By Antonio D. French
Filed Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 12:50 PM
The UCLA Daily Bruin reports that the California Court of Appeals unanimously ruled this week against a law designed to give Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa substantial personal control over the Los Angeles Unified School District. Labels: Schools
The ruling by the three-judge panel of the 2nd District Court of Appeal is the second rejection of the law, which was passed by the state Legislature in September 2006.
"The citizens of Los Angeles have the constitutional right to decide whether their school board is to be appointed or elected," Justice H. Walter Croskey wrote in the opinion.
The St. Louis school board recently voted to challenge, in court if necessary, the Missouri Board of Education's decision to strip the elected school board of its power and put it in the hands of a three-person appointed board.
9 Comments:
This does not have binding precedent, thus has no legal authority over the SLPS. Missouri Courts are in a different jurisdiction thus this would only have persuasive precedent.
I question how persuasive as well since our political culture is quite traditional, while the West Coast is notoriously know for left leaning opinions, especially out of the United States Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit. While optimism is nice, I believe our Missouri judges will side with the state takeover.
4/19/2007 1:45 PM
we need a score card---which lawyers are bringing legal action on behalf of who before which judges, and when.
4/19/2007 2:14 PM
I think even some conservative judges are getting fed up with centralized power siezed from legislators by Mayors, Governors and Presidents.
Maybe in this case they'll take back some power.
4/21/2007 12:10 PM
There seems to be a great deal of disparity developing among the different states of our America.
While some states are firmly entrenched in the values of elected, representative government and we do not even hear them considering the question of centralization of power, others are currently battlefields (as California and Maryland) and others, like Missouri, seem intent upon moving fast-forward toward centralized control of everything, with executive branchers taking advantage of apparant mass voter apathy.
There are other disparities. In Illinois, for instance, every child has guaranteed access to healthcare, and soon every citizen will as well. But just across the river in Missouri, what little healthcare was available to the poor has been repeatedly slashed.
Enormous differences of policy and opinion are popping up around issues like abortion, gun control, mental healthcare, religious freedom, etc.
I know our Constitution was designed to guarantee the rights of states to self-determination, but are we moving toward a place where traveling from state to state will be like changing countries? Will the laws and rules be so very different that we will be migrating to states with particular values to avoid oppression or take advantage of opportunities created by public policy? Will it be good for America to have that kind of competition between the states? What becomes of our federal identity as Americans?
My gut sense is that this is not a good trend. It seems to have been created by a power vaccuum left by the federal government having failed to fulfill its role to be a unifying force in our country by setting standards for public policy. Perhaps the balance of power being in the hands of one party for so long caused the federal system to lose this aspect of its vision. Perhaps preoccupation with the war and natural disasters. Perhaps an overabundance of confidence in delegating power.
One thing is certain: the federal government needs to get itself back into the business of being a guardian of the liberties extended to every American citizen. The removal of publicly elected people by executive order should not even be under discussion in America. Ever.
4/22/2007 9:40 AM
ariel, that was a thoughtfully written post. As long as I can remember, one party promoted a centralized government and the other, a decentralized government.
We are headed into unfamiliar territory in this country. My parents were "straight ticket" Republicans who would be scratching their heads about the Grand Old Party today.
4/23/2007 7:04 AM
One thing is certain: the federal government needs to get itself back into the business of being a guardian of the liberties extended to every American citizen. The removal of publicly elected people by executive order should not even be under discussion in America. Ever.
Please don't say that it is all about the kids, because the above demonstrates that it is not about the kids, but about a process, and the kids, whether they are being well-served or not, come in second to the process.
4/23/2007 9:52 AM
Papillon: If you can't see that the issue of protecting the rights of Americans to vote IS in the best interests of serving the children, I don't know what else to say to you.
4/24/2007 9:24 AM
I would say that all the voting that has taken place in the couple dozen years has not served children well.
Would you say the children have been well served in the last couple of dozen years?
4/24/2007 1:29 PM
I'd say that 20 years ago there was a great deal of success in the SLPS. Corporate funded candidates have indeed eroded the district and in the last 2 elections the people have spoken. Parents and grassroots supporters of quality public education that is transparent have elected people who are in fact all about educating kids.
I found this article to be intriguing:
"Jane "Queen of Bad Ideas" Cunningham is running for Missouri Senate, and she's found an anti-schools sugardaddy to sling a little wingnut welfare in the direction of her campaign. While Cunningham raised only $19,010 over the last reporting period [1], $15,000 of that total --a whopping 79% of her entire haul-- came from one man: Barry Conner of Gainesville, Georgia.
Conner is a real estate developer who runs the Georgia-based homebuilding outfit called America's Home Place, but his sidelight is far more illuminating. Conner is heavily engaged as a funder and supporter of a fringe movement [2] whose goal, by its own admission, is to end public education as we know it. Conner is a key funder of an entity called Alliance for the Separation of School and State, and is a signatory to that organization's proclamation [3], which states:
"I proclaim publicly that I favor ending government involvement in education."
Now that's some top-shelf wingnuttery.
Add it up. Jane Cunningham, already notorious for her opposition to full funding of Missouri's public schools, is now funding three-quarters of her state senate campaign with dollars from an out of stater whose pet project is to remove every last public dollar from our school system. When Cunningham raised barrels of cash from pro-voucher group All Children Matter, she came back to the legislature pushing plans to slide state education funding into the pockets of private and religious schools. Just imagine what her legislative agenda in the Senate would look like with a patron who believes that the state should put zero dollars into education.
This is, to put it nicely, insane. The fact that candidates like Cunningham --who accept large checks from kooks like Conner who want to end our system of public education-- are even viewed as marginally viable is a symptom of just how cracked our system is.
Jane Cunningham has always been a bad joke. With her new act she risks turning our entire state into a punchline. Better legislators, real solutions on education, and an end to Queen Jane's political career, please." - from Fired up Missouri
4/25/2007 7:40 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home