Letter: Govern More. Sue Less.

1
685
Share this:

Dee Perry, after failing twice, is suing our school board for a third time. LBUSD has been tentatively granted, for the third time, a motion to dismiss Dee’s lawsuit against the district. These lawsuits cost our district money and time  When a disgruntled board member endorses a candidate like Sheri Morgan on their social media, I wonder if we are headed to years and years of more lawsuits ahead if these people get elected?  Disgruntled shouldn’t be a platform for running for school board. Dee Perry needs to start being a governance partner, admit she shared confidential information on email and just move on. 

Carrie Reynolds

Share this:
Firebrand Media LLC wants comments that advance the discussion, and we need your help to accomplish this mission. Debate and disagreement are welcomed on our platforms but do it with respect. We won't censor comments we disagree with. Viewpoints from across the political spectrum are welcome here. While everyone is entitled to their opinion, our community is not obliged to host all comments shared on its website or social media pages, including:
  • Hate speech that is racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic slurs, or calls for violence against a particular type of person.
  • Obscenity and excessive cursing.
  • Libelous language, whether or not the writer knows what they're saying is false.
We require users to provide their true full name, including first and last names, as a condition for comments. We reserve the right to change this policy based on future developments.

Scroll down to comment on this post.

1 COMMENT

  1. Carrie Reynolds flunks Civics 101

    Carrie Reynolds (“Govern More, Sue less” Indy, Sept. 18) objects to costs of Dee Perry’s lawsuit, seeking equal civil rights denied by a disgruntled Superintendent and School Board lawyer profiting handsomely by instigating publicly funded litigation. Yet, we heard no fiscal restraint noises from Carrie in recent years when the Board – relying on bad legal advice from the same lawyer – paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees in cases decided against LBUSD by state courts.

    Indeed, litigation costs had increased 300% before Perry brought her low budget case seeking protection of her constituents’ right to equal representation on the Board. 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 other Board members.

    As someone who knows this case and the juridical philosophy of Justice Ginsburg, there is little room for doubt RGB would have supported Perry’s decision the public interest was served by taking her claim and cause to the court. RBG believed courts are a necessary cost of governance and independent judicial oversight is imperative, 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.

    Indeed, Reynolds agrees that an “Attorney Client Privilege” stamp nullifies the right under state law for an elected School Board member to release information otherwise “confidential” in order to challenge the “propriety and legality” of secrecy imposed in any closed meeting. In doing so, Reynolds takes sides with the misuse of secrecy powers and abusive threats in a letter to an elected Board member who challenged secrecy practices as authorized under
    CA Gov. Code Sec. 54963(e)(2).

    Reynolds then misleads Indy readers claiming the court’s dismissal of her case means Perry violated the confidentiality prohibition in Sec. 54963(a)(1). On that basis, Reynolds demands Perry confess to false accusation, and promise to be a good “governance partner” with the Superintendent and Board.

    This is simple intellectual dishonesty, because Carrie is too smart not to know the court dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, not a finding of law and fact. After showing concern for her plight by giving her three bites at the apple, the court understandably though disappointingly rationalized dismissal, but only after expiration of the Board resolution that triggered the case made the central legal issue moot.

    Accordingly, the court cut the legal case loose, and left voters to decide the political issues. That is the difference between what Reynolds wrote and the truth.

    Howard Hills

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here