<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16441" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Jeff, If what you are saying makes sense now,
why did it not make sense a decade ago when to have gotten a court decision
might not have been so harmful? Gerry Weitz would have been a natural for
that responsibility when he was on the board and his children were in school.
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>You say,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>" No two
non-elected citizens (albeit that they are both individually involved in the
matter - Weitz and Donacht) are in a position to represent the vast interests of
the array of stakeholders evident in this matter."</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=3></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>Really, that's
exactly what Gerry Weitz did when he filed the lawsuit. He assumed he was
in a position to invalidate the votes of the taxpayers of this district.
</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=3></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>Whether or not
permanent levies are a "bad" way to fund public expenditures, is your opinion;
however, it continues to be the law. You wrote in several hundred words
what you could simply have reduced to a single sentence. Why didn't
you just say, "we in Latah County have a number of projects to fund: parks for
children, playgrounds, an ice rink, so if we cut back on the funding for their
education we might be able to consider those other
options." </FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=3></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3> Well
golly, now at least they'll have somewhere to go when we close the school
doors. </FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Sue</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=3></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><BR><BR></DIV></FONT>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=jeffh@moscow.com href="mailto:jeffh@moscow.com">Jeff Harkins</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, May 13, 2007 10:24 AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] [Bulk] Re:
Weitz Lawsuit: A Challenge</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>The Weitz/MSD lawsuit raises a plethora of issues about
taxpayer funding of public interests. At the core of the lawsuit appears
to be the issue of whether or not the school levy process was in conformity
with Idaho legal protocol. Because "public education" is important to
most of us in the MSD, it is critical that there be no ambiguity or
uncertainties about the "legality and integrity" of the levy event.
Unfortunately, it appears that some individuals have concerns about just
that. Consequently a legal assessment (via a lawsuit) is
underway.<BR><BR>As this involves decisions of legally elected public
officials (school board members), the use of non-elected citizens to arbitrate
the issue is inexplicable (the Swanson proposal). No two non-elected
citizens (albeit that they are both individually involved in the matter -
Weitz and Donacht) are in a position to represent the vast interests of the
array of stakeholders evident in this matter.<BR><BR>Properly so, this is a
matter for our courts. <BR><BR>As community members ponder this event, here
are some things that might be useful to consider:<BR><BR>Permanent levies
(levies in perpetuity) are a "bad" way of funding public expenditures.
The most egregious decision a current generation can make regarding public
programs is to deny future generations the choice of how their tax dollars are
spent. Referred to as a problem of "inter-generational equity"and stated
in simple terms, current generations should not encumber the ability of future
generations to invest their public resources in those programs deemed
essential by those future generations. Permanent levies have the
potential to do just that. The reason we use "balanced budget" systems
in state and local government is to provide reasonable assurance that the
current generation "pays its way". Perhaps the Weitz/MSD lawsuit will
give us reason to reflect on the "permanent levy" approach. We can
probably achieve greater public accountability for school district resources
if there is some reasonable limit to the life of a levy - say three years or
four years. Returning to the taxpayers to reaffirm their tax investment
is an effective means of accountability.<BR><BR>One of the things that
concerned me about the recent levy election was the lack of a detailed
spending plan for the additional supplemental funding request. Future
levy requests should be required to have a complete line-item level of detail
to support the additional funding request.<BR><BR>This is a particularly
volatile period for public education. New technologies and new
educational processes are working their way through educational systems.
We want to be sure that we leave adequate room for future generations to have
flexibility in design and delivery of public education.<BR><BR>In Latah
County, as in most jurisdictions, we have limited public resources to
invest in what at times like seems like unlimited public projects - sort of
like the diamond appetite on a zirconium budget. The school district
wants or needs a new high school, or junior high; the county wants or needs
new facilities (law enforcement center, county hall, fair grounds); citizens
want or need new parks and playgrounds; citizens want or need a permanent
location of the ice rink; county residents want or need road improvements;
Moscow wants or needs to address the issue of water distribution; some Moscow
citizens would like to have their streets paved; and so on ............. It is
time that we assess carefully our public needs and prioritize our
preferences. Allowing our public institutions to gain additional
resources by simply being the first to the trough does not serve the public
interest.<BR><BR>As our property tax rates are once again at the highest
levels of Idaho Counties, it is incumbent upon us to reflect on our priorities
- and the proper expenditure of our limited public resources. If some of
our citizens are correct in their assessment that we have reached our
sustainability limits (e.g. water, quality of life), then we must be
extraordinarily judicious in our commitments of tax dollars to public
projects. For example, if we are at our sustainability limits, the
public school census has probably peaked. Fiscal austerity would suggest
that we impose significant fiscal restraint in funding public programs.
If there is a prospect for future economic development, the sooner our
community explores the possibilities and moves forward with them, the sooner
we can begin to take advantage of a growing tax base and move forward the many
public projects that we want to have.<BR><BR>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. <BR><BR><BR>At 07:40 AM 5/13/2007, you wrote:<BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=cite cite="" type="cite">JFord asks:<BR>
<DL><BR>
<DD>> What about asking for a "judicial opinion" or judicial review" of
the facts <BR>
<DD>> as presented by the interested parties? Does Idaho have such an
option or <BR>
<DD>> would a judge(s) be willing to do this? How about the AG looking
at the <BR>
<DD>> "facts" and issuing an opinion? If those come back negatively
opinoned, <BR>
<DD>> wouldn't that at least be a "warning" to other potential
filers?<BR><BR></DD></DL>The Weitz</I> lawsuit is styled as one seeking a
"declaratory judgment and injunctive relief."Â The declaratory
judgment portion of the lawsuit asks the judge to do precisely what you
suggest. That is what is happening. <BR><BR>One may seek an
opinion on the merits of an issue of Idaho law from the Attorney General,
but this is only "authority" in support of whatever position the A.G.
decides is the correct outcome under! the law, and not "precedent."Â A
judge, and the ultimate arbiters of state law questions, the Idaho Supreme
Court, would be free to decide this case differently from the opinon issued
by the Attorney General, and the court system's answer would be the final
say.<BR><BR>As authority but not precedent, an Attorney General opinion will
suggest an answer but it could be "wrong" in the eyes of a later reviewing
judge. I suppose an A.G. Opinion could "warn" of a probable
outcome, but it will not carry any weight in terms of forcing those, who
might bring a lawsuit that suggests an answer different from the A.G.
Opinion, to face any additional consequences for doing so than already
exists under existing law. <BR><BR>I suppose the upshot of this is
that the declaratory judgment action is designed to get to an official
statement of what the law is. An A.G. Opinion or Idaho Tax Commission
ruling will merely suggest what the law possibly/probably i! s.Â
<BR><BR>BJ Swanson has suggested that the parties mediate and agree to abide
by the answers suggested by the Attorney General and the Idaho Tax
Commission. As I think about this, a potential problem arises, one
raised by Gary Crabtree and Sue Hovey already, i.e., the lack of binding
effect on non-parties. Entering into such an agreement would bind the
MSD and Dr. Weitz from contesting the decisions of the government agencies,
but other concerned citizens could still contest the validity or invalidity
of the outcome reached in the proposed mediation decision.<BR><BR>Until
thinking the process through in writing this answer, I had been initially
receptive to BJ Swanson's mediation suggestion, but the lack of a decisive
answer that could come from mediation gives me pause. On the other
hand, a year (or three or five) of operating the Moscow Schools without the
significant portion of the money (a fifth, a quarter, a third?) that is
provided by the indefinite, per! manent supplemental levy, will be soÂ
harmful to our children, schools, and this town as a whole  that I hate
to contemplate it. What alternatives do others see?<BR><BR>Moscow's
attractiveness to business and prospects for growth with people that value
and support public schools would seem to be damaged significantly in the
near term by this lawsuit. I think that Dr. Weitz is hoping,
somehow, to help the schools in the long run with his lawsuit by forcing a
re-vote ultimately of money for the schools and hoping to see money
allocated for his pet projects. However, it seems unlikely to me
that there is much hope for that prospect to amount to much for a very
long time, no matter how favorable the outcome from Dr. Weitz's perspective,
given the short term damage. <BR><BR>That is why I think his approach
was misguided and unhelpful, no matter how much I support Dr. Weitz'sÂ
desire to increase professional technical education ("PTE") offerings for
our ! children in the Moscow public schools. I fear the backlash
against his approach will damage the long-term prospects for needed PTE
offerings in which the Moscow schools indisputably are</I> lacking.Â
(Assuming that Dr.Weitz's lawsuit had not been filed, I note that some new
PTE programs that came out of November's MCA forum were being put into place
at the alternative school.  I hope that still happens. Those
courses need to be made available to the kids at the high school, too, and
not be stigmatized as "just" alternative school offerings, but I am willing
to get there with smaller steps that will allow some experimentation and
time to establish a track record of success.)<BR><BR>I fear that the only
folks unharmed by this lawsuit are those to whom the public schools are
unimportant, because the the lawsuit will not damage their thoughts about
whether Moscow is a good place to live or establish a business. For
the rest of us, the day this lawsuit w! as filed remains a dark
day. <BR><BR>Bruce
Livingston<BR>=======================================================<BR> List
services made available by First Step Internet, <BR> serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<BR>
<A
href="http://www.fsr.net /"
eudora="autourl">http://www.fsr.net
</A><BR> <A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"
eudora="autourl">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</A><BR>=======================================================</BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>=======================================================<BR> List
services made available by First Step Internet, <BR> serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<BR>
http://www.fsr.net
<BR>
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>=======================================================
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>No virus found in this incoming message.<BR>Checked by AVG Free
Edition. <BR>Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.0/803 - Release Date:
5/13/2007 12:17 PM<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>