Letter: Response to superintendent’s letter on lawsuit
On Jan. 22, Superintendent John Stafford of Madera Unified School District wrote a letter to the opinion page of the Madera Tribune in which he tried to raise the anger of the citizens of Madera by explaining the cost of the litigation regarding the establishment of district elections in the unified school district. By explaining his bewilderment at the cost, he tried to “sell” to the readers the concept that MUSD was totally cooperative with the concept, planning and execution of the plaintiffs desire to establish district elections. Had MUSD done this, they would have saved Madera schools a lot of money but, as those who have followed the case closely know, that never happened. His letter is full of misrepresentations and half-truths.
Stafford is correct when citing that we had some top-notch law firms, the Lawyer’s Committee for Civil Rights and another which has offices overseas and a Seattle University professor well known for his work in voting rights issues. Yes, MUSD understood we had some of the very best working with us on this issue. Despite that knowledge, the district ignored two written threats to sue from these lawyers leaving them no choice but to do just that.
He next states that “Although Madera Unified did not agree with the allegations in the lawsuit, the district did not oppose it, preferring instead to “devote resources to education, not litigation.”
Not so. If they had, they would have had the same or close to the same success that Hanford School District had in limiting exposure to attorney’s fees that could otherwise be devoted to education. MUSD stated in court that this was a business decision. If you look closely at their actions, you will see that if that was the case then they made some BAD business decisions that led to them to the point where they are today; having to explain themselves with half truths. It is called “damage control.”
Superintendent Stafford, in his first paragraph, states, “This demand comes despite Madera Unified’s cooperation in an expedition of the claim brought to them.”
Please, Superintendent Stafford, show some sense that you respect our intelligence. Cooperation means you worked with the other party to resolve the issue. In reality, you fought us all the way until the County Board of Education committee refused to rubber stamp your acceptance of map number one of the three you presented at the board meeting. The people of this community can read. They read The Madera Tribune. It was well reported that Madera Unified opposed our contention the illegal elections not be held. The people read that the court mandated that Rebecca Martinez, Madera County Clerk, not validate the school board elections.
Just imagine had you ceased your desire to continue the fight. After all, it makes good business sense. Think of the money you would have saved. Just from that point it would have been hundreds of thousands of dollars. Had you decided to acknowledge us, when our concerns were first presented, even more money would have been saved! In fact, you would have avoided paying any attorney’s fees because no suit would have been filed if you had responded to either of the two letters our attorneys sent.
Later in court, the judge acknowledged to you and MUSD that we were very close in our ideas and for both sides to work together and come to a quick resolution. After the court hearing, we were expecting to sit down with you and MUSD to settle the remaining issues.
But no, you and your team decided to exclude us and came up with your now infamous three maps. More money, big money spent. Here come our attorneys, back to a meeting, of which we had been informed of just one or two days before. At the meeting we acknowledged to you and the MUSD what we felt. Map one violated federal law and that we would follow through with further state or federal court action. And not to my surprise the MUSD board voted on map one, again making our team start preparations for more litigation federal court. More money spent.
Your attorneys and your demographers presented your case to the committee. We actually felt you wanted the committee to vote on the map that night. That’s when I went to the podium and spoke to the committee to the fact that they had just been presented with a lot of information and needed time to decipher it all. All of this time our attorneys are working on paperwork to address the issue in federal court.
Money did not need to be spent had you and MUSD invited us to the table to work towards a solution from the beginning. Only when the committee refused to rubber stamp your decision on map 1 did you and MUSD decided to invite us to a phone conference a couple of days later.
Now I ask you Mr. Superintendent, tell the people of Madera, how long did it take you, MUSD and our team to come up with a solution? Hours. Hours, not days, not weeks, not months … hours.
Just imagine, Madera, had these businessmen made this simple business decision before litigation was commenced when they had ample notice, or at the beginning or even after the judge had stated in court that from what he read in the attorney’s briefs, it looked like we had a strong case. Just think of all the money your business-oriented school board would have saved.
Citizens of Madera, we can have a debate as to the value of district elections vs. at large elections. But when the superintendent tries to raise your anger with half-truths and misrepresentations, we have to set the record straight.
Everything we stated can be proven with research. Anyone can go to the Madera Tribune, the courts and MUSD and ask for the minutes of the board meetings and the County Board of Education Committee meeting.
Superintendent Stafford says that they, he and MUSD, do not understand why we did not approach the district directly to engage in a civil discourse over our concerns. Nothing they said, nor any action they took indicated to us that they would act in good faith if we had “approached” them. There were many times that they could have taken and shown strong leadership and ended the process and maintain a hold, and control the cost of the litigation. Instead, for whatever reason, they chose a different path.
As for the final cost, there is a process. MUSD negotiates with our attorneys and if they cannot come to an understanding, then the court will make a determination.
Carlos Uranga, Jesse Lopez and Esther Rey,
Madera
