tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post4342929221449014826..comments2024-03-28T02:21:17.452-07:00Comments on Seattle Schools Community Forum: "Ethics Discussion" on Pro Bono in Times ArticleMelissa Westbrookhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17179994245880629080noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-36712882314720329252007-09-19T10:03:00.000-07:002007-09-19T10:03:00.000-07:00There is no transfer right unless the school recie...There is no transfer right unless the school recieves Title I funding. Summit K-12 is the only school in the District that has a high school program that is Title I and is in School Improvement. I don't think Summit actually would be in AYP if you only looked a 9-12, but OSPI lumps together a whole school.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-62166157156782000722007-09-18T23:09:00.000-07:002007-09-18T23:09:00.000-07:00Still confused and, Still waiting for answers from...Still confused and, <BR/><BR/>Still waiting for answers from Governor Gary Locke, the Education Governor and partner at DWT.<BR/><BR/>Thougt the Times story was weak.<BR/><BR/>How PICS can do this under a 501(c)(3) tax designation? Political activities hugely verboten.<BR/><BR/>Whether PICS or DWT will share their fee agreement (and any changes) and/or minutes of their non-profit organization with the rest of us?<BR/><BR/>Whether DWT will put the "Pro Bono" donation in writing?<BR/><BR/>Whether the Alliance will step forward and ask for this fee application or recovery from DWT as a donation? <BR/><BR/>Why the fee application is before the 9th Circuit instead of the local Judges where we can all go down to the beautiful new courthouse at 7th and Stewart and see democracy in action? <BR/><BR/>Whether anyone has requested oral argument before the 9th Circuit and it is being scheduled here in Seattle so we can go watch.<BR/><BR/><BR/>The Case No. under 9th Circuit Website on Pacer - http://pacer.ca9.uscourts.gov/ - <BR/>US Govt's website <BR/>is: Court of Appeals Docket #: 01-35450 Filed: 5/14/01<BR/>Case Summary <BR/> Court of Appeals Docket #: 01-35450 Filed: 5/14/01<BR/> Nsuit: 3440 Other civil rights (Fed)<BR/> Parents Involved, et al v. Seattle School Dist, et al<BR/> Appeal from: Western District of Washington (Seattle)<BR/><BR/>Couldn't get the docket to print up the actual scanned electronically filed documents like it does in the local system??? How come?<BR/><BR/>Can someone help plase - law firm minion, leah, court watcher? <BR/><BR/>But here is the docket printout recently cut and pasted below: <BR/><BR/>8/14/07 Filed Parents Involved's request for clarification as to<BR/> when a cost bill and/or mtn for attys fees may be filed ;<BR/> served on 8/14/07 EN BANC PANEL [01-35450] (crw)<BR/> <BR/> 8/21/07 Received Michael Madden for aples letter dated 8/17/07 re:<BR/> response to aplts ltr dated 8/14/07. FEDEX TO PANEL<BR/> [01-35450] (crw)<BR/> <BR/> 8/22/07 Order filed: This case was remanded to us from the USSC.<BR/> See Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School<BR/> District No. 1, 127 S.Ct. 2738 (2007). In light of the<BR/> Supreme Court's decision, we VACATE our opinion in Parents<BR/> Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District<BR/> No.1, 426 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2005) (enbanc) and REMAND to<BR/> the district court for further proceedings. ( Terminated<BR/> on the Merits after Oral Hearing; Remanded; Written,<BR/> Signed, Published. Heard en banc; Mary M. SCHROEDER,<BR/> Harry PREGERSON, Alex KOZINSKI, Andrew J. KLEINFELD,<BR/> Michael D. HAWKINS, William A. FLETCHER, Raymond C.<BR/> FISHER, Richard C. TALLMAN, Johnnie B. RAWLINSON,<BR/> CONSUELO M. CALLAHAN, Carlos T. BEA ) [01-35450] (crw)<BR/> <BR/> 9/5/07 Filed order (Deputy Clerk: mcd) The due dates for filing a<BR/> cost bill and mtn for atty's fees are respectively, 14 days<BR/> and 28 days of entry of the 9th Circuit's judgment. FAXED<BR/> [01-35450] (gar)<BR/> <BR/> 9/5/07 Filed Appellant Parents Involved bill of costs for $4950.15<BR/> , served on 9/5/07 [01-35450] (crw)<BR/> <BR/> 9/5/07 Filed Appellant Parents Involved's motion to for attys fees<BR/> in the amount of $1,704,816.00 served on 9/5/07 [6280614]<BR/> [01-35450] (crw)<BR/> <BR/> 9/13/07 MANDATE ISSUED costs taxed against aples Seattle School<BR/> Dist for $2482.10 [01-35450] (crw)<BR/> <BR/> 9/17/07 Filed Appellee Nancy Waldman, Appellee Michael Preston,<BR/> Appellee Jan Kumasaka, Appellee Steven . Brown, Appellee<BR/> Donald Neilson, Appellee Barbara Schaad-Lamphere, Appellee<BR/> Joseph Olchefske, Appellee Seattle School Dist response<BR/> opposing appellant's motion for attorneys' fees [6280614-1]<BR/> served on 9/12/07 (PANEL) [01-35450] (bb)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-89761836700058894662007-09-18T09:23:00.000-07:002007-09-18T09:23:00.000-07:00Law firm minion and Annie are correct. A read of t...Law firm minion and Annie are correct. A read of the entire Supreme Court ruling shows that a majority support Brown v Bd. of Ed. and did not want to dismantle it, nor did they think they were doing so. Rather, they thought they were clarifying Brown so that school districts couldn't throw together any kind of integration plan. Remember, this ruling was speaking to the country, not simply Seattle and Louisville. The narrowly-tailored rule that the Supreme Court put in place for higher ed exists in some fashion now for K-12.<BR/><BR/>It is also laughable, in a ghastly way, to hear Mrs. Brose talk about civil rights as she remains cloistered in one of the most segregated neighborhoods in the city. If she at least once acknowledge the legacy of discrimination that has led to the poorly-resourced schools in the South End, I think I might actually consider her point. Alas, not.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-24437954387562025222007-09-18T07:48:00.000-07:002007-09-18T07:48:00.000-07:00Anon-If you talk to anyone who knows this field at...Anon-<BR/><BR/>If you talk to anyone who knows this field at all, they will tell you that Annie is exactly right. <BR/><BR/>The Court didn't take the Lynn case (which presented the same issue) when Justice O'Connor was on the bench, and didn't take the PICS case when Justice O'Connor was on the bench. It was only after she retired and the composition of the court changed that the PICS case was accepted.<BR/><BR/>I think the real point is that the SSD was doing what years of case law and US Dept of Ed orders told them to do, which undercuts DWT's arguement of fees as punishment to desuade future action by others.<BR/><BR/>The real point is that DWT is doing something very slimy, and hopefully after the light has been shown on it, they will make a better decision.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-59512989664305530672007-09-18T00:02:00.000-07:002007-09-18T00:02:00.000-07:00Annie - Your argument reminds me of the story "The...Annie - Your argument reminds me of the story "The Emperor's New Clothes".<BR/><BR/>You cannot cloak discrimination no matter how hard you try.<BR/><BR/>You don't know how Justice O'Connor might have ruled in this case.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-62624534426569174112007-09-17T14:59:00.000-07:002007-09-17T14:59:00.000-07:00I am sorry, Ms. Brose is wrong."It sends a message...I am sorry, Ms. Brose is wrong.<BR/><BR/>"It sends a message to the school district that, if they're going to violate their students' civil rights, there are repercussions to their actions," she said. "The school district got themselves in this pickle." <BR/><BR/>No one has ever concluded that the District violated a single student's civil rights. The court just ruled that the tie-breaker system was not narrowly tailored enough.<BR/><BR/>And, given that the District was follow 50+ years of case law, and the only reason that the case went against the District was the retirement of Justice O'Connor, this is not a case in which punishing the students of Seattle will "teach" other goverment actors to not do anything.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-24622093118152570882007-09-17T14:50:00.000-07:002007-09-17T14:50:00.000-07:00Self-insured is a fancy way of saying that the Dis...Self-insured is a fancy way of saying that the District pays the first million no matter what. This is a civil rights case, insurance will not cover any of this, because insurance is only for things like accidents.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com