Printable View
against the schoolboard, don't know if it includes SP too or if that's a separate suit...just lists the CEASE members as the plaintiffs, doesn't say Town of St. Paul. Just started reading it and so far it's completely ridiculous, really don't know how this makes it anywhere in the courts, it should be thrown out immediately.
Where are you reading this?
PM me.
They are pinning their hopes on a determination that the WCSB exceeded their legal authority in voting to consolidate. If the SB doesn't have the authority to make that decision, then who does?
Their suit will not go anywhere in the courts unless they find a loophole in the law somewhere. I feel they are wasting their money on a useless lawsuit. We shall see what happens.
Their signatures for the petition, which is an exhibit in this suit, should be thrown out. I haven't counted the names, I will, but I was told there was over 400 when I got it. Only problem with that is that's not 400 different signatures! In a lot of instances, it's one person signing up 3-4-5 people. I know that's fine and dandy with a "symbolic petition" just to get names, but in a court case? I believe a majority of them should be thrown out, seen several kids who signed it and people I know and family of people I know who are 14-15 years old..nothing wrong with that though.
Wanna know the funniest part of it? It's signed by several school board members, you can guess who, they signed a petition to sue themselves. lmao
This suit is about 100 pages long of complete bull, I don't see how this isn't thrown out immediately.
Quote:
Originally Posted by R13
Yep I have had several people bring up the petition alone with the the pic of the Themometure with no point of reference ....
The suit is a grasp for ANYTHING (Throw enough crap and see if anything sticks) I honistly do not think they really expect an injuction and that hand was tipped when one of the board members from the board seemed to punt the issue saying that it would just have to be undone 2 years from now
I'm going to spend a few hours doing some counting, the total number, along with similar signatures I think should be void and also I now notice many didn't sign in the signature spot. There's the "print your name", then address, then checks if you're a parent, grandparant, business owner and tax-paying citizen, then you have the signature of your name...a lot just have the printed name and nothing in that signature box.
But this is definitely a last grasp attempt, what's sad is how much money was donated to this and then the SP issue - 25k doesn't sound like too much but know what the median household income for an appy resident is? $24,837. Pound? $21,972. Thought that was interesting, something I'm thinking of bringing up.
Just read the Coalfield story. My guess is they thought that filing a 411 page document would, by itself, delay consolidating just becase the judge needs to read the whole thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by R13
Quote:
Originally Posted by VHSLhelper
He don't have to read chit, they proved that in DC.
The suit filed against Perry and Thompson today actually has merit...looks like the fight is on.
What was in the suit filed today? Is it from the other 4 SB members?
12 page complaint alegging a ton of asinine things, I'm not seeing where it has any merit at all. And yes it was filed by those 4.
It has nearly a page in the Timesnews. Discusses the validity of the tie breaker, actions taken in the immediate aftermath of Vanessa Perry's (I think was her name) resignation, the handling of District 4, collusion between Perry and Thompson, disenfranchisement of voters, and whether or not Perry and Thompson have exceeded their authority etc etc There is a lot to be sorted out by the courts....and it looks like it's about to get as down and dirty as can be. They need to put it on a ballot and be done with it...Quote:
Originally Posted by 1inStripes
I hadn't went and picked up my paper yet. Will do as I go to work. The problem is, taking it to the ballot does nothing if you are talking about consolidation. I dont think they can legally do that.
On another note, I see Baker has now officially resigned instead of waiting till June, and it includes as SB attorney. Should have happened originally IMO.
It's a long list of bull. From the tie-breaker(which I see not one violation with) to other stuff, probably has in there that "Perry looked at me funny this one time".
Pretty sure it has been stated a thousand times that it cannot legally be put on the ballot/acted on from that vote, that has been repeated at least a dozen times just at the meetings I've attended.
That's the excuse..but you can get anything on a ballot if you go through the proper channels. The reason it has never happened is because the powers that be know that a divisive issue like this would be a close vote...and they don't want to take the chance of getting consolidation plans shot out of the water. But, in fairness, it's the only "right" way to settle the issue. If the vote was to consolidate, the issue would no longer be politicized..and if the vote was to keep the status quo, that issue wouldn't be politicized anymore either. Because the will of the county would be known. The board members from each district can't agree on anything, but in a vote all you need is a majority to have a mandate to proceed as the vote goes. Plus, it would save the county the cost of study after study, law suits, buying out contracts of supers, etc. If that had been done in the beginning, they probably would have saved enough money to pay the county's teachers and support staff for 3-4 years. The pro's or the anti's aren't the embarrassment of the county...the stubborness, lack of foresight, and lack of leadership from our leaders is. We've had years and years of political grandstanding from both sides...and even folks from outside the county trying to get their hands in the cookie jar. It is time to let the people decide.Quote:
Originally Posted by 1inStripes
This isn't board members that say this, it is the counties attorneys, it has been pressed by many citizens several times and been looked into..it's not legal, plain and simple, not a biased opinion from the pro-members on the board.
Legal or not, it would give each of us a true reflection of the will of the people of Wise County one way or another. As far a the school attorney goes...of course he's going to side with the Super...he works under and for him. There are equitable ways to clear up this mess...just people are too arrogant, fearful, or stupid to do it.
It was said by the BOS attorney also, Rivers requested it before and she said the same exact thing, that's what I remember clearly anyway...and it wasn't siding with the super anyway, hard to be biased/lie when you're constantly fact-checked. It would have been jumped all over by the anti's, but there's a reason it's been dropped for the most part by them. With all the lawyers hired with this suit and the debacle of the past few years, it would have been pressed to the max, but it just isn't legal or possible.
They could have a vote that is unofficial but all board members agreeing on voting with what the voters say.
I dunno I guess if they did that it wouldn't be forced to follow any election laws so it would probably be corrupt as hell anyways.
If the legality of it is the question..a law needs to be changed to make it legal. We live in a Democracy, not a dictatorship. We are guaranteed the right to vote for our leaders...and IMO, that's a lot less of a deal than to vote on something as trivial as consolidation of schools at a local level.
Since the SB members all seem to be "hell-bent" on doing what they say the voters want, then why not put it on a non-binding referendum just to see is the SB members are actually voting according to the will of the people.
I am all for consolidation, said that from the get-go. But you all have to admit, some of the plans(not all of therm)were pretty far in outer space. I actually think that if the so called "cram" plan had been implemented 10 years ago, then there would be 3 new, state of the art schools.
It would? You wouldn't be able to find a pork rind or cigarette in Appy after such a vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by sup-rbeast
I don't think you all realize how ballot initiatives work, everything can't be slapped on a ballot and voted on, this is exactly one of those issues. Those are reserved for constitutional amendments and such, not a **** consolidation issue. Not even seeing how this is debatable. The referendum is your vote for that board member and what they support.
You can vote on anything.
I vote that this can't be voted on.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeJones
Me and some buddies voted on it the other nite :)Quote:
Originally Posted by 1inStripes
We live in a Constitutional Republic, we use a democratic process but we do not live in a democracy.Quote:
We live in a Democracy, not a dictatorship.
OK after all the grand standing by BOTH sides what is going to happen?
If the anti side refuses to meet then there is no way to make the dissions that need to be made to consoladate HOWEVER if the PRO side starts engageing in the same tactic then there will be no way to vote to keep all the schools open
Haha...who tha hell eats pork rinds anywayz?Quote:
Originally Posted by NotSoSilentBob
Fried hog skins are a great pregame snack.Quote:
Originally Posted by sup-rbeast
I don't eat that nastiness...lol
I don't think last nights meeting was a protest by the pro members, just wasn't any reason for the meeting. Special called meetings usually means there's a special issue, they just wanted to talk about regular issues, but wanting a change in venue to SP..that's it. I was told Mullins was out of town anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Counts
I think I mentioned this in another thread recently, but it seems appropriate here also. Its my understanding that if the "walk-outs" and "boycotts" continue, then it is possible for someone or possibly a group by petition to appeal to the courts to declare these board members in neglect of their responsibilities as duly elected officials and can call for recall proceedings. Then, we could possibly vote on all the board members at one time and that my friends should be your referendum everyone has been whining for. Sounds like a plan, where do I sign? Maybe then the fighting can stop and something can get accomplished, one way or the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by Counts
Well, that sounds like as good an outcome as voting on the consolidation issue itself. At least now folks know where each board member truly stands and could vote accordingly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Merlin
Looks like the Attorney general indirectly ruled on this last year when there was debate about Rivers and them trying to tell the school board what to do...
"Article VIII, Section 7 of the Constitution of Virginia and 22.1-28 of the Code of Virginia provide that "the supervision of schools in each school division shall be vested in the school board". By statue, school boards are given the responsibility, among other things, "provide for the consolidation of schools".
And his conclusion...
"Accordingly, it is my opinion that a school board is solely responsible whether and how to consolidate schools...."
What Merlin is saying is that without even a quorum, the board can't do its business. For that reason, a group could call for a recall based on neglect of duty...and no one's ruled on that. That, in fact, is a distinct possibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by R13
Huhhh? That was about the lawsuit in the OP.