Anonymous wrote:Anyone going to the meeting? Post updates here! Then let's start a new thread to speculate about the boundary process...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:stop the swap. or the move. or whatever .... trailing off...fading away....it’s all over but the fat lady singing. But there aren’t any fat ladies in north arlington.

NA has McKrazy hopefully she will make one last appearance. Lisa or Cintia should close out with a Mic Drop.

Or ripping up the alternative “data driven” plan. Or gently tossing some moving boxes to the opponents....

Anonymous wrote:Anyone going to the meeting? Post updates here! Then let's start a new thread to speculate about the boundary process...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:stop the swap. or the move. or whatever .... trailing off...fading away....it’s all over but the fat lady singing. But there aren’t any fat ladies in north arlington.

NA has McKrazy hopefully she will make one last appearance. Lisa or Cintia should close out with a Mic Drop.

Anonymous wrote:stop the swap. or the move. or whatever .... trailing off...fading away....it’s all over but the fat lady singing. But there aren’t any fat ladies in north arlington.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You should keep your day jobs. There is zero basis for a lawsuit here. They’ll file one, like the W-L slums who objected to the name change. But they won’t get a PI, and they will ultimately lose. Like a speck of dust on the shoulder of APS. Any decent admin lawyer will crush this suit.

Apparently Steven Krieger ("cease and desist" filer, school board candidate) IS a lawyer? With a small local practice?

Anonymous wrote:You should keep your day jobs. There is zero basis for a lawsuit here. They’ll file one, like the W-L slums who objected to the name change. But they won’t get a PI, and they will ultimately lose. Like a speck of dust on the shoulder of APS. Any decent admin lawyer will crush this suit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He may be right. If they were just switching ATS with Key they could say it’s an option location issue, but declaring that all of McKinley’s planning units are being reassigned sounds more like a boundary change. What procedural defect is being claimed? Even though they’ve called it not a boundary process, it does seem like they’ve given tons of notice and opportunity to comment etc., and presumably that’s basically what is required. That, and a school board vote. The proposed swap was procedurally defective because they let the superintendent declare it a go, when it probably qualified as a boundary change thus necessitating a school board vote. Does the failure to call it a boundary decision create a problem?

Here's what the policy says you need to do for a boundary change:

When the Superintendent has determined that one or more of the conditions above exists and that boundary changes should be considered, the Superintendent shall recommend to the SchoolBoard the process for consideration of boundary changes. The recommended framework shall include:

1.The proposed schedule for the boundary change process,
2.Identification of the schools and communities to be affected, and
3.A community engagement plan and process to keep affected schools and communities informed throughout the consideration of boundary changes.

The School Board shall act on the recommendation

So yeah, they've done that.

The one question I have is why they’ve refused to call this a boundary change. Are there annoying procedural requirements you can avoid by treating it as something other than a boundary process? Or maybe they’re just trying to be very clear about this being a 2-step process. I’m not familiar enough with school board rules to know if they were trying to bypass something or if this really is just semantics. Aside from calling it not a boundary change, they seem to have followed the rule quoted above.

Semantics.
It's not a boundary process because they are not determining specific boundaries. Of course boundaries to be determined are impacted by this decision; but that doesn't make this an actual boundary process.

I think I understand the argument now. If they say it’s not a boundary decision, they don’t need to account for the cost. This may present a legitimate problem for the school board if the decision gets challenged and we’ll have to go through this whole process over again. I think calling it not a boundary decision is incorrect, but I had assumed it was a trivial technicality because it looked as if the school board had jumped through the same procedural and data hoops as would be required for a boundary decision. But maybe not?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think I understand the argument now. If they say it’s not a boundary decision, they don’t need to account for the cost. This may present a legitimate problem for the school board if the decision gets challenged and we’ll have to go through this whole process over again. I think calling it not a boundary decision is incorrect, but I had assumed it was a trivial technicality because it looked as if the school board had jumped through the same procedural and data hoops as would be required for a boundary decision. But maybe not?

By this logic, doing nothing is also a "boundary decision" because the imminent opening of Reed and the capacity shortage in the east would require redrawing boundaries too!

It’s my post you’re responding to. Just to be clear, I take no position on the merits. Presumably the school board has staff lawyers who evaluate compliance with rules etc. I leave it to them to figure it all out.