Letter: Carrie Reynolds Flunks Civics 101

2
1025

Carrie Reynolds (“Govern More, Sue less” Indy, Sept. 18) objects to the costs of Dee Perry’s lawsuit, in which she has been seeking equal civil rights denied by a disgruntled Superintendent and School Board lawyer profiting handsomely by instigating publicly funded litigation. Yet, Reynolds was silent when the Board— relying on bad legal advice from the same lawyer—paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for legal fees in cases decided against LBUSD by state courts.

LBUSD legal costs had increased 300% before Perry brought her self-financed case to defend constituent rights to equal representation. Perry had no choice after the Superintendent and his lawyer devised a scheme to deny Perry the rights and powers of her seat on the board at the discretion of adversarial Board members.

There can be no doubt RBG would have supported Perry’s decision that the public interest was served by taking her claim and cause to the court. RBG believed an independent judiciary is a necessary cost of just governance. Especially when a woman twice elected to play a leadership role stands up to officious bureaucrats contriving to curtail the rights of an “uppity” woman who dared to challenge their power and privilege.

Reynolds takes sides with a contract attorney who thinks stamping “Attorney Client Privilege” on an unethical letter somehow nullifies the right under state law for School Board members to disclose “confidentiality” to challenge “propriety and legality” of secrecy imposed in closed meetings. Reynolds implicitly condones abusive threats by lawyers against Perry for challenging secrecy practices as she is authorized to do under CA Gov. Code Sec. 54963(e)(2).

Reynolds misleads Indy readers by claiming the court’s dismissal order means Perry violated confidentiality rules. Reynolds is too smart not to know the court dismissed it on primarily jurisdictional grounds, not findings of fact and law. Yet she demands Perry confess to a false accusation and promise to be a good “governance partner” with a Superintendent and Board violating her rights. 

After taking cognizance of Perry’s plight and giving her three bites at the apple, the court understandably though disappointingly rationalized dismissal. But only after the Board allowed its resolution that triggered the case to expire without renewal, making the central legal issue moot.

The court dismissed the legal case but left voters to decide the political issues.  That’s the difference between what Reynolds wrote and the truth.     

Howard Hills, Laguna Beach       

View Our User Comment Policy

2 COMMENTS

  1. tl:dr…but, I think I want someone besides Howard Hills to teach me civics. Also, definitely want someone besides Howard Hills obstructing our districts ability to teach.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here