<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<STYLE>P {
PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px
}
BODY {
FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma
}
</STYLE>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16481" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Thanks Keely for your cogent analysis of the district suit
situation.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>It sure looks to me like Harter and all are offering
extortion, not concilation.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Like some kind of bizarre coup d'etat, a tiny group of
grumpy guys decide to sue the school district -- and then offer to
drop the suit IF the school district will agree to binding arbitration
-- which is a guaranteed win for them, and a huge affront to the democratic
process that decided the fate of the original levy.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>BL</FONT></DIV>
<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=kjajmix1@msn.com href="mailto:kjajmix1@msn.com">keely emerinemix</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> Tuesday, July 24, 2007 1:25
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> [Vision2020] tonight's school
board meeting</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>Visionaires,<BR><BR>It looks to me that the school board
meeting tonight will feature Don Harter and his plea for a "conciliatory"
resolution to the Weitz lawsuit challenging the validity of the recent
supplemental levy increase. Undoubtedly it will feature further
discussion of the issues Harter will raise. Board Chair Dawn Fazio's
statement in the Daily News yesterday made sense, insofar as it outlined the
board's willingness to let Harter speak -- as it allows and encourages all
stakeholders to air concerns during the meetings -- and yet made it clear that
the Board has no intention, even if it could, of overthrowing the will of
those voters who, by majority, voted for the increase.<BR><BR>I'm heartened
that the trustees took steps to frame the debate in clear, concise, and
correct terms; I've often been critical of MSD for responding slowly or not at
all when its integrity is challenged, particularly when the challenge has been
based not only on anti-public schools vitriol but misleading, incorrect
information. My hope is that the board continue to state what Fazio said
yesterday and what Dr. Donicht has previously said. Those points are
simple, and I hope that they are clearly repeated by the trustees
tonight. <BR><BR>Here's what I hope the board offers prior to and after
Harter's comments:<BR><BR>1. The district did not initiate the
litigation it is now involved in; a disgruntled patron did. Now it's in
the court system -- there's no backing out for either the defendant or the
plaintiff. Once the suit is filed and finds a hearing, not even the most
disingenuously worded petition can act as an "oops" sufficient to relieve the
plaintiff of the responsibility for what he has begun.<BR><BR>2. The
district believes it has acted in accord with state law in running the
levy. Weitz, et al, believe it didn't. The judge gets to decide
who's right.<BR><BR>3. A petition asking that the district remove itself
from litigation not of its own initiative in order to offer or accept an olive
branch by way of re-running the levy election is not only unfair but
impossible -- and asks the district to deny the will of the voters who
approved the increase. It's not only a legal impossibility, but sets a
terrible precedent: that election results can be overthrown under the
guise of "conciliation." Nice words don't make for good policy,
and the Board needs to make that clear.<BR><BR>There's no need tonight to
argue the merits of the case, a case I believe MSD will win. But Harter
should realize, and the community should know, that while MSD is accommodating
his desire to speak tonight, it's because MSD allows and encourages all
community members to do so -- not because Harter's offer of "conciliation"
merits serious consideration. A "make nice" petition sounds like a great
exercise in bringing together a community stung by one man's crusade to
hamstring it. But Harter's request isn't an olive branch at all, just an
attempt to ease the consequences felt by Weitz and make MSD's enemies look
like its saviors. Government by petition isn't effective. In
this case, it's not even possible. Because even if a petition could end
the standoff and honor the law, the electorate, and the kids, such a thing --
setting aside the will of the voters -- would be an act of monumental ill
will. The lack of goodwill here is not MSD's fault. Neither is the
discomfort felt by Dr. Weitz as he realizes the depth of the community's
displeasure with him.<BR><BR>I obviously chose to be a more "activist" trustee
than the current trustees have, but I hope that on this, we agree that a firm,
fair telling of the facts is imperative -- and not just tonight. Harter
may choose to bring the circus into town, but the Board can respect his rights
as a citizen without jumping through the hoops he's set out for
them.<BR><BR>keely<BR><BR><BR>
<HR>
Local listings, incredible imagery, and driving directions - all in one place!
<A href="http://maps.live.com/?wip=69&FORM=MGAC01" target=_new>Find
it!</A>
<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>=======================================================</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>