2001

[macrockett]

Just change the last 0 to a 1 and you have the 2011 operating referendum

[a href="http://winsome.cnchost.com/MAC/2001Referendum[1].pdf"]http://winsome.cnchost.com/MAC/2001Referendum[1].pdf[/a]





(Mod edit note: corrected URL because of brackets)

[macrockett]

Ok, it looks like quite a few people have looked at the prior post. There is another piece of information you should know.

Based on the decision of Judge Popejoy, dated May 29, 2008, only in very limited circumstances can your board be held accountable for a single representation (to the extent they later do something inconsistent with such representations) in that prior pfd.

First, if such representations are incorporated into the language on the ballot of the operating referendum.

Second, if you can prove in court that the District "intended to induce reliance on information that was false."

Third, if you attempt to use the argument of equitable estoppel, you can avail yourself to that argument "only in rare and unusual circumstances."

Obviously the conclusions I reach here are given that the facts are substantially the same as those that occurred in the case sited (regarding the representations outside the language on the ballot). See Analysis under 2-615 Motion to Dismiss.


Again, Sashimi, please feel free to add whatever thoughts you have.


winsome.cnchost.com/MAC/Popejoyruling5_29_08.pdf

[Arch]

Excuse the non-lawyer that I am.. but does that basically say that even if they knowingly lied about what they would do with the money, too bad.. what only matters is the language on the ballot itself...?

[macrockett]

Jun 4, 2009 14:47:29 GMT -6 Arch said:

Excuse the non-lawyer that I am.. but does that basically say that even if they knowingly lied about what they would do with the money, too bad.. what only matters is the language on the ballot itself...?

#2 covers that arch, if they represent something they know is false, and you rely on it (and can prove same in court), they can be held responsible.

However, they can make absolute statements like "there is no plan B..." or "its BB or nothing" and unless you can show the original representations they made (i.e., what they were going to do with the money) weren't true and that those original representations were made to induce you to act, you are out of luck.

Best solution is believe only what is in the ballot language, then you are covered. There can be no mistake about that. That goes to ambiguity under b.

[sashimi]

Arch....pretty close.

I believe (going by recollection on this one in that I have not read the opinion in about a year) that Popejoy commented that it would not even have been proper for the District to include a site location in the referendum in that the location is something that is 100% at the discretion of the board, and not subject to referendum.

Thus, Popejoy reasoned that even if the School Board knowingly lied about having any intention of building the school on BB, the voters are assumed to have 1) constructive knowledge that the law provides the Board with the exclusive right to choose a school site and 2) awareness that there was not 100% certainty that the BB land could even be secured.

I actually understood most of Popejoy's logic in his opinion (especially in regards to his comments about the unambiguity of the ballot language). My main disagreement in regards to the logic of his ruling is that I think that there is should have been a legal equitable estoppel remedy available if NSFOC could introduce facts that the Board knowingly lied about its intention to build the school at BB. This is probably moot because I do not think there was any evidence to suggest that this was the case, but I think there is an interesting argument to be made that Howie said that they would pay up to $625,000 an acre if they had to, and they had the ability to purchase the land for a number less than this. However, based on the change of the real estate market at the time that the jury decision came down, hard to classify this as a lie.





Regardless however, I think if you followed Popejoy's logic, even if the District had included a site location on the ballot, it would be non-binding in that this is a decision exclusively left to the Board (and presumably this means that they can not delegate this to the voters).

[sashimi]

Also (reading Mike's comment above refereshed my memory), I do think that the Board stating that the it was BB or nothing and that the referendum was to build a third high school at BB could be construed as misrepresentations when they go ahead and do something different (especially given that they did have the right to purchase the land).

Popejoy's explanation (I think for the logic to work) is back to what I stated above...that the District is not allowed to delegate the location decision in a referendum.

[macrockett]

Jun 4, 2009 15:55:45 GMT -6 sashimi said:

Arch....pretty close.

I believe (going by recollection on this one in that I have not read the opinion in about a year) that Popejoy commented that it would not even have been proper for the District to include a site location in the referendum in that the location is something that is 100% at the discretion of the board, and not subject to referendum.

Thus, Popejoy reasoned that even if the School Board knowingly lied about having any intention of building the school on BB, the voters are assumed to have 1) constructive knowledge that the law provides the Board with the exclusive right to choose a school site and 2) awareness that there was not 100% certainty that the BB land could even be secured.

I actually understood most of Popejoy's logic in his opinion (especially in regards to his comments about the unambiguity of the ballot language). My main disagreement in regards to the logic of his ruling is that I think that there is should have been a legal equitable estoppel remedy available if NSFOC could introduce facts that the Board knowingly lied about its intention to build the school at BB. This is probably moot because I do not think there was any evidence to suggest that this was the case, but I think there is an interesting argument to be made that Howie said that they would pay up to $625,000 an acre if they had to, and they had the ability to purchase the land for a number less than this. However, based on the change of the real estate market at the time that the jury decision came down, hard to classify this as a lie.





Regardless however, I think if you followed Popejoy's logic, even if the District had included a site location on the ballot, it would be non-binding in that this is a decision exclusively left to the Board (and presumably this means that they can not delegate this to the voters).

I think that is right Sashimi regarding the site selection (although there seemed to me somewhat of a circular argument used by Judge Popejoy in that they did select BB and made the absolute representations as to that, before the vote, which were relied on in inducing the vote, but no use on rehashing that one), but here I am talking about the operating referendum to come as we know it will so the facts are a bit different as they would be applied to that rather than the site selection.

[Arch]

Jun 4, 2009 15:55:45 GMT -6 sashimi said:

...

I actually understood most of Popejoy's logic in his opinion (especially in regards to his comments about the unambiguity of the ballot language). My main disagreement in regards to the logic of his ruling is that I think that there is should have been a legal equitable estoppel remedy available if NSFOC could introduce facts that the Board knowingly lied about its intention to build the school at BB. This is probably moot because I do not think there was any evidence to suggest that this was the case, but I think there is an interesting argument to be made that Howie said that they would pay up to $625,000 an acre if they had to, and they had the ability to purchase the land for a number less than this. However, based on the change of the real estate market at the time that the jury decision came down, hard to classify this as a lie.
...

So, something like this antique probably didn't matter ?

[rew]

What is that boundary map from Arch? Why does it say 2005-2006??

[macrockett]

rew, I believe that was part of the Boards "wishlist" created long ago...

[doctorwho]

Jun 4, 2009 20:48:29 GMT -6 rew said:

What is that boundary map from Arch? Why does it say 2005-2006??

Voila ! Plan B

or maybe Plan A ??


add in the screw job done on Owen West in the night of the long knives and here you have it - fast forward to post AME selection. They worked long and hard on these boundaries we have now you know - oh brother...

[rew]

What are the "North Campus" labels pointing to?? And the red shaded area is not labeled? Only blue for NV, green for WV?? So what did the red mean back in 2005??

[doctorwho]

Jun 5, 2009 13:39:07 GMT -6 rew said:

What are the "North Campus" labels pointing to?? And the red shaded area is not labeled? Only blue for NV, green for WV?? So what did the red mean back in 2005??

One has to assume it meant the boundaries for a 3rd HS and the two locations were potentials then, since it is the exat color coding used afterwards. The movement of the school to the north end of 204 was not a recent brainstorm -- the question is was it the plan all along ?
We kept asking for plan B -- was BB not plan B ?

On of the sites was where the Michaels / Menards s now and the other is a little further south of todays location.

( Even then they likely viewed the current property as unacceptable )

[rew]

It certainly seems like they knew what they wanted, and figured out a way to get it!

[doctorwho]

Jun 5, 2009 14:56:26 GMT -6 rew said:

It certainly seems like they knew what they wanted, and figured out a way to get it!

I've yet to hear an explanation for that map -- likely still working on it