[Vision2020] Fw: July 24 Public Comments

Fri Jul 27 11:00:27 PDT 2007

Here is the petition that was presented to The Moscow School Board on Thusday night. It seams that nether side is willing to budge. This is going to be vary expansive for everyone. I hope the the 2008 Legislature will clarify the law. This might make ths suit irrelevant. I am not a lawyer, so don't know for sure if clarifying the law would affect the lawsuit, but it would a least strengthen the case for one side or the other.

Roger
-----Original message-----

From: "Copy Court" copycourt at verizon.net
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 10:51:43 -0700
To: donicht at sd281.k12.id.us
Subject: July 24 Public Comments

7/24/2007

To: Dawna Fazio

Chair, Board of Trustees

Moscow School District

Subject: July 24 Public Comments

The Committee for Goodwill and Conciliation will distribute, in conformity
with the three attached e-mails of July 20 and 23, the following public
comments at the July 24 Board meeting.

Public Comments

Regardless of which side prevails on August 24, the issue will be far from
settled.  The patrons of the Moscow School District are not best served by
months or even years of appeals in pursuit of a landmark legal decision. In
practice, the Board is assuming its patrons have given it a blank check to
pay unnecessary and unlimited legal expenses. This assumptions imperils the
credibility of the Board as does its efforts to discredit Dr. Gerald Weitz
for exercising his civil right via his lawsuit to question the legality of
an indefinite levy.

Be it hereby stated that the Committee alleges MSD's August 24 defense
strategy rests on five myths.  A myth is a popular theme with an
unverifiable existence based on half truths and false claims. 

Myth #1
"Legality Doesn't Matter"

MSD feels that it will prevail on August 24, therefore, it has little
incentive to seriously consider the Committee's Conciliation Proposal; see
attached copy.  On June 29 Moscow School Board chairwoman Dawna Fazio said
there has been a lot of support for the district in the community, but she
isn't ready to think about having to start the levy process from scratch.
She said it would be a major process if the entire levy was repealed.  "It's
disappointing that we have to deal with this (lawsuit), but I think the
overall impact is going to be positive," she said.  "I don't have any
reservation at all that we will prevail."

On July 20 Dawna Fazio said the Board is not interested in rerunning the
levy that voters approved in March 2007.  She said, "until the court tells
us otherwise, the Board believes it has followed the intent of the law of
the legislature in running our levies since 1992."  Fazio assumes that Judge
John Bradbury's post-August 24 ruling will be based on the spirit rather
than the letter of the law.  Apparently many of MSD's "legality doesn't
matter" supporters agree with her.  

Myth #2

"Business as Usual After August 24"

MSD feels it will be "business as usual" when District Judge John Bradbury
issues his post-August 24 ruling.  On June 29 Superintendent Donicht said
"we need to have this case resolved one way or the other on August 24 since
MSD is open to students on August 29.  The misleading implication here is
that Bradbury's post-August 24 ruling will resolve the District's turmoil
which is destined to continue during 2007-08 if there is no out of court
settlement before August 24.  Once again, if MSD wins on August 24 then
Weitz has the right to appeal.  If so, his appeal could push the case out by
another 18 months.  If MSD loses on August 24 it also has the right to
appeal.

Bradbury's post-August 24 ruling is destined to come before the Idaho
Supreme Court.  On June 29 Brian Julian, MSD's attorney, said the legal
merit of Dr. Gerald Weitz's lawsuit focuses on a very technical area of law
where previous Idaho Supreme Court (ISC) rulings have been inconsistent.
The Committee believes the MSD case will eventually be resolved by the ISC
where a problematic outcome can be expected.  If and when the ISC resolves
this case and inconvenient truth will remain.  MSD will continue to deal
with a vague law that only can be changed by the Idaho Legislature.  Once
again, if there is no out of court settlement prior to August 24 the MSD
will continue in turmoil during 2007-08.

Myth #3

"MSD Has Little Incentive to Negotiate"

MSD feels that, for the following and other reasons, it has little incentive
to negotiate with Weitz prior to August 24.  Some supporters claim that
another patron could file a similar law suit as soon as Weitz withdraws his
lawsuit.  This clearly is a false claim because Idaho Code requires a patron
to file within 40 days of his or her injury.  Dr. Weitz has complied with
this requirement.

Myth #4

"MSD Has No Authority to Negotiate"

On July 10 Superintendent Donicht made an interesting claim on KMAX.  She
said the Board had no authority to negotiate with Weitz prior to the hearing
and that she looks forward to resolving the issue on August 24.  Does
Attorney Julian employ the elected "no authority" Board or does the Board
employ Attorney Julian?   Independent of the answer to this question the
Board is accountable for paying unnecessary and unlimited legal expenses to
defend it's case against Gerry Weitz's lawsuit and to appeal Bradbury's
ruling, if necessary.  Legal fees will be enormous considering that this
case is destined to come before the Idaho Supreme Court.  .  

Myth #5

"Wetiz v. MSD Needs to Become a Landmark Case"

Some of MSD's "full speed ahead" supporters feel the Board should pay
unlimited legal expenses so the District can be a trail blazer by eventually
obtaining a landmark case law ruling by ISC.  If successful a landmark
ruling would benefit every Idaho school district.  It is highly unlikely
that Attorney Julian believes this claim.  The Committee believes it is an
unrealistic claim for the following and other reasons.  Once again, on June
29 Julian said the legal merit of Dr. Gerald Weitz's lawsuit focuses on a
very technical area of law where previous ISC rulings have been
inconsistent.  Since previous rulings had been inconsistent it is highly
unlikely that Weitz's lawsuit will result in a landmark ruling.  As
previously stated we have a vague law until such time as the Idaho
Legislature changes and clarifies the law.

Solution

The Committee for Goodwill and Conciliation strongly urges the Moscow School
District (MSD) Board of Trustees & Dr. Gerald Weitz to accept our "win-win"
conciliation proposal. MSD and Weitz immediately should initiate a
conciliation compromise by entering into a binding legal agreement whereby.

            1) The Board must agree to re-run the contested indefinite levy
as an ordinary maintenance and operations levy. This conciliation compromise
would leave intact the 2007-08 MSD budget submitted to the         State
Department of Education on June 27. 

            2)  Dr. Gerald Weitz will drop his lawsuit. 

            3)  The Board should immediately initiate discussions with the
Idaho School Boards Association and the State Department of Education (SDE)
to modify and clarify the law in the 2008 Idaho Legislature. 

Such action would cancel the hearing scheduled for August 24 whereby
District Judge John Bradbury will hear the legal merits of Weitz's lawsuit.
It also would save substantial legal fees, greatly improve the morale of
MSD's employees, teachers, students and restore the credibility of  the
Board of Trustees, as perceived by its patrons.

The Committee believes the acceptance of it's proposal is in the best
interests of all parties.  If it's proposal is accepted it will yield more
benefits to plaintiff, respondent, and other parties than could possibly be
expected from Bradbury's post-August 24 ruling.  

Summary

I submit the above comments to the MSD on behalf of the Committee for
Goodwill and Conciliation.  

Sincerely,

Dr. Don Harter

Chairperson

Committee on Goodwill and Conciliation

1129 East Seventh Street

Moscow, ID 83843

208-882-3087

copycourt at verizon.net

Attachments:

-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: "Copy Court" <copycourt at verizon.net>
Subject: July 24 Public Comments
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 10:51:43 -0700
Size: 91221
Url: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20070727/2e34905a/attachment-0001.mht 