[Vision2020] Daily News coverage of Weitz suit

[Bill London]

The Daily News today published 2 articles about the suit by Weitz against the Moscow School District.  The articles provide an excellent summary of the issues involved.--BL
----------------------  
Legality of Moscow school levy broached in 1995
Letter written by then-deputy attorney general provides two unofficial interpretations of Idaho Code 

By Kate Baldwin, Daily News staff writer

Friday, June 15, 2007 - Page Updated at 11:44:01 PM

More information is surfacing in the lawsuit against the Moscow School District, which challenges $7.6 million in funding from the district's supplemental levy.

A 1995 letter from Idaho's then-deputy attorney general for the State Department of Education that was sent to the Blaine School District has been floating around online and in the community.

The letter offers two interpretations of Idaho's laws to address questions put forward by the Blaine School District's business manager regarding supplemental levies and indefinite supplemental levies. It speaks to ballot language issues, questions about indefinite levy increases, and the consequences of lost increase elections.

Moscow School District Superintendent Candis Donicht said her office began to search for the letter when she heard rumors of an opinion that could affect the lawsuit, but MSD officials couldn't find anything.

"It did not exist (on file) when any of us came on board," she said.

Donicht said she saw the letter for the first time May 18, when State Rep. Shirley Ringo, D-Moscow, brought a copy to her office.

Meanwhile, Moscow resident and business owner Jim DeMeerleer said he has known about the letter to Blaine School District since it first came out.

"It was general knowledge in 1995," he said.

DeMeerleer said he believes the letter directly applies to this case, but added that a judge will have to make the final determination.

Then-deputy attorney general Kirby Nelson wrote the advisory letter that referred to two interpretations as "equally valid." His first interpretation of the levy law in Idaho Code provided support for the district's actions by stating that a district could allow increases to an indefinite term supplemental levy by putting the amount to voters for approval.

His second interpretation argued from a different angle of the law. It described a situation where a district would only be entitled to one indefinite supplemental levy and no increases. Nelson added to this that "it is possible that, if a district ran such a levy (increase) in addition to an already existing levy and failed to win a majority of votes, then the entire levy amount would be deemed to have failed and no permanent levy would exist."

Still, Nelson raised a warning about these advisory opinions.

"The response is an informal and unofficial expression of the views of this office based upon the research of the author," he wrote.

Brian Julian, attorney for MSD, issued an analysis of the letter Monday. He pointed out that the letter offers two valid interpretations of the statute and it doesn't establish precedent. Julian also questioned the reasoning in the second interpretation.

Donicht said an attorney general's opinion is "a legal document that has merit."

"Attorney general opinions are numbered, catalogued, and can be researched through normal techniques," she said. "We could not find a normal attorney general opinion on this because one did not exist."

Donicht said the letter came from one of the state's 120 deputy attorney generals, who are not elected officials.

"Our attorneys believe our interpretation is the correct interpretation and that we have acted appropriately and legally in 1995, 2002, and 2007," she said.

MSD LAWSUIT BACKGROUND

Moscow dentist Gerald Weitz filed a lawsuit May 3 that threatens $7.6 million in supplemental funding for the Moscow School District.

The lawsuit alleges that the district's 1992, voter-approved indefinite levy is invalid because the election did not meet statutory requirements under state law. As a result, it alleges that all subsequent elections for levy increases are invalid.

Weitz served on the Moscow School Board as the Zone 1 Trustee from June 1997 until June 2000. During that time, he won a re-election and voted on multiple budget measures for the district that are based on funds from the levies he now challenges.

The levy represents $7.6 million of the district's $19 million budget planned for the coming year. The pending litigation caused the district to implement an immediate spending freeze and briefly threatened hiring.

The board approved $400,000 in budget cuts for the coming school year. The amount represents what would have been cut if voters had not passed the levy increase of $1.97 million at the last election on March 27.

Weitz is a proponent for improving professional-technical education in the district and supports Paradise Creek Regional High School, the district's alternative school, by leasing its building to the district for $1 a year.

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

DeMeerleer also threatened a lawsuit against school district
Business owner demanded that school district decertify March levy election 

By Kate Baldwin, Daily News staff writer

Saturday, June 16, 2007 - Page Updated at 12:00:00 AM

The Moscow School District faced more than one challenge to its supplemental levy after voters approved an increase that raised the total amount to $7.6 million in March, but only one lawsuit emerged.

Moscow resident and business owner Jim DeMeerleer met with MSD Superintendent Candis Donicht and sent a letter to the district's board of trustees. He demanded that the board decertify the March 27 election, which brought a $1.97 million increase - for a total levy of $7.6 million - to the district.

DeMeerleer said he decided not to bring a lawsuit after Gerald Weitz filed a complaint in Latah County District Court on May 3.

"Because Gerry Weitz filed a lawsuit, I didn't have to," he said. "What's the difference?"

DeMeerleer said he believed the district had violated Idaho statutes. He raised his concerns during a meeting with Donicht on April 24. Donicht said she told DeMeerleer he was making serious allegations and that he needed to put them in writing as soon as he could.

DeMeerleer answered her request with a letter through Moscow attorney Brian Thie, who also represents Weitz. The letter to the school board was hand-delivered April 25. It was obtained by the Daily News through a public information records request.

"It is our belief that the levy is unlawful and demand is hereby made to the Board of Trustees to decertify the election," Thie wrote.

The letter argued that the ballot language was illegal because Idaho Code states that "such question shall clearly state the dollar amount that will be certified annually and that the levy will be for an indefinite number of years." It claimed that "at minimum, the ballot should have read that a yes vote would increase the indefinite levy to its total amount (some seven and one-half million dollars)."

Thie instructed the board to decertify the election by 3 p.m. May 1. If the board failed to meet that deadline, he warned that DeMeerleer was prepared to file an election challenge.

"This letter was seen as the threat of a lawsuit," Donicht said.

After receiving the letter, the board of trustees met April 30 in executive session with its attorney. The meeting was closed to the public because of the pending litigation. The board took no action.

"The trustees believed the law had been followed," Donicht said. "A majority of our population has spoken in favor of the increase to the supplemental levy.

"The board was not willing to comply with what was being demanded, so no action was taken," she added.

Weitz filed his lawsuit May 3 and the case has started to move through the court system. A hearing on a motion to dismiss the lawsuit is scheduled for June 29.

"All they had to do was decertify the levy election," DeMeerleer said. "They did nothing and that is why the lawsuit had to proceed, because they did nothing."

In addition to questioning the ballot language, the letter also argued against the system of levy increases. Thie alleged that "there is simply no statutory or case authority for any incremental increase to the indefinite supplemental levy."

District voters first approved the indefinite supplemental levy in 1992. DeMeerleer's letter did not challenge this election, although it did challenge the increase elections that came in 1995 and 2002. It also argues that the failure of the increase election in 2001 could rescind the initial 1992 election based on correspondence from 1995 between the Blaine School District and Kirby Nelson, then-deputy attorney general for the State Department of Education.

Thie wrote that it was DeMeerleer's intention "to let the status quo remain as it is" if the board decertified just the March 27 election and the voter-approved increase.

"Please realize what is at risk is the entire supplemental levy if my client is required to pursue this matter legally," he wrote.

DeMeerleer said he is a concerned citizen who wants people to interpret the code for themselves.

"An ideal outcome would be that the school district would decertify the last election and admit this is in the gray area, and run a supplemental levy and not go through the court system to have a judge determine that there is a right or wrong here," he said. "All they have to do instead of having an indefinite levy is have a supplemental levy."

DeMeerleer said he is sure the district would receive approval from the voters because it did before.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20070616/42a9f023/attachment-0001.html