In San Francisco, Virus is Contained but Schools Are Still Closed

[David Lockmiller]

(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.