.  In fact, it pointed
to a need to clarify the law.  I wonder why nobody considered dealing with
it then.  I believe Ann Fox was then State Superintendent of Public
Instruction.  Did this deputy attorney general share his thoughts with her?
I have been in the legislature since 1999 (with the exception of 2001-2002).
Nobody mentioned any concerns to me about the indefinite levy law.  I would
certainly have joined with others to take clarifying action.  I assume
nobody raised the issue with Trail or Schroeder, either.

 

I join others who are eager to see the lawsuit against the MSD settled as
soon as possible.

 

I also see some people of good will who have little understanding of the
history of the issues and the history of the individuals involved.

 

Conciliation?  Really?  Prior to Weitz filing the lawsuit, DeMeerleer
delivered a letter to the Moscow District.  The gist of the letter was that
if the District would invalidate the most recent levy and run it again, then
there would be no lawsuit challenging permanent levies dating back fifteen
years.  Essentially, the so-called “conciliation” asks the district to do
just that.  Hmmm.  Perhaps I am having a slow day.

 

Shirley Ringo

 

 

 


Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.9.0/853 - Release Date: 6/18/2007
3:02 PM
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20070712/2d7e15db/attachment.html