By Joe Lacey

July 14, 2008 1:03 PM | Link to this

If the suit was frivolous the board would have been obliged to ask for legal fees. They didn’t. Mario needs to face the fact that board members were polled on Roosevelts demolition outside of a meeting as she described in her post on this blog. The fact that I dropped the suit after a deposition means nothing. I also dropped the suit after we found out in discovery that the video of the meeting where Yvonne said that the board had already decided to demolish Roosevelt was suddenly lost. I dropped the suit a week after Gail Littlejohn had left and a day after Mario and Lee Massoud were on there way out due to their loss of an election.

By Dave

July 14, 2008 12:41 PM | Link to this

Oldprof, the only thing I “swallowed” was Mario’s account of events. I believe she has the students best interests at heart, but her account in this blog says they broke the law.

By mario

July 13, 2008 8:53 PM | Link to this

People much smarter that I have noticed a trend for Joe to file essentially frivolous lawsuits or appeals around elections, under the assumption I suppose that it diverts people�s attention away from the critical issues that we face. That certainly is supported by his statement that apparently his purpose was achieved after I lost the election. And I will never pay a fine, $500 or not, and admit to something that was not true, regardless of how expedient Joe may have felt it to be. While I cannot read Joe�s mind, the following is a transcript of what I read at the Nov. 20, 2007 board meeting. I also reiterate my willingness to email a copy of Joe�s deposition to anyone who requests it. As many of you may know, on June 29 this year Joe Lacey filed a law suit against the Dayton Board of Education stating that sometime during Spring 2006, certain individual members of the Board of Education began consulting each other privately about demolishing the Roosevelt Center. His lawsuit claimed that the action by the Board of Education to demolish the Roosevelt Center was invalid because it was not adopted in an open meeting and because the deliberations that led to the decision were not held in an open meeting. I am pleased to be able to inform the citizens of Dayton that after a 3 hour deposition of Joe by an attorney for the School District, Joe has directed his attorney to dismiss the law suit and that was entered into the court on November 7. During that deposition, which is a public document, 25 documents were submitted as evidence. These were copies of newspaper articles, press releases, minutes of meetings, proposals by the developers and a copy of a blog posting that I submitted in December last year. The time span was May 2003 to December 2006. Included in those documents was a letter to the editor Joe himself wrote in June of 2003 opposing the demolition of Roosevelt. It was never a secret, even to him. I think it is critical that the community be able to trust the people they elect to conduct business with the highest integrity. There has been no decision that I have been a part of in 8 years that has not been through the test of is it moral, is it legal, is it in the best interest of the students in this city. Not one, not ever. There may be disagreements on the decisions themselves, but no one can say that they have been made in an underhanded, under the table, behind closed doors manner. This lawsuit will ultimately cost the school district $7,500. It is money that could have been spent for the benefit of students if some basic research had been done using public records. I will soon be leaving the board, but I hope in the future unpopular decisions are debated on their merits and not by maligning the integrity of those who make them.

By Oldprof

July 13, 2008 5:13 PM | Link to this

Let’s get clear. Lacey’s own tetimony in public deposition showed that he personally had attended the meetings that his suit claimed did not happen. And Joe, your explanation doesn’t hold water; essentially the same members were on the board when you filed the lawsuit as there were when you dropped it, so please invent a different excuse, that one shouldn’t fool many people, tho’ Dave seems to have swallowed it.

By Joe Lacey

July 10, 2008 10:18 PM | Link to this

I dropped the suit, Oldprof, because most of the board members who violated the law had left or lost their election. And as for the money, the board could have used the city attorney to defend them for free but chose to spend eight thousand dollars on a law firm and make the taxpayers pay to defend their reputations and save a $500 fine.

By Dave

July 10, 2008 12:49 PM | Link to this

Oldprof, I am referring to the lawsuit where your wife, in her post on this blog, detailed exactly how the board failed to follow either the spirit or the letter of the sunshine law. Does that refresh YOUR memory?

By Oldprof

July 9, 2008 5:14 PM | Link to this

Dave, are you thinking about a different lawsuit? I was referring to Joe Lacey’s suit claiming that public hearings regarding Roosevelt were not held. He dropped that suit after the board’s attorney, in deposition, read to Lacey his own comments from or regarding the very meetings he claimed hadn’t happened—in one case, a letter published in DDN. I find it hard to believe that he honestly thought the board had tried to do anything illegal here; if so, his memory is highly suspect and he should seek medical help. His legal action cost the district in legal fees and costs of construction delays. Was that the lawsuit to which you were referring, or is there another one that had more substance?

By Mary

July 7, 2008 9:30 PM | Link to this

Scott, I clicked around the links and read your post. I also did a quick google search on the district including their athletics programs. Unless I am misunderstanding the info, the district apparently spends over $17,000 per student per year for its total of less than 200 students. I noticed that apparently, despite their small size, they still have an athletics director and interscholastic athletics programs. The student body is unusally a much higher percentage of males. Why didn’t the school district use the hefty legal fees to provide services to the child instead of providing riches to the lawyers and after school programs for athletes?

By Dave

July 7, 2008 5:12 PM | Link to this

I recall that lawsuit, Oldprof. He had a silly notion that the board was not above the law.

By Oldprof

July 6, 2008 8:57 AM | Link to this

Well, Dayton has a school board member who essentially sued himself in a similar way, and his issue was irrelevant to educational outcomes.

By Concerned Mom of 3

July 6, 2008 3:35 AM | Link to this

The links made for some interesting reading. The story is a very public version of what some families of special needs children go through. Advocating for your child can take over your life- and make no mistake- Autism doesn’t go away at the end of the school day. It is a very challenging disorder to have to deal with 24/7. My heart bleeds for this family and the community. The suit is consuming a lot of time, heartache, and resources. At some point, somebody needs to ask the question- “Is the process going to result in a better educational experience for the child?” (No matter how it comes out?) My personal experience has taught me that the best way to deal with issues is to work directly with the people who actually work with my child. (And try not to p**s them off in the process.) The family may win in court, but the staff who work with the child will never do anything but walk on eggshells with the child. Trust me, the process may not necessarily lead to a better educational experience for the child. Maybe one aspect of the child’s education will improve, but because of the process, other aspects may suffer.