The Yellow Medicine East school district has some questions to answer thanks to a summons and complaint that was delivered to YME school board member Tim Opdahl last Wednesday. The legal paperwork was prepared by attorney Dustin Cross from the New Ulm-based law firm of Gislason & Hunter LLP, on behalf of Scott Wintz and Patrick McCoy, both of Clarkfield. The Yellow Medicine East school district is required to answer the complaint within 20 calendar days.
YME Superintendent Al Stoeckman indicated that he did not have prior knowledge of the summons being served; however, it was not totally unexpected. Stoeckman had received a letter dated January 6, 2010 from Cross. The letter explained that the law firm represented a group of citizen taxpayers and stated, “My clients are strongly opposed to the School District’s attempt to fund over $12 million in facilities upgrades through the use of the Alternative Facilities Bonding and Levy Program.” The letter went on, “If approved, YME’s use of the Alternative Facilities Bonding and Levy Program would be contrary to law, and the avenue of recourse my clients would have to pursue would include litigation against YME and potentially the Minnesota Department of Education (MDE).”
The recent complaint states factual background and two counts. The background focuses on three motions passed by the school board that made it possible to move forward with a plan to make approximately $14 million in building improvements to the YME High School and Bert Raney Elementary School buildings.
According to the complaint, the first motion, approved at a special school board meeting on October 26, 2009 authorized the Superintendent to enter into and sign an energy agreement with Energy Services Group (ESG).
The second motion, also passed at that same meeting approved and authorized the execution of a professional services agreement with ESG to assist YME in gaining approval from the MDE for the use of the Alternative Facilities Bonding Levy Program (Alternative Facilities Program) which is provided by Minnesota law. The complaint alleges that of the approximately $14 million in costs relating to the Project the board is attempting to fund approximately $11,600,000 through the Alternative Facilities Program.
The third motion in the complaint, also approved at the special meeting , directed the Superintendent to submit all required application materials to the MDE to gain approval for the use of multiple funding programs, including the Alternative Facilities Program.
The complaint alleges that the Board was informed of taxpayer’s concerns and that the Board has not changed its mind and is placing a 20-year tax burden on the YME taxpayers without seeking taxpayer approval. The complaint also alleges that the taxes will place severe economic hardship on the Plaintiffs and on all YME taxpayers; that funding for the project must be approved by YME voters by a referendum according to the provisions of Chapters 123A and 123B of the Minnesota Statutes and finally, the complaint also alleges that neither the Board nor YME is able to offer any substantial evidence to support the assertion that the project is in the best interests of YME’s students, faculty and staff.
There are two actions, or counts, requested in the complaint. First, the plaintiffs are asking for an injunction that will preliminarily and permanently enjoin YME from taking any further steps to move forward the project. Secondly, the plaintiffs are asking the court to find that attempts by the school district and the YME school board to use the Alternative Facilities Program are improper and unlawful and that any portion of the project which YME district and/or the board seeks to fund through the Alternative Facilities Program must be approved by the voters of the YME district. The plaintiffs are also asking the court to have the YME school district pay for the plaintiff’s legal expenses and other disbursements.
What’s next?
Superintendent Stoeckman notified the school’s attorney, Kevin Rupp about being served with the summons and complaint. Rupp, who is with Ratwik, Roszak & Maloney, P.A., a firm that specializes in education law, has assured the district that an answer will be delivered to the plaintiff’s attorneys within 20 calendar days. “I have no comment to make until I hear back from the attorney,” Stoeckman said.
Once the answer to the summons and complaint are received by the plaintiff’s attorney, it is their responsibility to file a civil lawsuit in the Eighth Judicial District Court, if they so desire. Once the documents are filed with the court, a judge will be appointed and he will set a hearing date. When contacted about the action, Patrick McCoy stated, “I have no comment at this time.”
A discussion concerning the summons and complaint will be held during the next regular school board meeting on Monday, March 8 at 5:30 p.m. in the YME Board room.
|
|
|
The Yellow Medicine East school district has some questions to answer thanks to a summons and complaint that was delivered to YME school board member Tim Opdahl last Wednesday. The legal paperwork was prepared by attorney Dustin Cross from the New Ulm-based law firm of Gislason & Hunter LLP, on behalf of Scott Wintz and Patrick McCoy, both of Clarkfield. The Yellow Medicine East school district is required to answer the complaint within 20 calendar days.
YME Superintendent Al Stoeckman indicated that he did not have prior knowledge of the summons being served; however, it was not totally unexpected. Stoeckman had received a letter dated January 6, 2010 from Cross. The letter explained that the law firm represented a group of citizen taxpayers and stated, “My clients are strongly opposed to the School District’s attempt to fund over $12 million in facilities upgrades through the use of the Alternative Facilities Bonding and Levy Program.” The letter went on, “If approved, YME’s use of the Alternative Facilities Bonding and Levy Program would be contrary to law, and the avenue of recourse my clients would have to pursue would include litigation against YME and potentially the Minnesota Department of Education (MDE).”
The recent complaint states factual background and two counts. The background focuses on three motions passed by the school board that made it possible to move forward with a plan to make approximately $14 million in building improvements to the YME High School and Bert Raney Elementary School buildings.
According to the complaint, the first motion, approved at a special school board meeting on October 26, 2009 authorized the Superintendent to enter into and sign an energy agreement with Energy Services Group (ESG).
The second motion, also passed at that same meeting approved and authorized the execution of a professional services agreement with ESG to assist YME in gaining approval from the MDE for the use of the Alternative Facilities Bonding Levy Program (Alternative Facilities Program) which is provided by Minnesota law. The complaint alleges that of the approximately $14 million in costs relating to the Project the board is attempting to fund approximately $11,600,000 through the Alternative Facilities Program.
The third motion in the complaint, also approved at the special meeting , directed the Superintendent to submit all required application materials to the MDE to gain approval for the use of multiple funding programs, including the Alternative Facilities Program.
The complaint alleges that the Board was informed of taxpayer’s concerns and that the Board has not changed its mind and is placing a 20-year tax burden on the YME taxpayers without seeking taxpayer approval. The complaint also alleges that the taxes will place severe economic hardship on the Plaintiffs and on all YME taxpayers; that funding for the project must be approved by YME voters by a referendum according to the provisions of Chapters 123A and 123B of the Minnesota Statutes and finally, the complaint also alleges that neither the Board nor YME is able to offer any substantial evidence to support the assertion that the project is in the best interests of YME’s students, faculty and staff.
There are two actions, or counts, requested in the complaint. First, the plaintiffs are asking for an injunction that will preliminarily and permanently enjoin YME from taking any further steps to move forward the project. Secondly, the plaintiffs are asking the court to find that attempts by the school district and the YME school board to use the Alternative Facilities Program are improper and unlawful and that any portion of the project which YME district and/or the board seeks to fund through the Alternative Facilities Program must be approved by the voters of the YME district. The plaintiffs are also asking the court to have the YME school district pay for the plaintiff’s legal expenses and other disbursements.
What’s next?
Superintendent Stoeckman notified the school’s attorney, Kevin Rupp about being served with the summons and complaint. Rupp, who is with Ratwik, Roszak & Maloney, P.A., a firm that specializes in education law, has assured the district that an answer will be delivered to the plaintiff’s attorneys within 20 calendar days. “I have no comment to make until I hear back from the attorney,” Stoeckman said.
Once the answer to the summons and complaint are received by the plaintiff’s attorney, it is their responsibility to file a civil lawsuit in the Eighth Judicial District Court, if they so desire. Once the documents are filed with the court, a judge will be appointed and he will set a hearing date. When contacted about the action, Patrick McCoy stated, “I have no comment at this time.”
A discussion concerning the summons and complaint will be held during the next regular school board meeting on Monday, March 8 at 5:30 p.m. in the YME Board room.
