Ticking off magnet parents and students may have gotten the Wake County school board majority its first legal challenge.
As noted in today's article, many of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit filed Thursday are either magnet parents or students. Anther common theme is their opposition to the changes to the diversity policy being backed by the new majority.
For instance, Enloe High School and Ligon Middle School are well represented among the plaintiffs.
Judith Pidcock is the mother of students at Enloe and Ligon. Colethia Evans is the mother of a Ligon student.
Woody Barlow is a junior at Enloe. David Eisenstadt is a sophomore at Enloe.
Andrew Snee is a freshman at Broughton High, which was demagnetized. He has a younger sibling at Conn Elementary.
Snee and Eisenstadt founded the Student Army of Wake County Facebook page that is organizing the May 18 school board protest.
Gerald Wright is executive director of the Coalition of Concerned Citizens for African American Children. His wife, Calla, is the group's president. As a school employee it would have been difficult for her to be a plaintiff.
I don't know much about Barbara Garlock and Erin Byrd other than the former is a cancer patient and the latter does have children somewhere in the school system.
Barlow said he was so outraged at how the school board handled the March 23 meeting with the ticket policy that he researched the state Open Public Meetings Law. He said he had contacted the ACLU, which told him they were considering their own lawsuit.
Snee said he had been contacted by the ACLU about being a plaintiff.
The crux of the lawsuit is the contention that the board majority knew that turnout would be high but chose not to move the meetings to a larger venue in order to discourage public participation that might jeopardize their plans.
Barlow said the focus of the lawsuit is not the diversity policy but the alleged violation of the state Open Public Meetings Law. But the plaintiffs aren't just asking that the court order the board to move future meetings to larger venues. They're also asking that the March 23 vote on the community assignment directive and the May 4 first reading on the student assignment policy revision be declared void.
Both school board chairman Ron Mariogtta and board member John Tedesco accused the plaintiffs of taking away resources from the classroom to fight the lawsuit. (Since someone will probably note that Margiotta supported the Wake CARES lawsuit, he did encourage the board to not contest that case.)
Tedesco said they'll just revote again if they lose the lawsuit. He said he doesn't expect a different result.
But revotes would back up the process even more for the board majority to impelment community schools. Future legal action could put the process even further behind.

Comments
What about following the law??
Wed, 02/09/2011 - 12:28 — integritypleaseThe gratutiously-added emphasis in this article on "wasted resources" is surprising coming from a newspaper; newspapers historically have been the champions of protecting people's rights under the law, especially sunshine laws like the Open Meetings Law:
"But revotes would back up the process even more for the board majority to impelment community schools. Future legal action could put the process even further behind."
Citizens -- and newspapers -- should be very concerned about violations of the Open Meetings Law. This Board has done several things that violate the letter and spirit of the law. That's the point of the lawsuit. NOT some attempt to cost the county more $$. Suggesting this just stirs up more foment, instead of a focus on the actual issues.
(Bias bias bias.)
expanding enloe electives
Sun, 05/09/2010 - 03:03 — red_balloonNow offered on the menu: Lawsuits and Litigation.
Question:
Fri, 05/07/2010 - 14:01 — louiselee44Keung - are the Committee of the Whole meetings carried live on WRAL, or just the regular Board meetings?
Typically they've been
Sat, 05/08/2010 - 14:25 — ApexterTypically they've been covering the COW meetings as well. I've seen you there!
So, the plaintiffs are
Fri, 05/07/2010 - 13:32 — woodstockSo, the plaintiffs are basically parents and students who sopped up the gravy from the system while everyone else made the sacrifices to facilitate their special portions, now they want to whine and complain because they may have to share their bounty with others. That is very fair-minded of them.
I stand in awe at your way
Sat, 05/08/2010 - 14:24 — ApexterI stand in awe at your way with a metaphor.
Watch Ron ..
Fri, 05/07/2010 - 11:36 — sachivalayLet's watch Ron choose not to fight the lawsuite and save some money or Watch Ron hire his favorite attorney at $$$/hr and blow away system's hard to come money.
Will tell a lot about what is important to him..
So...
Fri, 05/07/2010 - 11:39 — Bob_SconceThe district's insurance will pick up the cost.
After the per suit
Fri, 05/07/2010 - 13:58 — KeungHui (author)After the per suit deductible. It used to be $25K but I don't know if it's changed.
Well, that's interesting
Fri, 05/07/2010 - 14:25 — Bob_SconceAt this point, it appears that the district doesn't have that much to lose -- the first $25K is on the district, but if the district don't fight it, then it loses and has to pay the other sides' attorneys fees. And, judging by the number of attorneys on that complaint, they may have spent the $25K already.
Are you sure that's
Fri, 05/07/2010 - 14:31 — carson79Are you sure that's right?
I thought the plaintiffs said they were not looking for any damages, just action. So why would the Board have to pay attorneys fees?
Yup...
Fri, 05/07/2010 - 14:46 — Bob_SconceThey're claiming attorney's fees -- see P. 33 of the complaint, #6 at the bottom.
Interestingly, if the district wins, the judge can also require the plaintiffs to pay the district's attorney's fees. It's unlikely (attorney fee awards aren't automatic), but possible.
then is it still accurate
Fri, 05/07/2010 - 13:34 — jeannie84then is it still accurate when Margiotta and Tedesco say fighting the lawsuit will take money out of the classrooms?
So...
Fri, 05/07/2010 - 14:30 — Bob_SconceIt's already taken money out of the classroom -- see my post above. If the district doesn't fight it, then it has to pay the attorneys fees of all of the plaintiffs in the case. If the district DOES fight it, then it has to pay the first $25K of its own attorneys fees.
In either case, the lawyers are the only winners here -- JT's right: if the judge says "You need to approve those motions at an open meeting, and your last meeting wasn't open," then the board will just have an open meeting and do it.
Thanks for putting this in
Fri, 05/07/2010 - 16:59 — CaryCurmudgeonThanks for putting this in the right perspective. I was not thrilled with the decision to hire Thomas Farr, but it seems like some of those who wailed the loudest about it have now also cost WCPSS in legal fees.
You're The Last Person
Wed, 02/09/2011 - 20:28 — chaboard...entitled to complain about people costing WCPSS in legal fees.
When there are sue happy
Fri, 05/07/2010 - 13:39 — red_balloonWhen there are sue happy parades, you can bet that the cost of coverage will go up.
The magnet fingerprints were
Fri, 05/07/2010 - 08:35 — red_balloonThe magnet fingerprints were visible after a cursory web search (the parents have been quite active). As for Garlock and Byrd, I wouldn't rule out the following:
- Barbara Garlock could be related to Marie Alisa Garlock (Enloe > UNC).
- Erin Byrd could be on SERA’s Equity and Business Development Issue Team. SERA is funded by the City of Raleigh.
Why are you listing names
Fri, 05/07/2010 - 10:38 — carson79Why are you listing names of people who aren't plaintiffs?
Are you wanting to set rules
Fri, 05/07/2010 - 10:42 — red_balloonAre you wanting to set rules for the blog?
ok let's try this
Fri, 05/07/2010 - 11:00 — carson79ok let's try this again...
why are you listing names of people who aren't plaintiffs?
Start with step 1: why do
Fri, 05/07/2010 - 12:34 — red_balloonStart with step 1: why do you ask?
Why wouldn't you just say a
Fri, 05/07/2010 - 14:06 — carson79Why wouldn't you just say a former Enloe parent?
What magnet schools or programs did you apply to and get rejected from for this year and prior years?
I'm starting to wonder why you would apply to be a part of a program that you hate so much :(
You mean...
Fri, 05/07/2010 - 11:10 — Bob_SconceTwo of the three poeple mentioned are Plaintiffs and the remaining person is believed to be a former magnet student related to one of the Plaintiffs. Isn't the idea to figure out the motivations of the people bringing the suit?
Thanks Bob - my point was
Fri, 05/07/2010 - 14:08 — carson79Thanks Bob - my point was that she should have posted it this way instead of posting unrelated people's names. But it's not like RedBalloon is a model of class or decorum.
I don't think there is any wonder about the motivations of people putting forth the suit - all you have to do is read it!! There's nothing shady about it.
Interesting.
Sat, 05/08/2010 - 14:21 — Apexter"I don't think there is any wonder about the motivations of people
putting forth the suit - all you have to do is read it!! There's
nothing shady about it."
That's interesting. As a supporter for the current board majority, and someone who has been fighting this fight for about a decade, I have heard my own motivations and those of the people I support called into question again and again. Even when we have said in straightforward language exactly what we wanted, instead we we have been subjected to bizarre translations of our intent.
it will be denied
Sun, 05/09/2010 - 02:58 — red_balloon@close scrutiny and armchair psychoanalysis.
Right on Apexter! "Bizarre
Sat, 05/08/2010 - 20:37 — woodstockRight on Apexter!
"Bizarre translations of our intent" - that is excellently stated.
HUH? Once again you talk
Sat, 05/08/2010 - 20:20 — carson79HUH? Once again you talk about things you claim I have done that I have not actually done.
Scrutinize away - tell me again how the motivations are any different than what is listed in the lawsuit??
I am not saying it's not political - heck everything is political! Just I don't get what all the hoopla is over the lawsuit, it's very clear and I can't even get an idea of what secret motives you people are trying to attribute.
Same usual suspects are fighting to halt the process and get more of their side engaged...just as your WakeCARES side did before.
seriously, what is the big deal??
Oh my, you cannot be that
Sat, 05/08/2010 - 20:34 — woodstockOh my, you cannot be that unaware. So that fact that status quo school board members (McLaurin-Meeker, Morrison, Sutton and Hill), several folks who work for Goodmon-financed political action organizations posing as non-profit, non-partisan advocacy groups, and attorneys working for Tharrington Smith may be involved in politically motivated frivolous lawsuits does not register on your stench meter?
It is not about the motive -- that is obvious -- it is about the legalities and ethics of those involved.
what are the legal
Sat, 05/08/2010 - 20:44 — carson79what are the legal violations you are alleging?
These are the same people who've supported the diversity policy all along. Many of them already came out and argued that the Board violated the Open Meetings Law.
What is the new angle you are trying to spin?
LOL New angle? Spin? Keep
Sat, 05/08/2010 - 21:56 — woodstockLOL New angle? Spin? Keep telling yourself that. I guarantee you there are folks not getting much sleep this weekend trying to figure a way out of this.
"Even when we have said in
Sat, 05/08/2010 - 15:00 — danofnc"Even when we have said in straightforward language exactly what we
wanted, instead we we have been subjected to bizarre translations of our
intent."
I think the current lawsuit is the height of stupidity. It is a waste of time and money for everyone involved, from the lawyers to the judge to the media members that have to cover it to the people who read about it in the papers.
I also think it is ridiculous for any group of parents to think that "what they want" should override decisions that are being made for the good of the district. MYR wasn't fun or easy, but it did help get a couple of bond referendum passed, didn't it? Do you think that voters would have passed referendums to build enough schools to keep everyone on traditional calendars?
It is a fairy tale for any of the current majority supporters to suggest that they will sit idly by while their schools make do with less resources and higher class sizes while a high poverty school gets the extra teachers, staff and materials necessary to reach those kids. Yet, that fairy tale is exactly the story we're expected to believe as we race to an assignment policy with NO mention of SES status.
Haven't most of the areas that "bore the brunt" of the MYR conversions had their issues addressed with new school openings? Don't most of them have better traditional opt-out options now? School construction was playing catch-up to population growth, so isn't it logical that the areas that had the most explosive growth would need the extra capacity that MYR provided? If those areas needed the capacity, isn't it logical that the traditional opt-outs weren't close by? Every school in a high-growth area that remained traditional would have meant that many more kids assigned farther away from home. Wasn't that also a big concern?
Until we are shown some real, tangible evidence that high poverty schools can succeed, expect skepticism.
Byrd works for SERA. Garlock
Fri, 05/07/2010 - 10:15 — KeungHui (author)Byrd works for SERA. Garlock has a child in the school system but I don't know if it's Enloe.
taking away resources from the classroom
Fri, 05/07/2010 - 06:53 — HereWeGoThey forget that their supporters sued over MYR?
"They forget that their
Sat, 05/08/2010 - 14:17 — Apexter"They forget that their supporters sued over MYR?"
The WakeCARES lawsuit had a concrete outcome as a goal --- it wanted to force WCPSS to stop mandatory year round assignments, and allow students who were forcibly assigned into a year round school be allowed a traditional calendar option.
This suit had merit, as determined by the judge who overturned the original negative verdict on appeal, and as evidenced by the very close decision that overturned the decision at the higher court level.
The current lawsuit, though, is the equivalent of a SLAPP suit. Even if the suit is successful (which I doubt it will be, as it lacks merit), there is no value in overturning a vote which will just be re-voted in a later meeting. Due to live streaming video of board meetings, which is archived for later viewing, there has never been MORE access to WCPSS board meetings than there is now. What's more, by asking for their attorney's fees to be paid for in the event of a successful suit, these greedy folks will be harming the entire school system by taking away funding that could go to additional teaching positions at a time when the school system is facing unprecedented budget shortfalls.
This malicious suit is being filed for the purpose of obstructionism and the political spin that will come about through the media. I hope that as their true motivations become evident, this turns around and slaps them in the face.
As noted in the article...
Fri, 05/07/2010 - 07:17 — Bob_SconceRon didn't want the school district to fight that battle. While the school district did win in the end, it also ended up doing pretty much what WakeCares wanted.