<html>
<body>
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 type=cite class=cite 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>
</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.Â
<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. <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 so 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's 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. (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>
</body>
</html>