VUSD HAS A PERMANENT INJUNCTION AGAINST IT!!!! LEVANTHAL VS VUSD!!!!!!!
A blogger self named. Ozoner has twice blogged that VUSD was the best district around until 'the ACLU sued the district in the 1980's and all the white children left. Roxy chimed after his most recent post with her LEVANTHAL VS VUSD comment pretending that that case had something to do with Ozoner comment about an imagined ACLU lawsuit in the 1980's.
So much mad spittle and foam on the chins, so little accuracy. Levanthal vs VUSD was a 1997 case. It had nothing to do with 1980s ACLU fantasy of Mr. Ozone
Ozoner wrote on July 3 at
Nothing about Ozoner’s allegation is true.
(1) VUSD is still one of the finest school districts in
(2) I can recall no case where the ACLU sued VUSD in the early 1980’s and
(3) even if the ACLU had sued, one court case does not change the personnel of a school district. The same fine employees would still be employed before, during, and after a lawsuit even the fantasy one that Ozoner has made up.
Roxy never at a loss for misrepresentations pretends that the 1997 Levanthal vs VUSD case has something to do with what Ozoner baseless charges about something Ozoner alleges happened in the early 1980’s--only a decade and a half after Ozoner's 'early 1980's allegation was supposed to have happened, I guess that 15 year gap is what goes for accuracy and truth in Roxy's alternate universe.
Levanthal vs VUSD concerned only a VUSD board policy which prohibited the PUBLIC criticism of HIRED, not elected, employees of VUSD at public meetings. Elected public officials could always be criticized in public, before, during and after Levanthal and Mary Bristol brought the lawsuit against the district. ( Aside Mary Bristol was a former losing, ANTI school board candidate who became infamous for her videotaped comment at a public school board forum that 'anal sex was responsible for the rise in teenage pregnancy.' One wonders how sperm meets egg anally. Worse Bistol profession was nurse.)
Back in 1997, our angry friends, not content with the infamy they brought to our district from 1992-94 (creationism, fact free and racist sex ed, turning down multi million dollar grants), decided they wanted to create ever more problems for our fine district by suggesting publicly at school board meeting after school board meeting a romantic liaison between the then superintendent and a sitting school board member. As I recall both the superintendent and the board member (a clergy member) were married to other people at the time that our angry friends decided the two were having an affair and that it was right and proper had to accuse the two of them of the affair at every school board meeting. Of course our angry friends also included their favorite baseless charge, then and now, financial improprieties of some kind that no one not living in paranoid fantasies could understand.
Most decent folks would think such charges, especially the salacious ones, should be made in private, but not our angry friends.
Our angry friends were stopped from publicly criticizing the then superintendent by the then chair of the VUSD school board on the grounds that the PUBLIC criticism violated not only common decency. but VUSD school board policy.
Most school boards at the time had similar policies. These types of policies against PUBLIC criticism of NON-elected employees were not meant to stop criticism, just to move it into proper channels where all allegations could be investigated for truthfulness before any charges were made publicly. Making the charges privately was not enough fun for our angry friends. They wanted to do it publicly. When they were stopped, they decided to sue.
For some weird reason they prevailed.
Why the court chose to allow personnel matters concerning hired not elected folks, matters that have always been restricted to closed session by every governmental body in America, to now be allowed to be discussed in public, I cannot fathom.
Note:
(1) None of the five school board members then on the board (1997) and named in the suit are currently on the VUSD school board. (One has died)
(2)The permanent injunction is against the enforcement of a single board policy by VUSD--the prohibition against public criticism of the district.
(3) Our angry friends did not completely win their argument in 1997 as the judge in the case wrote, “Court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and permanent injunction and grants in part and denies in part the Defendants' motion for summary judgment” Plaintiff equals our “angry friends.” Defendant equal the five FORMER VUSD school board members.
Read the case summary here: http://www.firstamendmentcoalition.org/handbook/cases/Leventhal_v_VistaUSD.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment