(04-04-2021 06:57 PM)Rob Wick Wrote:  No kidding.

But other than you, and a few people here, I don't see a groundswell of people just clamoring to tilt this windmill with you.

Best
Rob

The following is from my post #142 above:

The latest tweet from Paul Scott, the attorney suing the San Francisco School Board:

The Lowell Alumni Association, Mission High School Alumni Association and Balboa Alumni Association are joining us as petitioners in our action challenging the SF School Board renaming resolution. Alums from all SF high schools on the renaming list have now joined our case!

What part of this tweet from Attorney Paul Scott do you not understand, Rob? It sounds to me like all of these people referred to in the paragraph immediately above want "to tilt this windmill." That's three San Francisco high school Alumni Associations and an unspecified number of "Alums from all SF high schools on the renaming list."

I'm talking nationwide David, not San Francisco. Given the political bent of most people out there, I imagine more support the renaming than oppose it.

You act like these lawyers are legal gods and their words are gospel. I've been around enough lawyers to know how fallible they are. But nothing I say has penetrated your mind yet, so it seems we both like to tilt at windmills.

Best
Rob

(04-04-2021 09:12 PM)Rob Wick Wrote:  I'm talking nationwide David, not San Francisco. Given the political bent of most people out there, I imagine more support the renaming than oppose it.

You act like these lawyers are legal gods and their words are gospel. I've been around enough lawyers to know how fallible they are. But nothing I say has penetrated your mind yet, so it seems we both like to tilt at windmills.

Best
Rob

What do you think is going to happen in Chicago when Mayor Lightfoot announces that Abraham Lincoln Elementary School in Chicago has to be renamed for just and fair cause? Established in 1871, Abraham Lincoln Elementary School, a Chicago Public School, has been in existence for 149 years.

Did you just call me a windmill?

As the late United Nations ambassador Jeane J. Kirkpatrick once said to me in an interview, "I never answer hypotheticals." When, and if, it happens I ask me then.

Best
Rob

(04-04-2021 01:51 PM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  WHEREAS: The Board is deeply grateful for the work of the Panel, but wishes to avoid
the distraction and wasteful expenditure of public funds in frivolous litigation.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Board rescinds Resolution 211-12A1
adopted on January 26, 2021; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the Board shall revisit the matter of renaming
SFUSD schools, including reauthorizing the Panel, or similar Advisory Committee, consistent
with its Rules and Procedures, only after all students have returned to in-person learning for 5
full days each week.

I was given “60 seconds” to express my opposition against the Resolution to rename Abraham Lincoln High School and all 44 schools recommended by the Advisory Committee at the January 26, 2021 public Zoom meeting.

Would 3 minutes the next time be satisfactory, in the eyes of the court, to satisfy the provisions of the Brown Act if there is a later lawsuit?

Do not declare victory, yet.

Ironically, it is the taxpayers of San Francisco who must pay for the defense of the San Francisco Board of Education actions. The Abraham Lincoln High School Alumni Association and many other enlisted plaintiffs are the ones who must pay the legal fees for the concerned plaintiffs (unless attorney Paul Scott works pro bono).

Welcome to the world of the judiciary.

I've got news for you David. If the lawsuit is ever refiled, and then thrown out, the plaintiffs will likely have to cover the board's legal fees in addition to their own. That's what happens when someone files a frivolous lawsuit.

Best
Rob

(04-05-2021 07:32 PM)Rob Wick Wrote:  I've got news for you David. If the lawsuit is ever refiled, and then thrown out, the plaintiffs will likely have to cover the board's legal fees in addition to their own. That's what happens when someone files a frivolous lawsuit.

Best
Rob

"Reinforcing the impression that the board has learned little from these experiences, its resolution also reiterates that it is “deeply grateful” for the slapdash work of its renaming committee."

Quote from today's Editorial in the San Francisco Chronicle: The San Francisco school board just might do something right

But what do newspaper people know?

San Francisco School Board Reverses Decision to Rename Schools
(Fox News article)

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/san-fra...me-schools

The following is the encapsulated reporting of the Los Angeles Times:

San Francisco school board suspends renaming of public schools

San Francisco's Board of Education voted to suspend the renaming of a third of the city's public schools it said honored figures linked to slaveholding, colonization or oppression.

The vote comes after the decision to rename 42 schools honoring individuals such as Abraham Lincoln, George Washington and Sen. Dianne Feinstein set off a political furor that subjected the school board to local and national ridicule. The school board is expected to return to the renaming issue later - after students are back in classrooms full time.

---

(04-07-2021 06:16 AM)Gene C Wrote:  San Francisco School Board Reverses Decision to Rename Schools
(Fox News article)

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/san-fra...me-schools

The Fox News story begins in the following manner:

Abraham Lincoln and George Washington have been reprieved in San Francisco.

The city’s school board voted unanimously Tuesday night to reverse a "cancel culture" decision made months earlier to remove names deemed to be connected to racism, slavery, or oppression from 44 schools in the area, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

The San Francisco Board of Education said it wanted to avoid "frivolous litigation" from a current lawsuit.

[I had to add the following statement from Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe.]

"I’m definitely on board that sometimes names ought not to be preserved," Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe, who signed on as a plaintiff, told The Chronicle. "I think it goes dangerously far when the Great Emancipator [Abraham Lincoln] is treated as insufficiently woke."

(04-06-2021 09:12 AM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  

(04-05-2021 07:32 PM)Rob Wick Wrote:  I've got news for you David. If the lawsuit is ever refiled, and then thrown out, the plaintiffs will likely have to cover the board's legal fees in addition to their own. That's what happens when someone files a frivolous lawsuit.

Best
Rob

"Reinforcing the impression that the board has learned little from these experiences, its resolution also reiterates that it is “deeply grateful” for the slapdash work of its renaming committee."

Quote from today's Editorial in the San Francisco Chronicle: The San Francisco school board just might do something right

But what do newspaper people know?

S.F. schools renaming fight isn't over.

For those, like Rob Wick, who can’t get enough of the San Francisco Schools Renaming issue, there is this:

S.F. schools renaming fight isn't over. Plaintiffs demand lawsuit not be called 'frivolous'

The fight over the San Francisco school district’s effort to rename 44 schools isn’t over yet even though the school board has reversed course.

A lawyer representing plaintiffs in a lawsuit that prompted the board’s reversal is calling on the district to amend that resolution to remove language deeming the lawsuit “frivolous.”

In a letter to the school board’s attorney on Friday, attorney Paul Scott also asks the board to make out checks for $1,000 to each of six nonprofits that acted as petitioners in the case. In exchange, he said, the plaintiffs will dismiss the lawsuit and not seek any further legal fees.

The district did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The school board’s April resolution called the lawsuit “nothing more than a transparent attempt to thwart a lawful and duly-noticed action with which it disagrees,” and continued to say that the board “wishes to avoid the distraction and wasteful expenditure of public funds in frivolous litigation.”

It was passed largely in reaction to the litigation, which alleged that the board violated the Brown Act, the state’s open meetings law, because the public agenda item said only that the board would decide on a list of potential schools to be renamed. A San Francisco superior court judge ruled in March that the district had to either rescind the vote, or show why it shouldn’t have to.

In a letter to the board’s attorney, Scott wrote that his firm has incurred 200 hours in fees and other costs. While the board’s resolution technically complies with the judge’s order, Scott said, it has “still failed to take genuine responsibility for its own missteps, which is unbecoming of a governmental body, sets a bad example for our City’s schoolchildren, and is wasteful of taxpayer resources.”

If the school board does not amend the April reversal and pay the nonprofit organizations in the case, including five alumni organizations and the San Francisco Taxpayers Association, the law firm will “simply proceed in the normal course to collect our fees and costs as permitted by statute.”

Board members have said they intend to revisit the initiative after schools have fully reopened, probably in the fall. The board had already suspended work on the renaming initiative in February to focus on school reopening. While some parents and students celebrated the initial vote, saying it was hurtful to wear the names of racists on school sweatshirts, others decried the decision for failing to consult experts and lacking historical accuracy.

In a statement following the vote, board President Gabriela López acknowledged mistakes were made, and promised a “more deliberative process moving forward, which includes engaging historians at nearby universities to help” with future discussions.

The following is the end of the two-page letter sent by Attorney Paul Scott to opposing legal counsel:

After all that has transpired, the Board has thus still failed to take genuine responsibility for its own missteps, which is unbecoming of a governmental body, sets a bad example for our City’s schoolchildren, and is wasteful of taxpayer resources. Accordingly, our firm presents the Board with two alternatives:

Alternative one. The Board provides our office with the following:

1. A commitment on behalf of the Board by April 23, 2021 to adopt a third amended resolution that withdraws the last two whereas clauses in the second amended resolution (Resolution No. 214-6A1), which falsely allege that petitioners’ suit is frivolous. ([See below] Footnote 1.)

2. Checks in the amount of $1,000 made out to each of the nonprofit entities that acted as petitioners in this case. The five alumni associations all provide support and assistance to San Francisco school kids. The San Francisco Taxpayers Association is dedicated to protecting the interests of San Francisco Taxpayers. Each of these organizations has incurred time and inconvenience in having to participate in this case as petitioners.

If the Board accepts the foregoing offer, we can dismiss the case and will not seek any further amounts from the Board for our fees and costs incurred to date.

Alternative two. If the Board declines alternative one and fails to provide a credible reason why it is unable to accept as a matter of law, we will simply proceed in the normal course to collect our fees and costs as permitted by statute.

We are genuinely hopeful that the Board, with the aid of advice from counsel, will at last take full responsibility and elect the first alternative.

Sincerely,

Paul D. Scott

Footnote 1. The offending whereas clauses read as follows:

“WHEREAS: Petitioners’ lawsuit is nothing more than a transparent attempt to thwart a lawful and duly-noticed action with which it disagrees; and

WHEREAS: The Board is deeply grateful for the work of the Panel, but wishes to avoid the distraction and wasteful expenditure of public funds in frivolous litigation.”

San Francisco Board of Education Resolution No. 214-6A1

Absolute twaddle. The lawsuit was frivolous. I doubt checks are in the mail. But what do newspaper people know (other than how to be succinct in making a point)?

Best
Rob

S.F. schools Superintendent Vincent Matthews agrees to stay if board behaves
San Francisco Chronicle by Jill Tucker
April 18, 2021Updated: April 18, 2021 6:45 p.m.

Here is an example of "how to be succinct in making a point." The following are the first four paragraphs of the story by the San Francisco Chronicle's education reporter:

When San Francisco public schools Superintendent Vincent Matthews agreed to stay on the job for another year just a month after announcing his retirement, he didn’t ask for more money. He demanded that the school board behave.

The seven-member board is expected to vote on an amendment to Matthews’ contract Tuesday, which would make it a contractual obligation for the school board to be prepared for public meetings and refrain from creating new programs or mandates unrelated to reopening schools until they are fully back to in-person learning.

The new contract would also shift the balance of power to the superintendent, giving him nearly full discretion over hiring and firing.

Matthews announced in March that he would retire at the end of this school year, but rescinded that this month. The terms related to his remaining on the job were unknown — until now.

If I was an independently elected board member I would tell Matthews to shove it. Only the voters have the right to curtail the power of an independently elected board. Sounds like a power grab by the superintendent.

That said, I do agree that anything outside of reopening the schools to in-person learning needs to wait until after schools reopen. If the board is guilty of anything right now, it's being ham-handed in its approach. But being human often doesn't come with especial wisdom.

Best
Rob

"Woke People" who themselves live in "glass houses of character" should not be throwing stones at President Abraham Lincoln's character and reputation. That's my opinion.

Alison Collins and her husband illegally merged two S.F. apartments, city says