News Archive
2008 Articles
2007 Articles
2006 Articles
2005 Articles
2004 Articles
2003 Articles
2002 Articles
2001 Articles
2000 Articles
1999 Articles
Past Articles
|
|
Marietta Daily Journal
July 30, 2005
JUDGE HALTS REDDEN'S MASSIVE LAPTOP PLANS
MARIETTA, GA - Cobb Schools Superintendent Joe Redden and his majority school board member supporters were dealt a major setback Friday when a Cobb Superior Court judge ruled that his $100.8 million laptop program greatly differs from technology plans voters were promised in the 2003 Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax referendum.
In a strongly worded 14- page opinion, Judge Lark Ingram ordered a mandamus absolute directing the Cobb Board of Education to use technology funds as specified in SPLOST II and ordered a permanent injunction to halt Redden's massive laptop program.
Judge Ingram's ruling follows a July 8 hearing on a lawsuit brought by former Cobb Commissioner Butch Thompson against Redden and five of the seven school board members who voted for the laptop program. The suit claimed SPLOST II never specified funds to provide laptops to all middle and high school students, but did not contest the issuance of laptops to teachers.
The ruling puts Redden's program largely in limbo.
The board voted 5-2 on April 28 to start the $25 million Phase I of Redden's program this year, which would give laptops to all 7,100 teachers and 8,500 laptops to students at four pilot high schools. About 550 teachers already have received their laptops, but plans for the other 6,550 teachers and the 8,500 students are uncertain.
In a Monday e-mail to all 7,100 teachers, Redden said he would delay ordering any more laptops until the suit is resolved.
School board members offered little comment Friday about their plans, and school board attorney Glenn Brock said they will discuss their alternatives at a special called meeting in executive session Monday night.
"I think what this case stands for is that candor is not an option when the government is dealing with citizens," said former Gov. Roy Barnes, who represented Thompson. "There can be no slight of hand, no wink and nod. A promise made is a promise kept."
Barnes said the school board has the option of appealing to the state Supreme Court, which would review the case. However, he said that court emphasizes the importance of promises.
"The system works," Barnes said. "As Winston Churchill said, for all the failings of democracy, it just happens to be the best conceived system that works, and this reinforces my belief in the system."
Redden and Deputy Superintendent Dr. Don Beers both refused to comment, except for releasing a terse two sentence statement from Redden that read: "The Cobb Board of Education is disappointed in today's court decision regarding the use of SPLOST funds for technology improvements in the school district. The board plans to meet soon and discuss the best course of action."
Thompson was elated to hear Friday afternoon when told of Judge Ingram's ruling.
"I guess most of all, it's not just a victory for me, it's a victory for the taxpayers of county," he said. "It gives them the opportunity to see they can feel comfortable voting for a program as good as the SPLOST program."
Thompson said he filed suit, because the school board was jeopardizing the potential for any future SPLOST to be passed in the county.
"We've enjoyed $2 billion in capital improvements without strapping ourselves to bond indebtedness. At the same time, elected officials have to use the money the way it was intended - it cannot be abused," he said.
Thompson said he thanked Judge Ingram for ruling in his favor, and noted he didn't have an ax to grind with anyone.
"I still don't know some of the people on the school board. But at the same time, you can't do what you want to do, you've got to be able to follow the law."
In her ruling, Judge Ingram said she agreed with Thompson and Barnes when they said that promised technology upgrades from the SPLOST II referendum had not been kept. She noted the program was primarily to:
- Refresh obsolete workstations
- Refresh district printers
- Refresh district servers
- Refresh the existing district network
- Refresh and enhance mobile computing access district wide
- Refresh copiers
- Provide a computing device for every teacher
- A data center equipment refresh
In findings of fact, Judge Ingram held that in order to win public support - the school board had published and distributed promotional literature to all high schools and their feeder schools.
The district "promised each and every school in Cobb (high, middle, and elementary" obsolete workstations printers, servers, networks, copiers/duplicators would be refreshed."
Judge Ingram criticized the school board when she stated "they decided to essentially abandon" the original plan of SPLOST II. Instead, they re-budgeted and reevaluated SPLOST II to embark on a "one-to-one laptop" program for all high and middle schools.
"Fair notice" she said, was not given to voters for this program.
She said in her ruling that Power to Learn (PTL) "would divert funds" from SPLOST II to buy 56,000 laptops. PTL "is so expensive that no funding from SPLOST II would remain to refresh obsolete computers at elementary schools," she stated.
To fund laptops, the judge said the school board would have to "re-budget" almost all of the SPLOST II money to give the school district the largest laptop program in U.S. public education.
"This is not what the voters were told before the SPLOST vote" (on Sept. 16, 2003).
In findings of law, Judge Ingram held "Ga. law imposes on school boards . . . a legal duty to use the SPLOST process exclusively for purposes specified."
She said law required that the board must give "fair notice" of how the money will be spent. She also found they are bound by their documents or literature promoting SPLOST II and cannot use SPLOST II money for an "entirely different" purpose.
"Ballot language" promised technology upgrades for all schools, she argued, whereas PTL "deprives" elementary schools of SPLOST II money because PTL is so expensive. In fact, PTL "breaches" the promises made to all schools for technology upgrades. Refreshing obsolete workstations district wide as promised is "as feasible today as when the public voted," she ruled.
She further ruled that the school board abused its discretion and departed "substantially and materially" from technology promised upgrades.
Judge Ingram said the school board gave "no indication of a one-to-one laptop initiative for middle and high schools like PTL."
"The comprehensive re-budgeting" of SPLOST II is "clearly prohibited by Georgia law."
Judge Ingram said she was not passing judgment on PTL as a "matter of educational policy." She said state law did not preclude the implementation of PTL program provided it was paid for from the district's general fund or a future SPLOST if specifically promised.
During the July 8 hearing, Barnes argued voters never intended for students to have their own take-home laptops when they voted for the sales tax.
"Respondents cannot use SPLOSTs to 'bait-and-switch' Cobb County voters into funding lavish, unadvertised policy objectives," Barnes stated in his closing brief.
"The court should not sit by until respondents have frayed the threads of public confidence in SPLOSTs beyond repair."
Barnes cited the case of Dickey v. Storey. The case involves the Floyd County Commission, which passed a SPLOST to build a civic center along the banks of a river near downtown Rome, Ga. However, when much of the downtown flooded, commissioners wanted to move the building to higher ground, a decision residents resisted. The state Supreme Court sided with the residents.
"Even though flood concerns might require the county to make expensive revisions to the civic center's architectural plans, the Supreme Court held that because it was still possible to construct on the original site, the county board must execute the plan it promised to Floyd County citizens," Barnes argued.
"Georgia law requires respondents to spend the technology funding from SPLOST II the same way respondents promised to spend those funds," Barnes argues.
Board attorney Tain Kell cited the case of Thornton v. Clarke County School District, noting the state Supreme Court ruled the language that controls expenditure of SPLOST dollars is the referendum and nothing more.
Since the Cobb school board's referendum only says the board will use the SPLOST dollars for the educational purpose of "technology systems," the board is not bound by the eight categories listed, Kell stated.
Only the language in the referendum is binding, he argued.
"Obviously, the court could not fashion any type of relief that would require ongoing supervision of the board throughout the remaining three and one-half years of SPLOST II collections," he said.
Kell said what the case is really about "is simply a disagreement as to the soundness of a policy decision made by a majority of the board of education . . ." He maintains it is not a dispute "that rises to the level to be determined by the judiciary."
"Ultimately, it would be up to the voters to decide in future elections whether this policy decision, made at this critical juncture in our county, has been a wise and far sighted expenditure of taxpayers dollars or not; and that is the appropriate place for such a decision to be made in a republic such as ours," Kell writes.
Although Judge Ingram's ruling virtually grounds Redden's laptop program, this is not the end of the board's problems.
Toward the end of the July 8 hearing, testimony, described as a "bombshell" came from witness Dr. Mindy DiSalvo, a member of the district's Facilities and Technology Committee who also served as a member on the second phase of the computer selection committee.
Dr. DiSalvo testified that the phase two committee scored the vendors with Apple dead last and Dell first.
However, when the decision moved to the phase three selection committee, whose members included Redden, Beers, and Redden administrators Kim Quinn, Donna Oliver and Alisa Morningstar, Apple went from last to first and was chosen to carry out the program.
The testimony prompted Cobb District Attorney Pat Head to begin investigating Redden's program for any possible criminal activity. The board also hired the New York based auditing firm of Kessler International to conduct an audit of the RFP process. Kessler is expected to release its findings next week, sources say.
Judge Ingram set a hearing for Sept. 28 at 9 a.m. to hear a request, presumably from Barnes, for awarding of attorneys' fees. Thompson, who owns a large west Cobb construction company, says the law suit will cost him between $10,000 and $25,000.
|
|
