State Impact (among many others) is reporting that the trial court judge has granted (pdf) a motion (pdf) to dismiss a lawsuit filed by Glenda Ritz against the State Board of Education.
As I understand it, the lawsuit is an open door law complaint against the State Board of Education related to a letter the Board sent the General Assembly asking it to have the Legislative Services Agency help with the calculation of the A-F grades. If the letter is official action of the Board, taken without a public meeting, then it probably violates the Open Door Law. The judge, in granting the Attorney General’s motion, did not reach the substance of the complaint. Basically, the judge ruled that Secretary Ritz did not have standing, because her attorneys could not represent her without the Attorney General’s permission.
Seems to me like there is a fairly easy work around here. Ritz in her private capacity (or an affected member of the public) could file an open door suit themselves. Of course, they’d have to pay their own lawyers or get them to work pro bono.
She may not have to work too hard to find a pro bono attorney. Or just pass the hat with the teachers. In any case, I suspect that is one way to get points with the people who voted for her, which is already a considerable number. She’s coming out with a foot in both worlds: an advocate for public education, teachers and kids (and apple pie, and…) and someone working against a powerful establishment that lurks around depriving the people of open government. Maybe the beginnings of a populist, which could be the start of something big if she’s organized and motivated to go that direction.
It was actually the best possible outcome for her. She lost a few people with the lawsuit, especially because some see using LSA as pretty reasonable backup after the books were cooked by her predecessor. This gives her an easy out, but if she chooses she or another organization can pick it back up. The coverage and response to all of this has been interesting.
Not sure why they didn’t use a private person as the plaintiff from the beginning. I don’t agree necessarily that that person would have to pay for counsel. The law might not prohibit the DOE from funding the challenge, albeit it is done through a private person as plaintiff. The law only says that the AG or someone designated by the AG gets to represent the state. It does not say, as Zoelller suggests, that that rule is because the AG gets to resolve conflicts in approaches taken by state agencies. That leads to Zoeller’s odd view that the AG acts as as both attorney and client, i.e. with absolute authority (more powerful than even the Governor) when it comes to deciding the state’s position on litigation.
In fact, late yesterday afternoon four private citizens well known in the education community, including former Lafayette school superintendent Ed Eiler, filed complaints with the Public Access Counselor making the same substantive allegations as Ritz attempted to do in the lawsuit the Attorney General was able to have stricken.
Stuart, Chris and Paul I applaud your for your excellent analysis of this issue. Now if only the Democrat’s would take some of the above advice. Of course this is the Democrat’s in Indiana as it states at the top of Jon Easter’s blog “I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat.” –Will Rogers. I would like to expand on Will’s statement.
“I am not a member of any organized intelligent political party. I am a Indiana Democat. ”
Disclamer: I guy77money is currently registered as a Republicrat.
FYI: LEVITY : excessive or unseemly frivolity. It has been a long tiring two weeks, So my posts have been somewhat fickle and sarcastic. So carry on with the intelligent and thoughtful commentary gentlemen. As for me I am off to Oregonlive.com to read the comics. Prince Valiant, The Phantom, Flash Gordon, Mandrake the Magician and Mark Trail to name just a few. Be back next week in a better frame of mind.