Have a Google Account?
If you have a google account, be it gmail, or any other account, it is easy to post comments under your account name and then be notified when you receive a reply! Give it a try!
Charter Lawsuit Dismissed
An appeal filed by two Laupahoehoe teachers and funded by the HSTA, trying to prevent the charter from opening this fall, was dismissed in court Wednesday. To read all about it, follow the link below to the Hawaii Tribune Herald article.
So that's good, right?
ReplyDeleteYes. Somewhat expected, and very good!
DeleteSteve Strauss's comment on the stakeholder issue was somewhat odd, since the issue in court was never the stakeholder issue, but whether or not the HSTA members had a right to appeal the most recent BOE decision that overturned the CSRP ruling that delayed the opening of the charter by a year. Reading his comment made me wonder if he knew why he was in court in the first place.
ReplyDeleteThe stakeholder issue HAS been the issue ever since the "CSRP ruling that delayed the opening of the charter school by a year"
DeleteThe CSRP's ruling to delay, was because the Local School Board elections had not been held by September of 2011.
The BOE overturned the CSRP's decision because the stakeholders who had the right to vote in the LSB elections had not yet been identified.
Andrea Wilson, and Robert Beekman, who sought to reverse the BOE's decision in the hearing described above, had their appeal dismissed because "These (they) are not stakeholders. These (they) are not people who would be deprived of their rights of school board elections..." said Steve Strauss.
The trail lawyer drug him there, that's why he was there.
ReplyDeleteExactly. But the judge didn't rule on the stakeholder issue at all...he simply ruled that the appellants lacked standing to appeal the BOE decision, since they did not participate in the BOE meeting where the decision was made. (The BOE did not allow them to attend the meeting, but that was not a legally determining factor.) I also find it interesting that you noted that the CSRP ruling was to "delay"--in fact, you are correct. However, the ILSB went to the BOE to appeal that decision on the grounds that the decision was "revocation" of the charter. The BOE actually has no standing to appeal a "delay" decision, only a "revocation" decision.
ReplyDeleteStakeholders were the issue, as I depicted above. The Judge may not have ruled on an issue with "stakeholder" in the title, but the "stakeholder issue" was a big part of the grounds for the BOE decision which was what was being appealed in court.
Delete(That was Steve Strauss's quote that you mentioned, not a quote of the ruling judge--as far as I know, Steve never addressed the court)
ReplyDeleteI mentioned Steve's quote because he was the subject of the comment I was replying to. Whether or not he addressed the court was irrelevant.
DeleteI know I'm belaboring the point, but I think you aren't clear on the whole thing. First of all, there was no "lawsuit"--there was simply a motion to dismiss the latest BOE overturning of the CSRP decision. Secondly, the stakeholder issue, while it may have been on the mind of the BOE, was NEVER addressed in court at all. Furthermore, the judge did not even consider the merits (or lack of merits) to the appeal. He ONLY ruled on whether or not people who were not present at the BOE meeting where the decision was made had standing to appeal that decision. To say that the judge considered the stakeholder issue is completely inaccurate and a total misrepresentation of the hearing. Not that it matters, since about 95% of the teachers are leaving, and there will be nobody left to disagree with anything the ILSB does. I'm not even sure the CSRP is going to bother checking off the mandatory assurances that every other charter school has been held to, since the BOE has proven that they will simply override anything the CSRP says or does. Really not the best way to "convert" a school...so much for the "transition year." More like the "hand over the keys to the school" moment.
ReplyDeleteI am not an expert in matters of law. I am only someone trying to provide the community with the most up to date, accurate information that I can find. I do this in the hopes that people will, little by little, stop listening to ridiculously absurd proclamations and speculation sprinkled throughout the population by a select few.
DeleteI have titled my post "Charter 'Lawsuit' Dismissed" because this is the exact title of the Hawaii Tribune Herald article that I have referenced and linked in my post. If you do not agree with the wording of the title you can argue that point with the Hawaii Tribune. However, naming it differently will not change the verdict.
You seem to have completely missed my reply higher up. I do not see why you still argue a point that I agree with. I agreed that stakeholders may not have been mentioned in court at all. I simply made the point that Steve's stakeholder comments which you (if you are the person who wrote the comments higher up, which I suspect you are by your tone) dismissed as "odd", were valid, even if the latest court hearing did not mention them, or need to use this fact in deciding a verdict.
Lastly, I personally know several of these 95% of teachers that you claim are leaving because they disagree with what the ILSB does. In fact, many are leaving simply because of the way the DOE treats employees who switch to charter schools. Many believe that it a better decision for them to stay with the DOE career-wise. This is fine. There are many many applicants who would like to work for a charter school waiting to replace these positions.