[Vision2020] Fw: July 24 Public Comments

Mike Deleve coolerfixer at adelphia.net
Fri Jul 27 13:40:08 PDT 2007


One MAJOR flaw in your "logic" Roger, is that you make the assumption that 
maybe just one single patron of the school district might (and I'd bet money 
that this would happen) would file  for a restraining order against the MSD 
to not overturn the levy (they don't have the legal authority to do so). The 
discussions I have listened in on are polar opposites to your views. I 
travel around the area daily dealing with many business owners (read NOT 
LIBERAL), and I have yet to speak to even one that agrees with this whole 
ridiculous lawsuit or your little group of grumps.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "lfalen" <lfalen at turbonet.com>
To: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 11:00 AM
Subject: [Vision2020] Fw: July 24 Public Comments


> 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:
>
>
>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> ======================================================= 




More information about the Vision2020 mailing list