Legal assessment of lawsuit

[mandmmom]

sleeplessinnpvl said:

I will agree with you on that. This whole thing is about perception (assuming that the site is indeed safe). Perception sure seems to be important around here. MV will be a great school with a great curriculum. I'm not looking forward to people having to defend it just like current WV people have to defend their school from the false perceptions that plague it.

I think that is why people are angry. They feel they are going to an inferior school. The truth is they will all be great schools!

I agree with you about this....whether you like it or not this site has a bad reputation.....and I think it will be this way for quite some time....and if someone, just 1 child or adult that is affiliated with the school gets a mysterious brain tumor, then all H*** will break loose.....I hope it never happens, but if it does I hope I am not around to experience the backlash....

[sleeplessinnpvl]

I agree with you that the site ain't pretty and the increased commute times for some (but not all) stinks. But legally, is that enough to make this lawsuit stick? Again, my opinion is that the environmental stuff is important to this suit. Anything else and I'm just not sure that a judge is going to reverse everything because some people think they are getting a different high school experience than they were promised. Especially when the main high school experience of education will be the same. But what do I know, I am not a judge.

[doctorwho]

avengingeagle said:

jwh said:

Judging by the soil samples, the conspiracy of the missing 25,578 GALLONS of DFO never made it into the ground.

Got Diesel?

I saw some of it come bubbling up when Jed was trying to shoot that rabbit near the fenced off area of the MWGEN site.

Dr. Who do you have that video link?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZp2JcmUU6o

[mandmmom]

sleeplessinnpvl said:

I agree with you that the site ain't pretty and the increased commute times for some (but not all) stinks. But legally, is that enough to make this lawsuit stick? Again, my opinion is that the environmental stuff is important to this suit. Anything else and I'm just not sure that a judge is going to reverse everything because some people think they are getting a different high school experience than they were promised. Especially when the main high school experience of education will be the same. But what do I know, I am not a judge.

I was not around for all of the fun in voting, but the 1 thing that strikes me is that it did not pass the 1st time....so they did some due diligence and figured out people wanted to know where the school was going to be, etc.....and then it went for a vote for a 2nd time and it finally passed b/c they advertised/stated that the new HS would be on BB.....That is the part I have a problem with........I also have problems with the environmental stuff, and I think that makes the case even stronger....if I am incorrect please let me know (I am trying to state the facts as I know them....you can consider me an outsider on the past stuff, but now I am no longer an outsider, I am living it with the rest of you).

[sleeplessinnpvl]

mandmmom said:

sleeplessinnpvl said:

I agree with you that the site ain't pretty and the increased commute times for some (but not all) stinks. But legally, is that enough to make this lawsuit stick? Again, my opinion is that the environmental stuff is important to this suit. Anything else and I'm just not sure that a judge is going to reverse everything because some people think they are getting a different high school experience than they were promised. Especially when the main high school experience of education will be the same. But what do I know, I am not a judge.

I was not around for all of the fun in voting, but the 1 thing that strikes me is that it did not pass the 1st time....so they did some due diligence and figured out people wanted to know where the school was going to be, etc.....and then it went for a vote for a 2nd time and it finally passed b/c they advertised/stated that the new HS would be on BB.....That is the part I have a problem with........I also have problems with the environmental stuff, and I think that makes the case even stronger....if I am incorrect please let me know (I am trying to state the facts as I know them....you can consider me an outsider on the past stuff, but now I am no longer an outsider, I am living it with the rest of you).

I'm not sure anyone can really prove why the vote didn't pass. Yes, they did do a survey, and that is what the "no"voters said. However, a lot of people I know didn't go out and vote "yes" because they thought their vote wasn't needed. "I don't need to vote because there are enough people around here that support the education and it will pass so I don't need to get off my couch and vote today."

Also, a lot of people were just ignorant. The SB didn't do a good job of promoting why we needed it, IMO.

[mandmmom]

sleeplessinnpvl said:

mandmmom said:

I was not around for all of the fun in voting, but the 1 thing that strikes me is that it did not pass the 1st time....so they did some due diligence and figured out people wanted to know where the school was going to be, etc.....and then it went for a vote for a 2nd time and it finally passed b/c they advertised/stated that the new HS would be on BB.....That is the part I have a problem with........I also have problems with the environmental stuff, and I think that makes the case even stronger....if I am incorrect please let me know (I am trying to state the facts as I know them....you can consider me an outsider on the past stuff, but now I am no longer an outsider, I am living it with the rest of you).

I'm not sure anyone can really prove why the vote didn't pass. Yes, they did do a survey, and that is what the "no"voters said. However, a lot of people I know didn't go out and vote "yes" because they thought their vote wasn't needed. "I don't need to vote because there are enough people around here that support the education and it will pass so I don't need to get off my couch and vote today."

I can believe that, but the SB and the members should have never told people that they were building on BB.....I have to wonder if they never stated that the 3rd HS was going to be at BB would they still have passed it? That is why I don't see any harm in putting this up to a vote....if the SB is confident about this site then they should do the right thing and let the 204 residents vote on it....

[sleeplessinnpvl]

I guess it boils down to does the SB have the right to put it whereever they want. They certainly would have the right, after the site was built on BB and they promised us those boundaries, to switch the boundaries around if there was a legitimate reason like sudden overcrowding at one school. So do they have the right to change sites after the referendum if there is a legitimate reason like the site was too expensive? Just don't have the answers.

[anonofthenorth]

For a link to another case that tried to refer to the smith v. cherry case sited in the lawsuit.

bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/619/619.F2d.692.79-1791.html

see under section 4 :

"We do not regard intentional misstatements of fact made during an election campaign as "election frauds" in the ordinary sense. The merits of a ballot issue are matters reserved for public and private discussion and debate between opponents and proponents.1 It is for the voters, not this court to decide whom to elect and what ballot issues to approve."

So opponents of the referendum should have been telling people to Vote NO, because there was no guarantees the school would be at BB, or that boundaries would be the same forever.

[mandmmom]

sleeplessinnpvl said:

I guess it boils down to does the SB have the right to put it whereever they want. They certainly would have the right, after the site was built on BB and they promised us those boundaries, to switch the boundaries around if there was a legitimate reason like sudden overcrowding at one school. So do they have the right to change sites after the referendum if there is a legitimate reason like the site was too expensive? Just don't have the answers.

I appreciate your comments, but I don't think you are comparing apples to apples now. Boundaries and the actual site are not the same thing IMO. Boundaries will change; I actually think they will change again before the new HS opens up....maybe not big changes, but I wouldn't be surprised if they did change after the next election. The site was sold to 204 based on the BB location....if they didn't want to do this then they should have never said that to anyone....I don't think our SB uses good judgment.....they say things that always seem to come back and haunt them. IMO, the site is a 1 time deal....if they couldn't make it work then they go back to the voters for either more $ to make it work or have 204 voters vote on a new site....

[promark]

Sorry if this has been posted, but does anyone have the exact wording of both referenda? (The first one that failed and then the one that passed.)

Aside from possibly showing that the wording was changed intentionally to improve the odds of passage, it would be interesting to know what kind of parameters a referendum's "sponsor" has and whether they are typically tied to the wording. For example, I imagine the ref. could have simply said "Do you vote yes or no to providing $150 million to the SB for building new schools and improving/remodeling existing ones?" If that had passed, the SB would have broad powers to buy and build as it saw fit. On the other hand, it could have said, "Do you vote yes or no to providing exactly $124.6 million, not adjusted for inflation or any unexpected overruns, for the construction of one high school that would hold 2,803 students and would be located at Brach-Brodie, etc." (Didn't Oswego or Plainfield have a single ref. calling for $450 M that encompassed a dozen buildings? Were the specifics of each spelled out?)

I guess my question is whether the proponent gets to choose the wording in order to increase likelihood of success, or does some other department or authority take the request and put it into more general, neutral terms. It would seem unfair if the SB could say "Do you vote yes to provide x number of dollars to make our kids' futures bright by building a beautiful new school?" Or, equally prejudicial the other way, "Do you approve of yet another huge tax increase to pay for more schools that may actually not be necessary?" There have to be standards for these things, right?

[Avenging Eagle]

rural said:

That's a very optimistic view of the case. What's his opinion on their ability to hold up the Smith v. Cherry precedent?

My relative lawyer got back to me with some very interesting information. I have started 2 new threads in the Metea section with some of his findings..

About the Smith vs. Cherry case and other aspects of the nsfoc case, he did not have time to read the entire case but he did have this one suggestion/critique of the nsfoc strategy:

>>
Regarding the instant lawsuit, they should focus on the exact language of the referendum, since that is what the school board was given by the voters (the school board should not be permitted to alter that language after the fact).

Next, I'd review and establish a chronology of the statements leading up to the referendum - they're trying to weasel out of their very public positions - don't let them. If the school board doesn't think their lawyers/consultants can't be sued - see the Belmont school in Los Angeles (which will cost even more money).

I didn't read the Smith v. Cherry case, but it appears to support the equal protection claim under the U.S. Constitution. Federal judges are appointed for their lifetime and they should have considered bring the equal protection claim as the primary relief and the state claims as secondary claims. Federal judges are much more likely to make the right decision and care little about public opinion (which is the proper check on elected officials).<<

I am creating 2 new threads: one on the Belmont case in CA and one on the Fallon leukemia cluster in NV. Thanks to our relative for finding this related information and links.

[sleeplessinnpvl]

mandmmom said:

sleeplessinnpvl said:

I guess it boils down to does the SB have the right to put it whereever they want. They certainly would have the right, after the site was built on BB and they promised us those boundaries, to switch the boundaries around if there was a legitimate reason like sudden overcrowding at one school. So do they have the right to change sites after the referendum if there is a legitimate reason like the site was too expensive? Just don't have the answers.

I appreciate your comments, but I don't think you are comparing apples to apples now. Boundaries and the actual site are not the same thing IMO. Boundaries will change; I actually think they will change again before the new HS opens up....maybe not big changes, but I wouldn't be surprised if they did change after the next election. The site was sold to 204 based on the BB location....if they didn't want to do this then they should have never said that to anyone....I don't think our SB uses good judgment.....they say things that always seem to come back and haunt them. IMO, the site is a 1 time deal....if they couldn't make it work then they go back to the voters for either more $ to make it work or have 204 voters vote on a new site....

I was just using the boundaries as an example of things they have the power to change. Do we legally have the power to control what specific decisions they make? Some school districts don't ask for parental input on things like boundaries and site location. (Now I know why.....)

Also, regarding the promises, I think everyone is mad at MM for being so confident. He very much assured us we would have it, even after the referendum. What everyone is forgetting is that I believe CV reminded us at a board meeting before the vote that the boundaries could change since we don't have the site.

You are also missing the point when you say "if they didn't want to do this then they never should have said that to anyone."
Again, at the time of the referendum they did want to do it. They spent a huge amount of time and money to do this. I don't think anyone can prove that they originally wanted AME but set up this huge fraud scheme to intentionally bait us into believing it would be on BB so they could pay off the jury to come in at an unbelievable price so they would eventually build on a site that was not even really available at the time of the referendum...etc.

[mandmmom]

sleeplessinnpvl said:

mandmmom said:

I appreciate your comments, but I don't think you are comparing apples to apples now. Boundaries and the actual site are not the same thing IMO. Boundaries will change; I actually think they will change again before the new HS opens up....maybe not big changes, but I wouldn't be surprised if they did change after the next election. The site was sold to 204 based on the BB location....if they didn't want to do this then they should have never said that to anyone....I don't think our SB uses good judgment.....they say things that always seem to come back and haunt them. IMO, the site is a 1 time deal....if they couldn't make it work then they go back to the voters for either more $ to make it work or have 204 voters vote on a new site....

I was just using the boundaries as an example of things they have the power to change. Do we legally have the power to control what specific decisions they make? Some school districts don't ask for parental input on things like boundaries and site location. (Now I know why.....)

Also, regarding the promises, I think everyone is mad at MM for being so confident. He very much assured us we would have it, even after the referendum. What everyone is forgetting is that I believe CV reminded us at a board meeting before the vote that the boundaries could change since we don't have the site.

You are also missing the point when you say "if they didn't want to do this then they never should have said that to anyone."
Again, at the time of the referendum they did want to do it. They spent a huge amount of time and money to do this. I don't think anyone can prove that they originally wanted AME but set up this huge fraud scheme to intentionally bait us into believing it would be on BB so they could pay off the jury to come in at an unbelievable price so they would eventually build on a site that was not even really available at the time of the referendum...etc.

I appreciate your comments....but I also don't think they set up a huge fraud scheme....I don't think I implied that...MM did state about the bait and switch (there are plenty mentions of this on the board)....I just don't see the harm in putting this AME site to a vote? They made people think they were voting for the 3rd HS on BB....they couldn't make it work with what they had...so why not vote for either more $ or for a new location??

[sleeplessinnpvl]

mandmmom said:

sleeplessinnpvl said:

I was just using the boundaries as an example of things they have the power to change. Do we legally have the power to control what specific decisions they make? Some school districts don't ask for parental input on things like boundaries and site location. (Now I know why.....)

Also, regarding the promises, I think everyone is mad at MM for being so confident. He very much assured us we would have it, even after the referendum. What everyone is forgetting is that I believe CV reminded us at a board meeting before the vote that the boundaries could change since we don't have the site.

You are also missing the point when you say "if they didn't want to do this then they never should have said that to anyone."
Again, at the time of the referendum they did want to do it. They spent a huge amount of time and money to do this. I don't think anyone can prove that they originally wanted AME but set up this huge fraud scheme to intentionally bait us into believing it would be on BB so they could pay off the jury to come in at an unbelievable price so they would eventually build on a site that was not even really available at the time of the referendum...etc.

I appreciate your comments....but I also don't think they set up a huge fraud scheme....I don't think I implied that...MM did state about the bait and switch (there are plenty mentions of this on the board)....I just don't see the harm in putting this AME site to a vote? They made people think they were voting for the 3rd HS on BB....they couldn't make it work with what they had...so why not vote for either more $ or for a new location??

Yes, in a Camelot-type world with a Camelot-type board, this would probably be occuring. However, the board realilzes the urgency of building the third HS ASAP, whether you agree with them or not. In their eyes I'm sure that putting it to another vote is a waste of time and more of the taxpayers dollars and the delay would further up the price tag. Then if the referendum still came out for AME, we would have wasted another year and more money. The board has proven it's desire to get this built right away so they won't voluntarily do the new referendum. It will have to be up to the court to decide I guess.

[doctorwho]

sleeplessinnpvl said:

mandmmom said:

I appreciate your comments....but I also don't think they set up a huge fraud scheme....I don't think I implied that...MM did state about the bait and switch (there are plenty mentions of this on the board)....I just don't see the harm in putting this AME site to a vote? They made people think they were voting for the 3rd HS on BB....they couldn't make it work with what they had...so why not vote for either more $ or for a new location??

Yes, in a Camelot-type world with a Camelot-type board, this would probably be occuring. However, the board realilzes the urgency of building the third HS ASAP, whether you agree with them or not. In their eyes I'm sure that putting it to another vote is a waste of time and more of the taxpayers dollars and the delay would further up the price tag. Then if the referendum still came out for AME, we would have wasted another year and more money. The board has proven it's desire to get this built right away so they won't voluntarily do the new referendum. It will have to be up to the court to decide I guess.

There' a reason they won't put this up for another vote ( or any other referendum for a vote right now - why do you think A/C went away ? ) - that is the liklihood it will fail - plain and simple. Some of the largest nad heaviest voting areas are those ticked off - and many other large areas are likely a whole lot less interested than last time.


Also let me asked you this -since no one here will answer -- what happened to equal HS experience for all kids.

Do the kids going to Metea that opens without a gym / pool / auditorium / varsity sports / nowhere for the choirs-music groups - get an equal experience ? ( And some get to spend 1.5 hours a day on a bus to get that .. but they might get to view 17 acres of land being remediated / construction vehicles out the wazoo / mud-dirt etc -- How is that equal.


And someone please answer me this -- some of the mopst vocal people against having ANY construction, no matter how minor, going on at BB while the kids were in school due to safety issues are now OK with this situation.

How is that ?