<html>
<head>
<style>
P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body
{
FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
Thank you, J!<br><br>keely<br><br>> From: privatejf32@hotmail.com<br>> To: vision2020@moscow.com<br>> Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 20:25:21 -0700<br>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] [Bulk] Re: Weitz Lawsuit: A Challenge<br>> <br>> 1. Have YOU actually talked to Dr. Donicht and/or Dr. Weitz and asked them <br>> if they are willing to talk to the public about this issue? If not, then <br>> how can you possibly say that they are unwilling to? This is the most open <br>> bunch of people this town has.<br>> <br>> 2. The "law (being) involved" in this situation was brought around because <br>> Dr. Weitz initiated this course. It was NOT the lack of communication from <br>> MSD or Dr. D. or the School Board, all of which are VERY, VERY open to <br>> public comment, interest, involvement -- which is sorely lacking when it <br>> comes to the MSD. When is the last time ANY of you willing to bad-mouth the <br>> MSD, et al, went to a school board meeting? WHEN!? Or called them or wrote <br>> them a note, etc? The only way they have heard from any of you is during <br>> the elections. PERIOD!!!<br>> <br>> 3. NO party or public office can simply "just hold another election". It <br>> is complicated, time consuming and the county/city are involved. Enough <br>> said, eh?<br>> <br>> 4. "It certainly is more productive than sitting around twirling our <br>> thumbs, wasting time, and cursing at whoever ever finds problems and wants a <br>> ballot election to be legal." This is just trash talk!<br>> <br>> 5. No one in the MSD is "bashing" Dr. Weitz. IF he is being "bashed" it is <br>> by people who are frustrated with his actions and lack of compassion for a <br>> significant part of our population that really do not have much of a say in <br>> what happens to them...certainly not when it comes to which one of their <br>> favorite teachers and/or subjects is going to get the axe because someone <br>> files a suite that is fruitless and ill-conceived.<br>> <br>> You all want this to stop, why not GET INVOLVED with the schools, the MSD, <br>> the School Board Meetings, etc? Why wait until a very real and very ugly <br>> threat happens? GET INVOLVED NOW!!! in a positive and productive manner.<br>> <br>> J :]<br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> >From: Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com><br>> >To: keely emerinemix <kjajmix1@msn.com>, Sue Hovey <suehovey@moscow.com>, <br>> > vision2020@moscow.com, Jeff Harkins <jeffh@moscow.com><br>> >Subject: Re: [Vision2020] [Bulk] Re: Weitz Lawsuit: A Challenge<br>> >Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 19:45:13 -0700 (PDT)<br>> ><br>> >I would like to thank Dr. Harkins, Bruce Livingston, Gary Crabtree, and BJ <br>> >Swanson and others for their thoughtful, intelligent, and productive <br>> >insight regarding this MSD funding issue.<br>> ><br>> > Dr. Harkins I think explained the situation best. But I do think that <br>> >the personalities of both Weitz and Donacht are also in play and what <br>> >Swanson was trying to work on.<br>> ><br>> > Unfortunately, I don't think Weitz or Donacht want to talk to the public <br>> >or people they disagree with, which is unfortunate and what got the law <br>> >involved in the problem to began with. I think public officials should <br>> >always be open to hearing from the people they serve, especially people <br>> >like BJ Swanson who always means well for her community.<br>> ><br>> > If the MSD was serious about helping the kids, not winning a public <br>> >political and legal battle, they would simple hold another election asking <br>> >for a 4 year funding request at current levels and hold a separate ballot <br>> >question asking for the $7 million increase request. The people would vote <br>> >and the issue would be resolved quickly.<br>> ><br>> > The answer really isn't complicated here. Just hold another election <br>> >that is legal and resolves the legal issues addressed in the suit. I don't <br>> >comprehend why that is so difficult to do. It certainly is more productive <br>> >than sitting around twirling our thumbs, wasting time, and cursing at <br>> >whoever ever finds problems and wants a ballot election to be legal.<br>> ><br>> > Bashing Weitz isn't going to "help the kids", holding a legal election <br>> >will. The question is, what is MSD going to do, hold an unquestionably <br>> >legal election or keep bashing Weitz? I think their actions will <br>> >demonstrate their priorities.<br>> ><br>> > Best,<br>> ><br>> > Donovan<br>> ><br>> >keely emerinemix <kjajmix1@msn.com> wrote:<br>> > P { margin:0px; padding:0px } body { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; <br>> >FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma } Brilliant, Sue -- and thank you for your <br>> >passionate, clearheaded reasoning on this.<br>> ><br>> >keely<br>> ><br>> ><br>> >---------------------------------<br>> > From: suehovey@moscow.com<br>> >To: vision2020@moscow.com; jeffh@moscow.com<br>> >Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 13:32:50 -0700<br>> >Subject: Re: [Vision2020] [Bulk] Re: Weitz Lawsuit: A Challenge<br>> ><br>> > Jeff, If what you are saying makes sense now, why did it not make sense <br>> >a decade ago when to have gotten a court decision might not have been so <br>> >harmful? Gerry Weitz would have been a natural for that responsibility <br>> >when he was on the board and his children were in school.<br>> ><br>> > You say,<br>> > " No two non-elected citizens (albeit that they are both individually <br>> >involved in the matter - Weitz and Donacht) are in a position to represent <br>> >the vast interests of the array of stakeholders evident in this matter."<br>> ><br>> > Really, that's exactly what Gerry Weitz did when he filed the lawsuit. <br>> >He assumed he was in a position to invalidate the votes of the taxpayers of <br>> >this district.<br>> ><br>> > Whether or not permanent levies are a "bad" way to fund public <br>> >expenditures, is your opinion; however, it continues to be the law. You <br>> >wrote in several hundred words what you could simply have reduced to a <br>> >single sentence. Why didn't you just say, "we in Latah County have a <br>> >number of projects to fund: parks for children, playgrounds, an ice rink, <br>> >so if we cut back on the funding for their education we might be able to <br>> >consider those other options."<br>> ><br>> > Well golly, now at least they'll have somewhere to go when we close the <br>> >school doors.<br>> ><br>> > Sue<br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> > ----- Original Message -----<br>> > From: Jeff Harkins<br>> > To: vision2020@moscow.com<br>> > Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2007 10:24 AM<br>> > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] [Bulk] Re: Weitz Lawsuit: A Challenge<br>> ><br>> ><br>> >The Weitz/MSD lawsuit raises a plethora of issues about taxpayer funding of <br>> >public interests. At the core of the lawsuit appears to be the issue of <br>> >whether or not the school levy process was in conformity with Idaho legal <br>> >protocol. Because "public education" is important to most of us in the <br>> >MSD, it is critical that there be no ambiguity or uncertainties about the <br>> >"legality and integrity" of the levy event. Unfortunately, it appears that <br>> >some individuals have concerns about just that. Consequently a legal <br>> >assessment (via a lawsuit) is underway.<br>> ><br>> >As this involves decisions of legally elected public officials (school <br>> >board members), the use of non-elected citizens to arbitrate the issue is <br>> >inexplicable (the Swanson proposal). No two non-elected citizens (albeit <br>> >that they are both individually involved in the matter - Weitz and Donacht) <br>> >are in a position to represent the vast interests of the array of <br>> >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 <br>> >useful to consider:<br>> ><br>> >Permanent levies (levies in perpetuity) are a "bad" way of funding public <br>> >expenditures. The most egregious decision a current generation can make <br>> >regarding public programs is to deny future generations the choice of how <br>> >their tax dollars are spent. Referred to as a problem of <br>> >"inter-generational equity"and stated in simple terms, current generations <br>> >should not encumber the ability of future generations to invest their <br>> >public resources in those programs deemed essential by those future <br>> >generations. Permanent levies have the potential to do just that. The <br>> >reason we use "balanced budget" systems in state and local government is to <br>> >provide reasonable assurance that the current generation "pays its way". <br>> >Perhaps the Weitz/MSD lawsuit will give us reason to reflect on the <br>> >"permanent levy" approach. We can probably achieve greater public <br>> >accountability for school district resources if there is some reasonable <br>> >limit to the life of a levy - say three years or four years.<br>> > Returning to the taxpayers to reaffirm their tax investment is an <br>> >effective means of accountability.<br>> ><br>> >One of the things that concerned me about the recent levy election was the <br>> >lack of a detailed spending plan for the additional supplemental funding <br>> >request. Future levy requests should be required to have a complete <br>> >line-item level of detail to support the additional funding request.<br>> ><br>> >This is a particularly volatile period for public education. New <br>> >technologies and new educational processes are working their way through <br>> >educational systems. We want to be sure that we leave adequate room for <br>> >future generations to have flexibility in design and delivery of public <br>> >education.<br>> ><br>> >In Latah County, as in most jurisdictions, we have limited public <br>> >resources to invest in what at times like seems like unlimited public <br>> >projects - sort of like the diamond appetite on a zirconium budget. The <br>> >school district wants or needs a new high school, or junior high; the <br>> >county wants or needs new facilities (law enforcement center, county hall, <br>> >fair grounds); citizens want or need new parks and playgrounds; citizens <br>> >want or need a permanent location of the ice rink; county residents want or <br>> >need road improvements; Moscow wants or needs to address the issue of water <br>> >distribution; some Moscow citizens would like to have their streets paved; <br>> >and so on ............. It is time that we assess carefully our public <br>> >needs and prioritize our preferences. Allowing our public institutions to <br>> >gain additional resources by simply being the first to the trough does not <br>> >serve the public interest.<br>> ><br>> >As our property tax rates are once again at the highest levels of Idaho <br>> >Counties, it is incumbent upon us to reflect on our priorities - and the <br>> >proper expenditure of our limited public resources. If some of our <br>> >citizens are correct in their assessment that we have reached our <br>> >sustainability limits (e.g. water, quality of life), then we must be <br>> >extraordinarily judicious in our commitments of tax dollars to public <br>> >projects. For example, if we are at our sustainability limits, the public <br>> >school census has probably peaked. Fiscal austerity would suggest that we <br>> >impose significant fiscal restraint in funding public programs. If there <br>> >is a prospect for future economic development, the sooner our community <br>> >explores the possibilities and moves forward with them, the sooner we can <br>> >begin to take advantage of a growing tax base and move forward the many <br>> >public projects that we want to have.<br>> ><br>> >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.<br>> ><br>> ><br>> >At 07:40 AM 5/13/2007, you wrote:<br>> ><br>> > JFord asks:<br>> ><br>> ><br>> > > What about asking for a "judicial opinion" or judicial review" of the <br>> >facts<br>> ><br>> > > as presented by the interested parties? Does Idaho have such an <br>> >option or<br>> ><br>> > > would a judge(s) be willing to do this? How about the AG looking at <br>> >the<br>> ><br>> > > "facts" and issuing an opinion? If those come back negatively <br>> >opinoned,<br>> ><br>> > > wouldn't that at least be a "warning" to other potential filers?<br>> ><br>> >The Weitz lawsuit is styled as one seeking a "declaratory judgment and <br>> >injunctive relief." The declaratory judgment portion of the lawsuit asks <br>> >the judge to do precisely what you suggest. That is what is happening.Â<br>> ><br>> >One may seek an opinion on the merits of an issue of Idaho law from the <br>> >Attorney General, but this is only "authority" in support of whatever <br>> >position the A.G. decides is the correct outcome under! the law, and not <br>> >"precedent." A judge, and the ultimate arbiters of state law questions, <br>> >the Idaho Supreme Court, would be free to decide this case differently from <br>> >the opinon issued by the Attorney General, and the court system's answer <br>> >would be the final say.<br>> ><br>> >As authority but not precedent, an Attorney General opinion will suggest an <br>> >answer but it could be "wrong" in the eyes of a later reviewing judge. I <br>> >suppose an A.G. Opinion could "warn" of a probable outcome, but it will <br>> >not carry any weight in terms of forcing those, who might bring a lawsuit <br>> >that suggests an answer different from the A.G. Opinion, to face any <br>> >additional consequences for doing so than already exists under existing <br>> >law.Â<br>> ><br>> >I suppose the upshot of this is that the declaratory judgment action is <br>> >designed to get to an official statement of what the law is. An A.G. <br>> >Opinion or Idaho Tax Commission ruling will merely suggest what the law <br>> >possibly/probably i! s.Â<br>> ><br>> >BJ Swanson has suggested that the parties mediate and agree to abide by the <br>> >answers suggested by the Attorney General and the Idaho Tax Commission. <br>> >As I think about this, a potential problem arises, one raised by Gary <br>> >Crabtree and Sue Hovey already, i.e., the lack of binding effect on <br>> >non-parties. Entering into such an agreement would bind the MSD and Dr. <br>> >Weitz from contesting the decisions of the government agencies, but other <br>> >concerned citizens could still contest the validity or invalidity of the <br>> >outcome reached in the proposed mediation decision.<br>> ><br>> >Until thinking the process through in writing this answer, I had been <br>> >initially receptive to BJ Swanson's mediation suggestion, but the lack of <br>> >a decisive answer that could come from mediation gives me pause. On the <br>> >other hand, a year (or three or five) of operating the Moscow Schools <br>> >without the significant portion of the money (a fifth, a quarter, a third?) <br>> >that is provided by the indefinite, per! manent supplemental levy, will be <br>> >so harmful to our children, schools, and this town as a whole  that I <br>> >hate to contemplate it. What alternatives do others see?<br>> ><br>> >Moscow's attractiveness to business and prospects for growth with people <br>> >that value and support public schools would seem to be damaged <br>> >significantly in the near term by this lawsuit. I think that Dr. Weitz <br>> >is hoping, somehow, to help the schools in the long run with his lawsuit <br>> >by forcing a re-vote ultimately of money for the schools and hoping to see <br>> >money allocated for his pet projects. However, it seems unlikely to me <br>> >that there is much hope for that prospect to amount to much for a very <br>> >long time, no matter how favorable the outcome from Dr. Weitz's <br>> >perspective, given the short term damage.Â<br>> ><br>> >That is why I think his approach was misguided and unhelpful, no matter how <br>> >much I support Dr. Weitz's desire to increase professional technical <br>> >education ("PTE") offerings for our ! children in the Moscow public <br>> >schools. I fear the backlash against his approach will damage the <br>> >long-term prospects for needed PTE offerings in which the Moscow schools <br>> >indisputably are lacking. (Assuming that Dr.Weitz's lawsuit had not been <br>> >filed, I note that some new PTE programs that came out of November's MCA <br>> >forum were being put into place at the alternative school.  I hope that <br>> >still happens. Those courses need to be made available to the kids at <br>> >the high school, too, and not be stigmatized as "just" alternative school <br>> >offerings, but I am willing to get there with smaller steps that will <br>> >allow some experimentation and time to establish a track record of <br>> >success.)<br>> ><br>> >I fear that the only folks unharmed by this lawsuit are those to whom the <br>> >public schools are unimportant, because the the lawsuit will not damage <br>> >their thoughts about whether Moscow is a good place to live or establish a <br>> >business. For the rest of us, the day this lawsuit w! as filed remains <br>> >a dark day.Â<br>> ><br>> >Bruce Livingston<br>> >=======================================================<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>> >=======================================================<br>> ><br>> >---------------------------------<br>> ><br>> >=======================================================<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>> >=======================================================<br>> ><br>> >---------------------------------<br>> ><br>> >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 <br>> >12:17 PM<br>> ><br>> ><br>> >---------------------------------<br>> > Download Messenger. Start an i’m conversation. Support a cause. Join <br>> >Now! =======================================================<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>> >=======================================================<br>> ><br>> ><br>> >---------------------------------<br>> >8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time<br>> > with theYahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.<br>> <br>> <br>> >=======================================================<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>> >=======================================================<br>> <br>> _________________________________________________________________<br>> Catch suspicious messages before you open them—with Windows Live Hotmail. <br>> http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_mini_protection_0507<br>> <br><br /><hr />Download Messenger. Start an i’m conversation. Support a cause. <a href='http://im.live.com/messenger/im/home/?source=TAGWL_MAY07' target='_new'>Join Now!</a></body>
</html>