[Vision2020] Fw: July 24 Public Comments

Fri Jul 27 11:03:42 PDT 2007

Roger, you should know -- and I think you do -- that the board simply cannot decide to extricate itself from legal proceedings underway by the initiative of your pal Gerry by declaring an election invalid.  Please stop pretending this petition has even a grain of goodwill, common sense, or legal possibility behind it.

keely
"And these women that you spit on as they try to change their worlds/Are immune to your consultations . . . they're quite aware of what they're going through"(With apologies to David Bowie)
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 11:00:27 -0700From: lfalen at turbonet.comTo: vision2020 at moscow.comSubject: [Vision2020] Fw: July 24 Public CommentsHere 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.netDate: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 10:51:43 -0700To: donicht at sd281.k12.id.usSubject: 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 conformitywith the three attached e-mails of July 20 and 23, the following publiccomments at the July 24 Board meeting.   Public Comments   Regardless of which side prevails on August 24, the issue will be far fromsettled.  The patrons of the Moscow School District are not best served bymonths or even years of appeals in pursuit of a landmark legal decision. Inpractice, the Board is assuming its patrons have given it a blank check topay unnecessary and unlimited legal expenses. This assumptions imperils thecredibility of the Board as does its efforts to discredit Dr. Gerald Weitzfor exercising his civil right via his lawsuit to question the legality ofan indefinite levy.   Be it hereby stated that the Committee alleges MSD's August 24 defensestrategy rests on five myths.  A myth is a popular theme with anunverifiable 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 littleincentive to seriously consider the Committee's Conciliation Proposal; seeattached copy.  On June 29 Moscow School Board chairwoman Dawna Fazio saidthere has been a lot of support for the district in the community, but sheisn'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'sdisappointing that we have to deal with this (lawsuit), but I think theoverall impact is going to be positive," she said.  "I don't have anyreservation at all that we will prevail."   On July 20 Dawna Fazio said the Board is not interested in rerunning thelevy that voters approved in March 2007.  She said, "until the court tellsus otherwise, the Board believes it has followed the intent of the law ofthe legislature in running our levies since 1992."  Fazio assumes that JudgeJohn Bradbury's post-August 24 ruling will be based on the spirit ratherthan the letter of the law.  Apparently many of MSD's "legality doesn'tmatter" supporters agree with her.     Myth #2 "Business as Usual After August 24"   MSD feels it will be "business as usual" when District Judge John Bradburyissues 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 sinceMSD is open to students on August 29.  The misleading implication here isthat Bradbury's post-August 24 ruling will resolve the District's turmoilwhich is destined to continue during 2007-08 if there is no out of courtsettlement before August 24.  Once again, if MSD wins on August 24 thenWeitz has the right to appeal.  If so, his appeal could push the case out byanother 18 months.  If MSD loses on August 24 it also has the right toappeal.   Bradbury's post-August 24 ruling is destined to come before the IdahoSupreme Court.  On June 29 Brian Julian, MSD's attorney, said the legalmerit of Dr. Gerald Weitz's lawsuit focuses on a very technical area of lawwhere previous Idaho Supreme Court (ISC) rulings have been inconsistent.The Committee believes the MSD case will eventually be resolved by the ISCwhere a problematic outcome can be expected.  If and when the ISC resolvesthis case and inconvenient truth will remain.  MSD will continue to dealwith a vague law that only can be changed by the Idaho Legislature.  Onceagain, if there is no out of court settlement prior to August 24 the MSDwill 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 incentiveto negotiate with Weitz prior to August 24.  Some supporters claim thatanother patron could file a similar law suit as soon as Weitz withdraws hislawsuit.  This clearly is a false claim because Idaho Code requires a patronto file within 40 days of his or her injury.  Dr. Weitz has complied withthis requirement.     Myth #4 "MSD Has No Authority to Negotiate"   On July 10 Superintendent Donicht made an interesting claim on KMAX.  Shesaid the Board had no authority to negotiate with Weitz prior to the hearingand that she looks forward to resolving the issue on August 24.  DoesAttorney Julian employ the elected "no authority" Board or does the Boardemploy Attorney Julian?   Independent of the answer to this question theBoard is accountable for paying unnecessary and unlimited legal expenses todefend it's case against Gerry Weitz's lawsuit and to appeal Bradbury'sruling, if necessary.  Legal fees will be enormous considering that thiscase 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 payunlimited legal expenses so the District can be a trail blazer by eventuallyobtaining a landmark case law ruling by ISC.  If successful a landmarkruling would benefit every Idaho school district.  It is highly unlikelythat Attorney Julian believes this claim.  The Committee believes it is anunrealistic claim for the following and other reasons.  Once again, on June29 Julian said the legal merit of Dr. Gerald Weitz's lawsuit focuses on avery technical area of law where previous ISC rulings have beeninconsistent.  Since previous rulings had been inconsistent it is highlyunlikely that Weitz's lawsuit will result in a landmark ruling.  Aspreviously stated we have a vague law until such time as the IdahoLegislature changes and clarifies the law.   Solution   The Committee for Goodwill and Conciliation strongly urges the Moscow SchoolDistrict (MSD) Board of Trustees & Dr. Gerald Weitz to accept our "win-win"conciliation proposal. MSD and Weitz immediately should initiate aconciliation compromise by entering into a binding legal agreement whereby.               1) The Board must agree to re-run the contested indefinite levyas an ordinary maintenance and operations levy. This conciliation compromisewould leave intact the 2007-08 MSD budget submitted to the         StateDepartment of Education on June 27.                          2)  Dr. Gerald Weitz will drop his lawsuit.                          3)  The Board should immediately initiate discussions with theIdaho 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 wherebyDistrict Judge John Bradbury will hear the legal merits of Weitz's lawsuit.It also would save substantial legal fees, greatly improve the morale ofMSD's employees, teachers, students and restore the credibility of  theBoard of Trustees, as perceived by its patrons.   The Committee believes the acceptance of it's proposal is in the bestinterests of all parties.  If it's proposal is accepted it will yield morebenefits to plaintiff, respondent, and other parties than could possibly beexpected from Bradbury's post-August 24 ruling.     Summary   I submit the above comments to the MSD on behalf of the Committee forGoodwill 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:  
--Forwarded Message Attachment--Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 10:51:43 -0700From: copycourt at verizon.netSubject: July 24 Public CommentsTo: donicht at sd281.k12.id.us; dawna at turbonet.com; editor at lataheagle.com; kbaldwin at dnews.com; dbauer at dnews.com; rory at inlandradio.com; jodiw at lmtribune.com; jmills at lmtribune.com; gyoung4idaho at peoplepc.com; iebond at verizon.net; lfalen at turbonet.com

<o:SmartTagTypenamespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="PostalCode"/>name="City"/>name="Street"/>name="address"/>name="State"/>name="place"/>name="PlaceType"/>name="PlaceName"/>

face=Arial>7/2<FONTcolor=navy>4/2007

To: Dawna Fazio
Chair, Board of Trustees
face=Arial>Moscow<FONT size=2 face=Arial> <st1:PlaceTypew:st="on">School District</st1:PlaceType<FONTsize=2 face=Arial>

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 followingpublic comments at the July 24 Board meeting.

face=Arial>PublicComments
color=navy face=Arial> 
Regardless of which side prevails on August 24, the issuewill be far from settled.  The patrons of the <st1:PlaceNamew:st="on">Moscow</st1:PlaceName School Districtare not best served by months or even years of appeals in pursuit of a landmarklegal decision. In practice, the Board is assuming its patrons have given it ablank check to pay unnecessary and unlimited legal expenses. This assumptionsimperils the credibility of the Board as does its efforts to discredit Dr.Gerald Weitz for exercising his civil right via his lawsuit to question thelegality of an indefinite levy.

Be it hereby stated that the Committee alleges MSD's August24 defense strategy rests on five myths.  A myth is a popular theme withan unverifiable existence based on half truths and false claims. <FONTcolor=navy>
color=navy face=Arial> 
color=navy face=Arial> 
face=Arial>Myth#1<SPANstyle='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy;font-style:italic'>“LegalityDoesn’t Matter”<SPANstyle='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;font-style:italic'>
face=Arial> 
MSD feels that it will prevail on August 24, therefore, ithas little incentive to seriously consider the Committee’s ConciliationProposal; see attached copy.  On June 29 Moscow School Board chairwomanDawna Fazio said there has been a lot of support for the district in thecommunity, but she isn’t ready to think about having to start the levyprocess from scratch.  She said it would be a major process if the entirelevy was repealed.  “It’s disappointing that we have to dealwith this (lawsuit), but I think the overall impact is going to bepositive,” she said.  “I don’t have any reservation atall that we will prevail.”

On July 20 Dawna Fazio said the Board is not interested inrerunning the levy that voters approved in March 2007.  <SPANstyle='color:navy'>She said, “until the court tells usotherwise, the Board believes it has followed the intent of the law of thelegislature in running our levies since 1992.<SPANstyle='color:navy'>”  Fazio assumes that Judge JohnBradbury’s post-August 24 ruling will be based on the spirit rather thanthe letter of the law.  Apparently many of MSD’s “legalitydoesn’t matter” supporters agree with her.  <SPANstyle='color:navy'>

face=Arial>Myth#2
color=navy face=Arial>“Business as Usual After August 24”
color=navy face=Arial> 
MSD feels it will be “business as usual” when<FONTcolor=navy> District Judge John Bradburyissues 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 24since MSD is open to students on August 29.  The misleading implicationhere is that Bradbury’s post-August 24 ruling will resolve theDistrict’s turmoil which is destined to continue during 2007-08 if thereis no out of court settlement before August 24.  Once again, if MSD winson August 24 then Weitz has the right to appeal.  If so, his appeal couldpush the case out by another 18 months.  If MSD loses on August 24 it alsohas the right to appeal.

Bradbury’s post-August 24 ruling is destined to comebefore the Idaho Supreme Court.  On June 29 Brian Julian, MSD’sattorney, said the legal merit of Dr. Gerald Weitz’s lawsuit focuses on avery technical area of law where previous Idaho Supreme Court (ISC) rulingshave been inconsistent.  The Committee believes the MSD case willeventually be resolved by the ISC where a problematic outcome can beexpected.  If and when the ISC resolves this case and inconvenient truthwill remain.  MSD will continue to deal with a vague law that only can bechanged by the Idaho Legislature.  Once again, if there is no out of courtsettlement prior to August 24 the MSD will continue in turmoil during 2007-08.

face=Arial>Myth#3
color=navy face=Arial>“MSD Has Little Incentive toNegotiate”

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

face=Arial>Myth#4
color=navy face=Arial>“MSD Has No Authority to Negotiate”
face=Arial> 
On July 10Superintendent Donicht made an interesting claim on KMAX.  She said theBoard had no authority to negotiate with Weitz prior to the hearing and thatshe looks forward to resolving the issue on August 24.  Does AttorneyJulian employ the elected “no authority” Board or does the Boardemploy Attorney Julian?   Independent of the answer to this questionthe Board is accountable for paying unnecessary and unlimited legal expenses todefend it’s case against Gerry Weitz’s lawsuit and to appealBradbury’s ruling, if necessary.  Legal fees will be enormousconsidering that this case is destined to come before the Idaho Supreme Court. .  

face=Arial>Myth#5
color=navy face=Arial>“Wetiz v. MSD Needs to Become a LandmarkCase”

Some of MSD’s “full speed ahead”supporters feel the Board should pay unlimited legal expenses so the Districtcan be a trail blazer by eventually obtaining a landmark case law ruling byISC.  If successful a landmark ruling would benefit every <st1:Statew:st="on">Idaho</st1:State schooldistrict.  It is highly unlikely that Attorney Julian believes thisclaim.  The Committee believes it is an unrealistic claim for thefollowing and other reasons.  Once again, on June 29 Julian said the legalmerit of Dr. Gerald Weitz’s lawsuit focuses on a very technical area oflaw where previous ISC rulings have been inconsistent.  Since previousrulings had been inconsistent it is highly unlikely that Weitz’s lawsuitwill result in a landmark ruling.  As previously stated we have a vaguelaw until such time as the Idaho Legislature changes and clarifies the law.

face=Arial>Solution<FONTsize=2 face=Arial>
face=Arial> 
The Committee for Goodwill andConciliation strongly urges the Moscow School District (MSD) Board of Trustees& Dr. Gerald Weitz to accept our “win-win” conciliationproposal. MSD and Weitz immediately should initiate a conciliation compromiseby entering into a binding legal agreement wherebycolor=navy face=Arial>…

            1)The Board must agree to re-run the contested indefinite levy as an ordinarymaintenance and operations levy. This conciliation compromise would leaveintact the 2007-08 MSD budget submitted to the         StateDepartment of Education on June 27.             
            2) Dr. Gerald Weitz will drop his lawsuit.             
            3) The Board should immediately initiate discussions with the Idaho School BoardsAssociation and the State Department of Education (SDE) to modify and clarifythe law in the 2008 Idaho Legislature. 

Such action would cancel the <FONTsize=2 color=navy face=Arial>hearing<SPANstyle='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black'> scheduled for August 24whereby District Judge John Bradbury will hear the legal merits ofWeitz’s lawsuit. It also would save substantial legal fees, greatlyimprove the morale of MSD’s employees, teachers, students and restore thecredibility of  the Board of Trustees, as perceived by its patrons.

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

face=Arial>Summary
face=Arial><SPAN style='text-decoration:none'> 
I submit the above comments to the MSD on behalf of theCommittee for Goodwill and Conciliation.  

Sincerely,

src="http://by106w.bay106.mail.live.com/mail/SafeRedirect.aspx?hm__tg=http%3a%2f%2f65.54.161.249%2fatt%2fGetAttachment.aspx&hm__qs=file%3d83bdf19b-a197-45cd-ad2c-59c0d1fa1c87.jpg%26ct%3daW1hZ2UvanBlZw_3d_3d%26name%3daW1hZ2UwMDEuanBn%26inline%3d1%26rfc%3d0%26empty%3dFalse%26shared%3d1&oneredir=1&ip=10.1.106.100&d=d1070&mf=0">

Dr. Don Harter
Chairperson
Committee on Goodwill and Conciliation
face=Arial>1129 East SeventhStreet<SPANstyle='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'>
face=Arial>Moscow<FONT size=2 face=Arial>, <st1:Statew:st="on">ID</st1:State 83843<FONTsize=2 face=Arial>
208-882-3087
copycourt at verizon.net

Attachments:</o:SmartTagType
_________________________________________________________________
Missed the show?  Watch videos of the Live Earth Concert on MSN.
http://liveearth.msn.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20070727/427a5ad2/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 4171 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20070727/427a5ad2/attachment-0001.jpg 