<html>
<body>
M. Schou, <br><br>
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:<br><br>
<br>
<pre>(5) The board of trustees of any school district that has, for
at least
seven (7) consecutive years, been authorized through an election held
pursuant
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.
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. The question
must
be approved by a majority of the district electors voting on the question
in
an election held pursuant to chapter 4, title 33, Idaho Code.
</pre>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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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 resources.<br><br>
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?<br><br>
Last time I checked, local school districts are non-partisan
elections.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
At 07:52 PM 5/13/2007, you wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""> Weitz is to be commended,
not vilified, for taking the first steps<br>
necessary for us to engage in serious dialogue about our public<br>
infrastructure investments - and to place the responsibility for
those<br>
investments where it belongs - with the taxpayers.</blockquote><br>
In what world, Jeff, does seeking to overturn the will of the voters<br>
constitute "beginning a dialog"? One would expect that the
dialog has<br>
already been had -- those seeking the levy won. It seems to me that<br>
conservatives are only in favor of frivolous lawsuits when it
supports<br>
their faith that the fulcrum point of the Laffer curve is at 0%.<br><br>
-- ACS</blockquote></body>
</html>