Letter: Schools hit with $1.2 million claim (Jan 22)
Madera Unified officials, already concerned about sustaining critical programs and supplies for its 18,500 students faced with an unprecedented budgetary shortfall, are reeling from a recently received demand that it pay attorneys’ fees of approximately $1.2 million. This demand comes despite Madera Unified’s cooperation in and expedition of the claim brought to them.
In August 2008, the Madera Unified School District was served with a lawsuit filed by the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of San Francisco, the law firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and Seattle University Law School Professor Joaquin Avila on behalf of Madera residents Maria Esther Rey, Jesse Lopez and Carlos Uranga. The lawsuit claimed the at-large method by which our governing board members are elected was in violation of the California Voting Rights Act. In short, the lawsuit asserted that “the District’s elections diluted the ability of Latino residents to elect candidates of their choice to the school board, or to influence the outcome of a school board election.”
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. Since receiving the lawsuit, Madera Unified has been working diligently to transition from an at-large election method, where all of the voters of the district vote on board members, to a by-trustee area election method, where voters are divided into geographic trustee areas and board members are elected only by the voters that reside in the same trustee area. We anticipate a by-trustee election system to be used for a special governing board election in either May or June of 2009.
While Madera Unified values the voices of its constituents, the challenge to its election system necessitated a request of the State Board of Education to waive the citizens’ right to vote on the matter of whether or not to shift to a by-trustee election system.
At its January 7-8, 2009, meeting in Sacramento, the State Board agreed to grant Madera Unified’s request for a waiver, thus opening the way to a special governing board election in May or June of 2009.
Despite this cooperation, the plaintiffs’ attorneys have submitted a demand for fees of approximately $1.2 million.
Our main regret and dismay throughout this process is that the plaintiffs and their attorneys opted to file a lawsuit against the district rather than approaching the district directly to engage in a civil discourse over their concerns. While Madera Unified received vague and threatening letters from the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights in the spring and over the summer of 2008, the claims in those letters were unsubstantiated, and the Lawyers’ Committee never indicated they represented any Madera residents. We were unaware these plaintiffs had concerns over the District’s election method until we were served with the lawsuit. In fact, we were not aware of who the plaintiffs were until the lawsuit was delivered to our offices.
It is important to note that under California law, there are other methods — not necessitating a lawsuit — that could have brought the trustee area issue to the district’s attention at a minimal cost. One such method would have been to take the matter directly to the Madera County Committee on School District Organization with a petition containing fewer than 150 signatures or request the County Committee to initiate a study.
Unfortunately, the plaintiffs never sought a solution through Madera Unified or the Madera County Committee. Instead, they retained attorneys from San Francisco and Los Angeles and filed a lawsuit against Madera Unified that, based upon other avenues available through state law, was completely unnecessary.
It is also important to note that Madera Unified never opposed the preliminary injunction to de-certify the November 2008 election results. The district, on its own, voluntarily moved toward the formation of trustee areas without any court mandate requiring us to do so. Yet, the plaintiffs’ attorneys are requesting Madera Unified pay them legal fees in the amount of over $1 million. Based on our non-opposition to the lawsuit and the speed with which we formed our voting areas, the fees being requested are unreasonable.
Even more troubling is that this request for legal fees comes at a time when our district, like school districts throughout the state, is facing an extremely bleak budget forecast. A state budget deficit of $42 billion will mean reductions and cutbacks for Madera Unified. As the financial picture grows darker, it becomes more and more difficult to properly fund the programs that shape our students’ educations and futures.
With the difficult times we are facing as a backdrop, we find it very unfortunate that plaintiffs are now requesting the district to pay the exorbitant sum of over $1 million in legal fees. We are acutely aware of the importance of ensuring that our limited resources are devoted to the education of children, not taking them out of the classroom to pay for litigation. Every dollar diverted to the plaintiffs’ attorneys is a dollar that could have been spent on classroom materials, sports and music programs, facilities, student meals and transportation, the hiring or retaining of teachers and staff, and every other aspect of educating the district’s students. Such a result could hardly be said to benefit the plaintiffs or the constituents they purport to represent, not when their concerns could have been addressed at virtually no expense to them, and relatively minor expense to the district.
Madera Unified has made it clear throughout this process that it does not take issue with the creation of trustee areas or the transition to by-trustee area elections.
However, being asked to pay over $1 million in legal fees that serve to financially benefit a Seattle law professor, attorneys from a Bay Area law firm and a global law firm representing the plaintiffs when Madera Unified schools are already staring at unprecedented budgetary shortfalls is extremely disconcerting, particularly when litigation was not necessary based upon other available recourses.
John R. Stafford,
Superintendent
Madera Unified School District
After reading this posting regarding the attorney bill that MUSD has received makes me wonder what the plaintiffs are thinking. If these individuals are so concerned about our school district and the education that our kids are receiving, why in the world would they think that this is a benefit to our kids. How selfish and sad, that with the way our economy is today, are these individuals who have the nerve to bill MUSD 1.2 million dollars.
Right now our schools are having to cut funds that are crucial to the proper education of our children. As members of various boards and parent groups within various schools in MUSD, it is frustrating to see that now additional money will be taken away from the schools and given to greedy attorneys, some lawsuit happy professor and individuals that care more about having power than our children’s education.
It is just sad that these plaintiffs could not just go through the proper chain of command in voicing their concerns regarding the election process. This just shows that the plaintiffs concerns definitely is not helping the schools and students, but rather for more selfish and egotistical personal reasons. The last thing we need our students learning is that you can skip the proper steps for making something happen and chose to do whatever you want, no matter what the cost.
I hope that these greedy people somehow see the light and the error of their ways and retract this ridiculous 1.2 million dollar claim because that it what is right for MUSD and for our kids. Unfortunately my faith in the plaintiffs, and the people associated with them, is almost non-existent.
This is because Junior Jesse Lopez doesn’t care about Madera, Madera Unified or your kids. I hope everyone remembers this when he pushes his canidates for election. Maybe the school board should find another property to buy for the third high school and not use Senior Jesse Lopez’s? Maybe the school board should tell Senior Jesses we can”t afford his property because of what his son has done with this lawsuit? Don’t forget Madera!
Madera Unified School District needs a lot of reform, problem students are often thown out of school without a second thought, instead of being worked with by counselors and teachers. they are handed over to the already crowded secondary schools, without thought by Madera unified school district. Principals should not be able to make these decisions, they are often quick to make these decisions because they don’t want to deal with the student themselves. They are unfair to the parent as well as the student, and parents often are not told when there student has been called to the office and questoined by a teacher or other school staff.
Parents should always have the option of being present when a child is questioned by anyone, its violate their civil rights, and the parents. The Madera school distict does this often to children and thier parents without a thought, and its wrong.