[Vision2020] [Bulk] Re: Weitz Lawsuit: A Challenge

J Ford privatejf32 at hotmail.com
Sun May 13 22:26:32 PDT 2007

I'm confused;  how is it that they asked for and received a "tax increase"?  
They asked for a levy to be instituted to replace the one that 
expired....how is that an increase?

J  :]

>From: Jeff Harkins <jeffh at moscow.com>
>To: vision2020 at moscow.com
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] [Bulk] Re: Weitz Lawsuit: A Challenge
>Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 21:39:55 -0700
>M. Schou,
>The actions of the MSD would appear to be unlawful.  Here is an excerpt 
>from the relevant Idaho Statute (one of the many provisions that may apply 
>in this dispute:
>(5)  The board of trustees of any school district that has, for at least
>seven (7) consecutive years, been authorized through an election held 
>to chapter 4, title 33, Idaho Code, to certify a supplemental levy that has
>annually been equal to or greater than twenty percent (20%) of the total
>general maintenance and operation fund, may submit the question of an
>indefinite term supplemental levy to the electors of the school district. 
>question shall clearly state the dollar amount that will be certified 
>and that the levy will be for an indefinite number of years. The question 
>be approved by a majority of the district electors voting on the question 
>an election held pursuant to chapter 4, title 33, Idaho Code.
>I, for one, do not condone the acceptance of an illegal act by a 
>governmental entity, regardless of their motivation.  This taints the 
>entire legal process and governmental structure.  If MSD wants a tax 
>increase, do it correctly or don't do it at all.
>And yes, I have been told that the district was well aware of the problems 
>long before the levy and apparently decided to go ahead.  I trust that the 
>truth of this will surface during the adjudication.
>And yes, our community will now have a chance to consider the ramifications 
>of the permanent levy in light of other governmental entities that have a 
>need for public resources.  Here is something that you might want to ponder 
>- given an annual increase of $ 1,970,000 in the M & O levy for an 
>indefinite period would tie up a total of about $40,000,000 in taxpayer 
>The levy won by approximately 300 votes - certainly not a mandate.  And 
>they won what appears to be an illegally conducted levy.  That is how you 
>claim victory?
>Last time I checked, local school districts are non-partisan elections.
>And, please don't reduce your arguments with personal ad hominem attacks - 
>you don't know me, I don't recall ever meeting you and I have never 
>endorsed the laffer curve.  Keep that kind of nonsense out of our 
>conversation (or let's not have a conversation) - focus on an adult 
>discussion of the issues.  I am perfectly comfortable with discussing the 
>issues - I am not at all interested in grovelling in the dirt with you.
>At 07:52 PM 5/13/2007, you wrote:
>>>  Weitz is to be commended, not vilified, for taking the first steps
>>>necessary for us to engage in serious dialogue about our public
>>>infrastructure investments - and to place the responsibility for those
>>>investments where it belongs - with the taxpayers.
>>In what world, Jeff, does seeking to overturn the will of the voters
>>constitute "beginning a dialog"? One would expect that the dialog has
>>already been had -- those seeking the levy won. It seems to me that
>>conservatives are only in favor of frivolous lawsuits when it supports
>>their faith that the fulcrum point of the Laffer curve is at 0%.
>>-- ACS

>  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

Catch suspicious messages before you open them—with Windows Live Hotmail. 

More information about the Vision2020 mailing list