Disqus

Friday, October 05, 2012

Carr Recall

The Seattle Times is reporting that Rita Green has filed a petition for the recall of School Board Director Sherry Carr based on Director Carr's support for the original Creative Approach School Memorandum of Understanding.

Recalls are allowed only in cases in which the elected official is guilty of wrongdoing or has violated the oath of office. Case law and precident might set an even higher bar that requires the elected official to have knowingly violated their oath of office.

This recall turns on how the original MOU delegated to the superintendent the authority to waive District policies without specific Board approval.

The irony here, of course, is that the superintendent is always free to ignore any District policies at any time. The Board is both unwilling and unable to enforce any policies.

11 comments:

Nick Esparza said...

Recall Marty McLaren and and Harium Martin-Morris Michael DeBell

James Madison said...

Actually, a recall of a public official turns on whether there has been fraud or an arbitrary, unreasonable misuse of discretion.

Chandler v. Otto, 103 Wash. 2d 268, 275, 693 P.2d 71, 75 (1984).

If the recall petition (which I have not seen) is based on her vote on the MOU, is there an allegation that she engaged in some fraudulent conduct?

If the allegation is that she voted for an MOU that was later to have been found to be invalid, couldn't she say she relied on the advice of the district's attorney?

Wouldn't relying on the district's attorney be a reasonable use of discretion?

My prediction is that that the recall petition does not make it past the superior court judge.

Anonymous said...

I don't understand this recall.

It was not until after Carr voted that a judge ruled the board could not approve something that gave away its powers. So before that wouldn't Carr have just been conjecturing?

Perhaps I am missing a bigger story behind the story, because it seems that recalls are often because of a built up list of complaints about the official. Is this the case here?

"Confused"

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Sherry has a right to be defended by district lawyers. The standard for recall likely has not and will not be met by this type of allegation. The sentiments behind it may well be valid. There are many, many valid criticisms of the board and district and I see why Rita filed it, but the reality is that it's going to take Rita's time, Carr's time, and I'm guessing around $25,000 worth of district legal fee time. This is a good example of political action that may bring about unintended consequences.

Lawyer

ConcernedSPSParent said...

25K$ LOL, you and Carr have something in common, you live in a fact free world. Why not ask the district what the estimated cost is and post it?.

Arturo said...

Another lame recall attempt that will not be successful. Talk about wasting public money (the courts time).

Anonymous said...

The long line of expensive waste of resources on court expenses continues - Math Book Whiners, TFA hand wringers, now this. Pot shots are easy, too bad they are so expensive.

-parent

Charlie Mas said...

When you're counting people who fought the District in court, don't forget the folks who live around Ingraham who tried to save the forest there. That delayed the project and sucked up legal time.

There was also contention and legal time taken up by folks who tried to make the District preserve Longfellow Creek when the District was building the New Denny.

Then there's the cost of responding to all of those public document requests. The Seattle Times is the number one requester of public documents from the District.

Transparency is a lot cheaper than secrecy for public institutions.

mirmac1 said...

Yeah, parent, let's all sit back and do nothing. Maybe we'll get MGJ back? That's what do-nothings deserve, no?

dan dempsey said...

The difficulty in getting authorization by the Superior Court is that in addition to the legal statutes involved the courts rarely like to prevent business as usual.

case in point 1:

In my attempted recall of Randy Dorn, I stated that he violated a State Law written expressly for him.

6696 Reqired Mr Dorn to submit a detailed report on or before Jan 1, 2011 to the house education committees in the Senate and the House concerning costs and other factors involved in the adoption of the Common core state Standards.

He did not do it. He was 30 days late which impacted the public's ability to respond to the Common Core State Standards. The cost of the CCSS largely comes from local district funds and the cost is equivalent to hiring 300+ teachers annually for 5 years.

The Superior Court found that Mr. Dorn did not violate the law.

Here is the original filing=>
http://www.school-truth.com/dorn.html

It should be noted that Mr Dorn was 30 days late .... He submitted the report less than a week before the important house hearing. The four days after the meeting Rep. Brad Klippert of the House Ed Committee dropped a bill to delay the adoption of the CCSS for at least two years. .... His bill never got a hearing as House Ed Chair Sharon Tamiko Santos refused to give it a hear as "Mr Klippet's bill was not submitted in a timely fashion."

FIXED SYSTEM ... public locked out on this one...

Good Luck Rita. It seems that Carr and several others were advised by Chris Jackins in Testimony that they were violating state law with this action. The law was clear and they went ahead anyway. .... Good Luck getting Superior Court to see this.

When public officials violate laws ... they should have recall actions filed against them... Win or Lose at least the Board will know Rita is paying attention.

As to those who say ... what about McLaren, Martin-Morris, and DeBell you are certainly free to file recalls for each of those members.

=====
Also District Lawyers are not defending Board Members in recall proceedings ... the SPS hires outside legal help.