<!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 6.00.2800.1561" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>
<H2>The Daily News today published 2 articles about the suit by Weitz against
the Moscow School District. The articles provide an excellent summary of
the issues involved.--BL</H2>
<H2>---------------------- </H2>
<H2>Legality of Moscow school levy broached in 1995</H2>
<P
style="MARGIN-TOP: 0px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px">Letter
written by then-deputy attorney general provides two unofficial interpretations
of Idaho Code </P>
<P style="MARGIN-TOP: 0px; FONT-SIZE: 12px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px">By Kate Baldwin,
Daily News staff writer</P>
<P style="FONT-SIZE: 10px; font-color: gray">Friday, June 15, 2007 - Page
Updated at 11:44:01 PM</P><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 14px">
<P>More information is surfacing in the lawsuit against the Moscow School
District, which challenges $7.6 million in funding from the district’s
supplemental levy.</P>
<P>A 1995 letter from Idaho’s then-deputy attorney general for the State
Department of Education that was sent to the Blaine School District has been
floating around online and in the community.</P>
<P>The letter offers two interpretations of Idaho’s laws to address questions
put forward by the Blaine School District’s business manager regarding
supplemental levies and indefinite supplemental levies. It speaks to ballot
language issues, questions about indefinite levy increases, and the consequences
of lost increase elections.</P>
<P>Moscow School District Superintendent Candis Donicht said her office began to
search for the letter when she heard rumors of an opinion that could affect the
lawsuit, but MSD officials couldn’t find anything.</P>
<P>“It did not exist (on file) when any of us came on board,” she said.</P>
<P>Donicht said she saw the letter for the first time May 18, when State Rep.
Shirley Ringo, D-Moscow, brought a copy to her office.</P>
<P>Meanwhile, Moscow resident and business owner Jim DeMeerleer said he has
known about the letter to Blaine School District since it first came out.</P>
<P>“It was general knowledge in 1995,” he said.</P>
<P>DeMeerleer said he believes the letter directly applies to this case, but
added that a judge will have to make the final determination.</P>
<P>Then-deputy attorney general Kirby Nelson wrote the advisory letter that
referred to two interpretations as “equally valid.” His first interpretation of
the levy law in Idaho Code provided support for the district’s actions by
stating that a district could allow increases to an indefinite term supplemental
levy by putting the amount to voters for approval.</P>
<P>His second interpretation argued from a different angle of the law. It
described a situation where a district would only be entitled to one indefinite
supplemental levy and no increases. Nelson added to this that “it is possible
that, if a district ran such a levy (increase) in addition to an already
existing levy and failed to win a majority of votes, then the entire levy amount
would be deemed to have failed and no permanent levy would exist.”</P>
<P>Still, Nelson raised a warning about these advisory opinions.</P>
<P>“The response is an informal and unofficial expression of the views of this
office based upon the research of the author,” he wrote.</P>
<P>Brian Julian, attorney for MSD, issued an analysis of the letter Monday. He
pointed out that the letter offers two valid interpretations of the statute and
it doesn’t establish precedent. Julian also questioned the reasoning in the
second interpretation.</P>
<P>Donicht said an attorney general’s opinion is “a legal document that has
merit.”</P>
<P>“Attorney general opinions are numbered, catalogued, and can be researched
through normal techniques,” she said. “We could not find a normal attorney
general opinion on this because one did not exist.”</P>
<P>Donicht said the letter came from one of the state’s 120 deputy attorney
generals, who are not elected officials.</P>
<P>“Our attorneys believe our interpretation is the correct interpretation and
that we have acted appropriately and legally in 1995, 2002, and 2007,” she
said.</P>
<P><STRONG>MSD LAWSUIT BACKGROUND</STRONG></P>
<P>Moscow dentist Gerald Weitz filed a lawsuit May 3 that threatens $7.6 million
in supplemental funding for the Moscow School District.</P>
<P>The lawsuit alleges that the district’s 1992, voter-approved indefinite levy
is invalid because the election did not meet statutory requirements under state
law. As a result, it alleges that all subsequent elections for levy increases
are invalid.</P>
<P>Weitz served on the Moscow School Board as the Zone 1 Trustee from June 1997
until June 2000. During that time, he won a re-election and voted on multiple
budget measures for the district that are based on funds from the levies he now
challenges.</P>
<P>The levy represents $7.6 million of the district’s $19 million budget planned
for the coming year. The pending litigation caused the district to implement an
immediate spending freeze and briefly threatened hiring.</P>
<P>The board approved $400,000 in budget cuts for the coming school year. The
amount represents what would have been cut if voters had not passed the levy
increase of $1.97 million at the last election on March 27.</P>
<P>Weitz is a proponent for improving professional-technical education in the
district and supports Paradise Creek Regional High School, the district’s
alternative school, by leasing its building to the district for $1 a year.</P>
<P><FONT size=2>-------------------------------- </FONT></P>
<H2>DeMeerleer also threatened a lawsuit against school district</H2>
<P
style="MARGIN-TOP: 0px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px">Business
owner demanded that school district decertify March levy election </P>
<P style="MARGIN-TOP: 0px; FONT-SIZE: 12px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px">By Kate Baldwin,
Daily News staff writer</P>
<P style="FONT-SIZE: 10px; font-color: gray">Saturday, June 16, 2007 - Page
Updated at 12:00:00 AM</P><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 14px">
<P>The Moscow School District faced more than one challenge to its supplemental
levy after voters approved an increase that raised the total amount to $7.6
million in March, but only one lawsuit emerged.</P>
<P>Moscow resident and business owner Jim DeMeerleer met with MSD Superintendent
Candis Donicht and sent a letter to the district's board of trustees. He
demanded that the board decertify the March 27 election, which brought a $1.97
million increase - for a total levy of $7.6 million - to the district.</P>
<P>DeMeerleer said he decided not to bring a lawsuit after Gerald Weitz filed a
complaint in Latah County District Court on May 3.</P>
<P>"Because Gerry Weitz filed a lawsuit, I didn't have to," he said. "What's the
difference?"</P>
<P>DeMeerleer said he believed the district had violated Idaho statutes. He
raised his concerns during a meeting with Donicht on April 24. Donicht said she
told DeMeerleer he was making serious allegations and that he needed to put them
in writing as soon as he could.</P>
<P>DeMeerleer answered her request with a letter through Moscow attorney Brian
Thie, who also represents Weitz. The letter to the school board was
hand-delivered April 25. It was obtained by the Daily News through a public
information records request.</P>
<P>"It is our belief that the levy is unlawful and demand is hereby made to the
Board of Trustees to decertify the election," Thie wrote.</P>
<P>The letter argued that the ballot language was illegal because Idaho Code
states that "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."
It claimed that "at minimum, the ballot should have read that a yes vote would
increase the indefinite levy to its total amount (some seven and one-half
million dollars)."</P>
<P>Thie instructed the board to decertify the election by 3 p.m. May 1. If the
board failed to meet that deadline, he warned that DeMeerleer was prepared to
file an election challenge.</P>
<P>"This letter was seen as the threat of a lawsuit," Donicht said.</P>
<P>After receiving the letter, the board of trustees met April 30 in executive
session with its attorney. The meeting was closed to the public because of the
pending litigation. The board took no action.</P>
<P>"The trustees believed the law had been followed," Donicht said. "A majority
of our population has spoken in favor of the increase to the supplemental
levy.</P>
<P>"The board was not willing to comply with what was being demanded, so no
action was taken," she added.</P>
<P>Weitz filed his lawsuit May 3 and the case has started to move through the
court system. A hearing on a motion to dismiss the lawsuit is scheduled for June
29.</P>
<P>"All they had to do was decertify the levy election," DeMeerleer said. "They
did nothing and that is why the lawsuit had to proceed, because they did
nothing."</P>
<P>In addition to questioning the ballot language, the letter also argued
against the system of levy increases. Thie alleged that "there is simply no
statutory or case authority for any incremental increase to the indefinite
supplemental levy."</P>
<P>District voters first approved the indefinite supplemental levy in 1992.
DeMeerleer's letter did not challenge this election, although it did challenge
the increase elections that came in 1995 and 2002. It also argues that the
failure of the increase election in 2001 could rescind the initial 1992 election
based on correspondence from 1995 between the Blaine School District and Kirby
Nelson, then-deputy attorney general for the State Department of Education.</P>
<P>Thie wrote that it was DeMeerleer's intention "to let the status quo remain
as it is" if the board decertified just the March 27 election and the
voter-approved increase.</P>
<P>"Please realize what is at risk is the entire supplemental levy if my client
is required to pursue this matter legally," he wrote.</P>
<P>DeMeerleer said he is a concerned citizen who wants people to interpret the
code for themselves.</P>
<P>"An ideal outcome would be that the school district would decertify the last
election and admit this is in the gray area, and run a supplemental levy and not
go through the court system to have a judge determine that there is a right or
wrong here," he said. "All they have to do instead of having an indefinite levy
is have a supplemental levy."</P>
<P>DeMeerleer said he is sure the district would receive approval from the
voters because it did before.</P></SPAN>
<P><FONT size=2></FONT> </P></SPAN></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>