|
|
Post by Arch on May 14, 2008 8:55:20 GMT -6
Sean Collins filed his response to the District's motion to dismiss yesterday (I just finished reading it). It is brilliant! Is there a link to this motion? I couldn't find one on this board. Thanks 3 docs here: winsome.cnchost.com/204/dismiss_motion/ |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on May 14, 2008 8:56:06 GMT -6
If you had read the motion to dismiss carefully enough, you would understand that the district never said it mislead or delivered untruths. According to the circumstances at the time, everything in those documents was true. Unfortunately, circumstances changed. They did not say they specifically did, but they are arguing that even if they did, they broke no law and it is permissible. |
|
|
|
Post by sashimi on May 14, 2008 9:00:18 GMT -6
If you had read the motion to dismiss carefully enough, you would understand that the district never said it mislead or delivered untruths. According to the circumstances at the time, everything in those documents was true. Unfortunately, circumstances changed. I agree the District did not admit to lying...it just spent a great deal of time arguing that it is 100% acceptable if they did lie to the voters. Not that you should remember all of my brilliant posts, but I agree with in regards to the District intentionally lying to the public (and have written the same a couple of times). I do not think that the District or Board lied about the fact that the referendum was to build the school at BB and I doubt that there was a conspiracy by the District (or even a contemplation of this as a possibility) to switch sites. However, I believe that the law requires that the myriad of statements made by the District with the specific intent to induce certain voters to vote yes (and the fact that it used taxpayer money to represent unequivocally that the referendum was to build a school on the BB site) prohibits the District from using the bonds authorized by the voters to build a school anywhere else (this would require a new referendum). I also agree with the District's argument that the District has total discretion to choose where a school is to be located (and this decision is not something that would be required to be voted on). However, the District speficially and deliberately decided to tie the referendum to specific boundaries and the specific BB land location, and by representing unequivocally that the referendum being presented was to build a third high school on the property located at 75th street and Commons Drive, it locked the referendum into this location. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on May 14, 2008 9:04:04 GMT -6
Shashimi.. I believe there were some members who were all too happy to take advantage of a situation and hijack it with a personal agenda, but I agree, there was no 8 member conspiracy (board + super) to do the whole thing start to finish the way it worked out.
Now, if there was, I will tip my hat to them at the basket it took to pull something like that off.
|
|
|
|
Post by rural on May 14, 2008 9:40:39 GMT -6
I think SAM2 is looking for Collins' Response. I know that's what I'm looking for.  |
|
|
|
Post by sam2 on May 14, 2008 9:41:05 GMT -6
Thanks, Arch. I asked the wrong question. I was looking for Collins' reply to the district's motion. The document that Sashimi referenced |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on May 14, 2008 9:52:36 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by capecod on May 14, 2008 9:55:07 GMT -6
That is correct. For the first two years until MVHS is all four years, WVHS will be tight. This would be the case regardless of which property the school was built on. Thanks Rural, I will not be affected by it but everyone who I talk with that have kids either going into WV or have kids there already seem not to be happy with the Freshman campus being taken away. They like the idea of a separate campus for various reasons and feel it will be extremely over crowded. |
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on May 14, 2008 9:56:38 GMT -6
Shashimi.. I believe there were some members who were all too happy to take advantage of a situation and hijack it with a personal agenda, but I agree, there was no 8 member conspiracy (board + super) to do the whole thing start to finish the way it worked out. Now, if there was, I will tip my hat to them at the basket it took to pull something like that off. agreed. When the jury verdict came back it probably took several months for those with a personal agenda to convince the others that this big new mess was their idea.... |
|
|
|
Post by slp on May 14, 2008 10:44:00 GMT -6
I didn't read through Collins reply in its' entirety (I am running out soon) but someone please tell me that NSFOC included the letter from Howie Crouse which talks about how a change of site would be unfair etc. etc. Isn't that a major piece of evidence? That letter , IMO, is definitely more than just political rhetoric. It is an assurance from the very person we should have been able to trust as an informed and reasonable voter.
|
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on May 14, 2008 10:56:28 GMT -6
HEY! Calling someone a nincompoop in the paper is not legally "public ridicule" is it?! Wonder if Scotti can find some case law on that one?
|
|
|
|
Post by WeBe204 on May 14, 2008 11:34:40 GMT -6
That is correct. For the first two years until MVHS is all four years, WVHS will be tight. This would be the case regardless of which property the school was built on. Thanks Rural, I will not be affected by it but everyone who I talk with that have kids either going into WV or have kids there already seem not to be happy with the Freshman campus being taken away. They like the idea of a separate campus for various reasons and feel it will be extremely over crowded. I think the idea is the Freshman Center concept will still exist for WVHS. The center will be housed in the main building. The overcrowding issue is a function of the time it takes to transition population to the new campus. Moving grades over faster into a complete facility would cause unrest. It is understandable students would want to finish were they start. Even if that issue could be worked an accelerated transition program is not possible since MVHS will not have all of its facilities at opening. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on May 14, 2008 11:43:20 GMT -6
For some of our kids, there won't be an equitable high school experience. A lot of the big proponents for it will not have kids there going through that time and some won't even have kids in the school at all... yet we only hear about how those against it won't have kids there.  |
|
|
|
Post by capecod on May 14, 2008 19:18:20 GMT -6
I don't know if anyone has heard but Shawn Collins will be on Channel 2 news regarding the AME site. It will be on Thursday @ 10:00PM - Channel 2 with Dave Savini (hope I spelled that right)
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on May 14, 2008 19:47:57 GMT -6
AME? Really???
I thought this episode was about the landfill stuff.
|
|
