Union County Public Schools redistricting (Waxhaw, McDonald: exercise, damages, contracts)

[BubbaHelms]

Originally Posted by WaxhawMike

Really?... no. At a minimum, courts consider reasonable expectations (which has been debated here previously... see the woman awarded $1m for spilling unreasonably hot coffee on herself) and due process. The 14th amendment has reasonableness plastered all over it. At a maximum, courts hold elected officials to a standard of upholding oaths and core values. Compliance to law is one measure of accountability but not the only measure, especially for elected bodies.

You mean debated by you here before. Courts decide matters of law not matters of "expectation." Courts don't care about upholding "core values."

[nchammer]

Originally Posted by BubbaHelms

You mean debated by you here before. Courts decide matters of law not matters of "expectation." Courts don't care about upholding "core values."

Courts can and will impose injunctions while matters of law are reviewed

[BubbaHelms]

Originally Posted by nchammer

Courts can and will impose injunctions while matters of law are reviewed

Here are the relevant statutes if people would like to read them.


§ 143-318.9. Public policy.
Whereas the public bodies that administer the legislative, policy-making, quasi-judicial, administrative, and advisory functions of North Carolina and its political subdivisions exist solely to conduct the people's business, it is the public policy of North Carolina that the hearings, deliberations, and actions of these bodies be conducted openly. (1979, c. 655, s. 1.)

§ 143-318.16. Injunctive relief against violations of Article.
(a) The General Court of Justice has jurisdiction to enter mandatory or prohibitory injunctions to enjoin (i) threatened violations of this Article, (ii) the recurrence of past violations of this Article, or (iii) continuing violations of this Article. Any person may bring an action in the appropriate division of the General Court of Justice seeking such an injunction; and the plaintiff need not allege or prove special damage different from that suffered by the public at large. It is not a defense to such an action that there is an adequate remedy at law.
(b) Any injunction entered pursuant to this section shall describe the acts enjoined with reference to the violations of this Article that have been proved in the action.
(c) Repealed by Session Laws 1985 (Reg. Sess., 1986), c. 932, s. 3, effective October 1, 1986. (1979, c. 655, s. 1; 1985 (Reg. Sess., 1986), c. 932, s. 3.)

§ 143-318.16A. Additional remedies for violations of Article.
(a) Any person may institute a suit in the superior court requesting the entry of a judgment declaring that any action of a public body was taken, considered, discussed, or deliberated in violation of this Article. Upon such a finding, the court may declare any such action null and void. Any person may seek such a declaratory judgment, and the plaintiff need not allege or prove special damage different from that suffered by the public at large. The public body whose action the suit seeks to set aside shall be made a party. The court may order other persons be made parties if they have or claim any right, title, or interest that would be directly affected by a declaratory judgment voiding the action that the suit seeks to set aside.
(b) A suit seeking declaratory relief under this section must be commenced within 45 days following the initial disclosure of the action that the suit seeks to have declared null and void; provided, however, that any suit for declaratory judgment brought pursuant to this section that seeks to set aside a bond order or bond referendum shall be commenced within the limitation periods prescribed by G.S. 159-59 and G.S. 159-62. If the challenged action is recorded in the minutes of the public body, its initial disclosure shall be deemed to have occurred on the date the minutes are first available for public inspection. If the challenged action is not recorded in the minutes of the public body, the date of its initial disclosure shall be determined by the court based on a finding as to when the plaintiff knew or should have known that the challenged action had been taken.
(c) In making the determination whether to declare the challenged action null and void, the court shall consider the following and any other relevant factors:
(1) The extent to which the violation affected the substance of the challenged action;
(2) The extent to which the violation thwarted or impaired access to meetings or proceedings that the public had a right to attend;
(3) The extent to which the violation prevented or impaired public knowledge or understanding of the people's business;
(4) Whether the violation was an isolated occurrence, or was a part of a continuing pattern of violations of this Article by the public body;
(5) The extent to which persons relied upon the validity of the challenged action, and the effect on such persons of declaring the challenged action void;
(6) Whether the violation was committed in bad faith for the purpose of evading or subverting the public policy embodied in this Article.
(d) A declaratory judgment pursuant to this section may be entered as an alternative to, or in combination with, an injunction entered pursuant to G.S. 143-318.16.
(e) The validity of any enacted law or joint resolution or passed simple resolution of either house of the General Assembly is not affected by this Article. (1985 (Reg. Sess., 1986), c. 932, s. 1; 1991, c. 694, s. 8.)

[WaxhawMike]

Originally Posted by BubbaHelms

You mean debated by you here before. Courts decide matters of law not matters of "expectation." Courts don't care about upholding "core values."

I can't believe that any educated person in this country would ever make a statement like "courts decide matters of law"... really? Courts interpret law and it's applicability in certain situations. They also concern themselves with matters of justice, and absolutely matters of justice include looking at due process, protection of the public at large, and holding elected officials accountable.

If you don't think they look at expectation please explain "reasonable expectation of privacy", "consumer expectation", and "doctrine of reasonable expectations". Do all or any of these particular examples related to this lawsuit... probably not. But, they certainly prove my point about the courts concerning themselves with what a reasonable person (who is not trained in the law) would expect and how the laws and courts protect said "reasonable person".

So, if you want to come back with facts and have a logical debate, I'm all for it. If you simply want to toss out assumptions and self serving statements with no backing other than cute Smilies, go for it but you are just making yourself look silly.

[MikeyKid]

Originally Posted by BubbaHelms

The Facilities Committee didn't create the proposal. The UCPS Administrative staff created the redistricting plan.

You're being too "literal" here.

The concern is relative to the parameters, metrics, and decision making that went into creating the proposal - not the proposal itself. It was approved by 4 board members coming out of the committee. Don't fall into that same old trap of thinking there's a formal "process".

[BubbaHelms]

Originally Posted by WaxhawMike

I can't believe that any educated person in this country would ever make a statement like "courts decide matters of law"... really? Courts interpret law and it's applicability in certain situations. They also concern themselves with matters of justice, and absolutely matters of justice include looking at due process, protection of the public at large, and holding elected officials accountable.

If you don't think they look at expectation please explain "reasonable expectation of privacy", "consumer expectation", and "doctrine of reasonable expectations". Do all or any of these particular examples related to this lawsuit... probably not. But, they certainly prove my point about the courts concerning themselves with what a reasonable person (who is not trained in the law) would expect and how the laws and courts protect said "reasonable person".

So, if you want to come back with facts and have a logical debate, I'm all for it. If you simply want to toss out assumptions and self serving statements with no backing other than cute Smilies, go for it but you are just making yourself look silly.

Read the statues. Here's another smiley for you.

[BubbaHelms]

Originally Posted by MikeyKid

You're being too "literal" here.

The concern is relative to the parameters, metrics, and decision making that went into creating the proposal - not the proposal itself. It was approved by 4 board members coming out of the committee. Don't fall into that same old trap of thinking there's a formal "process".

I don't know what trap you are talking about. The UCPS Administration makes recommendations to the BOE. The BOE then approves them or doesn't approve them. That's the process.

[waxhawdoc]

Originally Posted by MikeyKid

It's really about where the "good old boy networking" is... The law seems pretty straight forward to me - the Superintendent can redraw the lines with BOE approval. That's the gist of it and anything else is playing in places that are not clear enough. I watched an episode of Law and Order - once... and that's the extent of my specific knowledge with regard to the legitimacy of the complaint. But at the end of the day, if you're arguing they didn't follow "guidelines" or "process", I have no idea why anything would be actionable by a court. Is misleading the same as outright lying? Is doing a $#@! poor job grounds to stop the whole thing?

The whole process of the facilities committee creating a proposal to bring the BOE is where I have issue. There is zero stakeholders in that process outside administration acting under direction of 4 board members. There's no transparency - no feedback from the community - it has the outside appearance of a chop shop led by the fab 4. There should have been some iterative work to the maps with a rezoning of this size... it's too big to nail down perfect from caps + facilities committee "training" in November to the maps that came out on Jan 14th. Minus the holidays, how many official days did they work on it?

The schools and their board acted within their limits and scope, and were much more transparent than they've been in years. The Arp-Davis roadshow was much more stagecraft and even more opaque. Four working on this one seems like an improvement - and keep in mind that it is a committee (a committee to develop a plan to bring to the whole board for a vote). I see less conspiracy and more representative democracy.

The board and superintendent gave specific goals and timeframe for the development of a reassignment plan - the committee/administrative staff met those goals and deadlines. (Can't believe i'm saying it: government worked this time!). For those looking for death-by-committee, only filling the room with FB demagogues and conspiracy bloggers would satisfy. It seems those 'stakeholders' are the ones that wrote this lawsuit.

The courts will throw out the garbage claims in the suit (just looks like legal creative writing with irrelevant innuendos like ...I saw Board members passing notes at meetings!...). Probably enough verbiage to invoice CAPS for $5K... can someone read it more closely and figure out where these 'secret' board meetings were alleged to take place? Nonsense!

The FOIA claims can be easily separated and considered on their own without relevance to the redistricting plan. I suspect they may gain more traction, but to what end?

None of this makes me any happier, my kid was crying this afternoon about changing schools and leaving friends behind. This suit is still garbage.

[bigdaddyd]

I really do hate to say it but the only person coming out of this happy will be the lawyer who scammed these parents into thinking they have a case. There were public hearings and a significant amount of input, whether or not the BOE listened is irrelevant. If they had never discussed this thing and voted, then maybe...but its been all over the news for over a month. The decision to vote a month before they had indicated they would vote was a poor PR move, but I cannot imagine a judge will care. While it is a shame the BOE took this path, it is well within their authority. ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES. Go check out your new school folks...you better get used to it.

[MikeyKid]

Originally Posted by BubbaHelms

I don't know what trap you are talking about. The UCPS Administration makes recommendations to the BOE. The BOE then approves them or doesn't approve them. That's the process.

Originally Posted by waxhawdoc

The schools and their board acted within their limits and scope, and were much more transparent than they've been in years. The Arp-Davis roadshow was much more stagecraft and even more opaque. Four working on this one seems like an improvement - and keep in mind that it is a committee (a committee to develop a plan to bring to the whole board for a vote). I see less conspiracy and more representative democracy.

The board and superintendent gave specific goals and timeframe for the development of a reassignment plan - the committee/administrative staff met those goals and deadlines. (Can't believe i'm saying it: government worked this time!). For those looking for death-by-committee, only filling the room with FB demagogues and conspiracy bloggers would satisfy. It seems those 'stakeholders' are the ones that wrote this lawsuit.

The courts will throw out the garbage claims in the suit (just looks like legal creative writing with irrelevant innuendos like ...I saw Board members passing notes at meetings!...). Probably enough verbiage to invoice CAPS for $5K... can someone read it more closely and figure out where these 'secret' board meetings were alleged to take place? Nonsense!

The FOIA claims can be easily separated and considered on their own without relevance to the redistricting plan. I suspect they may gain more traction, but to what end?

None of this makes me any happier, my kid was crying this afternoon about changing schools and leaving friends behind. This suit is still garbage.

To be clear I'm not talking about any validity in the context to the lawsuit... or envelopes in folded newspapers (like I've said before) and slush funds. Everything does not have to be so all on one side. It's like the twilight zone of nobody admitting there's a middle here and they could have done a much better job.

All I'm referring to is the facilities committee is a terrible part of the 'process' (and I use that term loosely). Whether it was improvement or not from the past, it was far from transparent - legal... yes - completely above board... no. It was a blackbox of insert "generic requirements" and new lines were spit out. There's no conspiracy, just plain old lousy pretend procedure that needs significant improvements.

P.S. It's not good government when elected officials are walking out on a vote. Regardless of where you assign that blame.