"I think that is a dangerous game to play. I am concerned that someone is going to be harmed."

Is she threatening her own constituents??? Sounds crazy, but when Veronica is involved, crazy is a pretty regular occurance.

Is there any way to see the list of signatories to the lawsuit?

This woman should seek professional help. She seems overly paranoid.

Per previous posting of The Southsider: "=="it is what it is."== This is your rationale? I'm sorry, does the end justify the means here? I'll tell you what it is Mr. Cotton, IT'S F***KED UP!!!

It is so pathetic! You have to really feel sorry for the kids! It's unbelievable! What a disgrace and shame to our city! How crass and obscene!

Am I talking about the city school system? Am I talking about George cotton? No, the above are reserved for the crass and obscene language of The Southsider. If he's got kids, everyone express your sympathy to them. All he is is an attack pitbull when it comes to discussing issues.

Board of Education policy regarding qualifications to serve as a member of the Board are based on Missouri State Statutues, RSMo. 162.581, 162.601, 162.203. None of those state statutes mentions relationship to any board employee within the second degree of affinity or consanguinity. The state statute that once contained that qualification was repealed some time ago.

The St. Louis Board of Education policy is totally dependent upon the State statutes, not local or independent policies.

Also, it is said that a relative of Flint Fowler's was hired after he joined the Board of Education.

Any clearheaded judge will recognize the law and what is not included in the law. This is a frivolous and vengeful lawsuit--nothing else. And Southsider, please don't bring in any obscene language to curse the State of Missouri. We have enough of your subjectively biased diatribes.

===School Board President Veronica O'Brien told Fox 2 News this morning that the protests being staged in front of her house were orchestrated by "high ranking elected officials."

===O'Brien said she was concerned and disappointed by the protests.

First, in general, and in this case, someone's home does not need to be picketed--perhaps in the case of a slumlord or something, but that's about it.

That said, I don't remember Darnetta creating conspiracy theories about who was orchestrating the protests in front of her house--in fact, she didn't really bring them up and tried to reduce the tensions instead of exacerbating them in public. Quite a telling difference between then and now.

==== . . . The St. Louis Board of Education policy is totally dependent upon the State statutes, not local or independent policies.

Is it, though? I suspect that the question that a judge will answer is whether certain School Board policies can be more restrictive than state law.

We'd probably all agree that local School Boards can require more days of school than the state mandates, set stricter qualifications for teachers than state law requires, demand additional credentials for superintendents than state law does . . . Can local districts, though, set stricter qualifications for service on a School Board than the state does?

I think the lawsuit is lame, but not moot.

Who is Jerome J. Dobson?

Man, does Irons have a posh address!!!

===Any clearheaded judge will recognize the law and what is not included in the law. This is a frivolous and vengeful lawsuit--nothing else

I'm missing the language in the law that preempts local rules that are stricter--could someone point them out to me?

Or is there precedent in this area of law for the Courts to preempt school board rules? Certainly when the state specifically preempts such actions it would not matter, but there is nothing in the law suggesting such an assumption of preemption from what I've read in the statutes.

Darnetta, as one of the mayor's minions and who did whatever Vince told her to do, was given leeway and a great pass by the press that the newest elected board members are not receiving. If you attended any of the board meetings, you would have seen a different personality. Remember, the terrible and notorious enemy of children today is the teacher (whoever could believe such nonsense.) The press isn't censored; the truth is what is censored today.

It is doubtful that even the ArchPundit has access to the facts anymore than the rest of us have!

Southsider:

I believe you have misinterpreted President O'Brien's remarks. It seems clear from what she said to Fox 2 that her concern is that the mob mentality of those picketing will lead to dangerous behavior, as often happens. People are willing to do things in groups that they would never do on their own. The ArchPundit is exactly right that it is improper to picket a residence. The picketing should be occuring, if at all, at the Board of Education building downtown. Paying parking lot fees would likely deter the picketers from their activities after awhile.

Publiceye:

The question becomes is the Board the final arbiture of the qualifications of its members, as some institutions are, or not. If not, then the state certainly would be.

Kevin, I didn't curse the state, but i will if so desire. Why don't you read before you write, Kevin, we have enough uninformed posters on this blog already.

It's ironic that Purdy would turn to state regs to defend his board seat and ignore local policy, yet turn around and be against a state takeover in the defense of local autonomy.

Is there a lawyer in the house? Doesn't sound like any are yet. Let's leave the court stuff to lawyers and judges.

As for Mrs. O'Brien, her conspiracy theories are reminiscent of Ms. Moore, and her hex on the Mayor. I hope that her paranoia doesn't interfere with her obligations to the children.

And can someone set their alarm to remind Veronica to eat.

I didn't hear you complaining Travis, when Darnetta Clinkscale's and Vince Schoemehl's houses were pickected. Or when Cindy Sheehan protested outside of Bush's Ranch.

I think people should be able to protest (non-violently) anywhere they please, even in front of my house

Southsider, give us your address, and we'll be glad to come and protest your filthy language.

Please read the Board policy that reads "As per state law..." Everything in the Board policy is based on state law. The local rules are based on the state statutes and reflect verbatim state statutes. The previous board has been remiss in updating board policies based on state laws. They have no laws separate or different from the states.

Southsider, you use obscene language hither and yon when you disagree with something. Substance, not shock, may enable some to believe you are qualified to speak.

===Everything in the Board policy is based on state law.

But this is exactly the question. A preface to the statement doesn't invalidate the by-law necessarily. One can interpret inaction on the rule as the will of the Board and as such allow it to stand. I don't think it's a slam dunk case on either side since there are probably some precedents to draw upon, but to dismiss the suit as frivolous is silly.

===Darnetta, as one of the mayor's minions and who did whatever Vince told her to do, was given leeway and a great pass by the press that the newest elected board members are not receiving. If you attended any of the board meetings, you would have seen a different personality.

I did attend many of those meetings and of the four on the Mayor's slate, Darnetta was always the most in control and the most modest even in the face on insults--like that an accomplished business woman must just be a minion.

ArchPundit, you have more expertise in Illinois. I happen to know how the St. Louis Board of Education and policies work. What background information can you really bring to this case.

It's a little late to dismiss "As per state law." It's like nullifying "As per the Constitution of these United States..."

And then what do you do with Flint Fowler whose relative was hired after he was elected?

Additionally, the state statutes apply to all school districts in the State of Missouri, not just St. Louis City.

==What background information can you really bring to this case.

I've been following and writing about the SLPS for about 10 years now and am ABD in Political Science with a focus in state and local politics. Good enough?

As per state law is simply language that was put into the by-laws at the time---if the by-laws are silent on whether state law changes them automatically when it changes, the question is far from settled. Unless there is some clear case law you are aware of, I'm a bit befuddled how you think that a prepositional phrase invalidates the actual rule. Your example is a perfect example, the prepositional phrase you cite has nothing to do with the actual law set forth in the Constitution. The Constitution does preempt further state laws regarding the qualifications for federal office and that is well settled law. Given school board election law is quite poorly written, it's not surprising this is an open question.

I have no idea how we'd handle Flint's case---in Districts other than St. Louis or KC, there is a clear piece of law regarding the method a relative may be hired by. In Flint's case does it mean he's removed from the Board or that the hire was illegal? It's a really good question.

Southsider:

I've publicly stated multiple times that protesting at any residence is uncalled for. Protest should occur in public places or private places under the ownership or legal control of those protesting.

ArchPundit:

What the legal debate will come down to is whether or not there is language in either the Missouri Revised Statutes or the Board of Education Bylaws that declares either body as the difinitive judge over the qualifications of the members of the Board. I've not reviewed either, but that is what the judge's clerk will be looking for when the opinion is written.

==Additionally, the state statutes apply to all school districts in the State of Missouri, not just St. Louis City.

No, the rules for a District that resides in a City not within a county are different from both the KC and other Districts. Read 162.571. You can't read the three sections you cite without understanding that section.

===What the legal debate will come down to is whether or not there is language in either the Missouri Revised Statutes or the Board of Education Bylaws that declares either body as the difinitive judge over the qualifications of the members of the Board. I've not reviewed either, but that is what the judge's clerk will be looking for when the opinion is written.

No, there isn't really a doubt that the state has the power to decide whether it has sole power or not, it's a question of whether the state precluded further qualifications than it required.

So what light does the following State statute bring to bear on the subject at hand?

Missouri Revised Statutes
Chapter 162
School Districts
Section 162.571

August 28, 2005

Corporate powers of metropolitan district--board of education, powers.
162.571. Every city in this state, not within a county, together with the territory now within its limits, or which may in the future be included by any change thereof, constitutes a single metropolitan school district, and is a body corporate. Except as otherwise provided in section 162.621, the supervision and government of public schools and public school property therein is vested in a board, to be known as "The Board of Education of ....." (in which title the name of the city shall be inserted). The board of education, by and in that name, may sue and be sued, purchase, receive, hold and sell property, and, except as otherwise provided in section 162.621, do all things necessary to accomplish the purpose for which the school district is organized. All titles to property granted to the city by the United States or this state for school purposes, and the title to all school lands and other property of every kind, is vested in the board of education established by this law.

I agree 100% with Damian, the real crime here isn't the total lack of a plan with only weeks from when school starts, it is The Southsider's language.
Since I do not know where The Southsider lives, I will be protesting outside of my house, this injustice must be righted. I shall not eat until I have an apology.

...oh yeah, and kids blah blah blah.

Damian,

Read it. Then notice that it sets that the rules related to Districts in Cities that do not reside within a county are different than for all other Districts as you claimed. You were simply wrong. Very wrong. Unless of course, the sub district section would apply to all Districts even if they were not within one city making the ward rules quite odd.

Before condescending to someone about how they don't know much about a subject, know something about the subject.

It would be a wonderful world if courts always made their rulings compatible with the law. Even if there is absolutely no legal justification for the lawsuit attempting to remove Purdy, that doesn't mean that a judge won't rule that way. Given Fowler's relative that works for the district, it was surprising that he put his name on the lawsuit. Would have been better to have Jackson and Archibald.

St. Louis City has a small population. Getting reasonable people to run for the school board [an unpaid position] is difficult. A state law and/or a district policy that forbids relatives of a school board member to work for the district or forbids people with relatives working for the district to serve on the school board is bad public policy. Board members routinely abstain from voting on agenda items where there would be a conflict of interest. For example, Veronica would not vote on insurance agenda items. A board member with a relative could abstain from voting if there would be a conflict of interest regarding a relative.

Damian, Thank you for posting the statute language. My computer's operating system seems to be incompatible with the state's website. I cannot access the lawsuit.

Caped Jackass, are you just an alias for The Southsider?

ArchPundit, no one is condescending to anyone but continuing a discussion. The above-referenced statute focuses more on property rights than on any other function of the Board.

Following is the Missouri State Statute for qualifications to serve on a board of education:

Missouri Revised Statutes
Chapter 162
School Districts
Section 162.581

August 28, 2005

Qualifications of board members--oath--exemption from service as election officers.
162.581. 1. The members of the board of education shall be elected from the city, as provided in section 162.601, on a general ticket, and shall be at least twenty-four years of age, citizens and residents of the city, and shall have been residents and citizens for at least three years immediately preceding their election. They shall not hold any office, except that of notary public, in the city or state, nor be interested in any contract with or claim against the board, either directly or indirectly. If at any time after the election of any member of the board he becomes interested in any contract with or claim against the board, either directly or indirectly, or as agent or employee of any individual, firm or corporation, which is so interested, he shall thereupon be disqualified to continue as a member of the board, and shall continue to be so disqualified during the remainder of the term for which he was elected.

2. Every member of the board, before assuming the duties of his office, shall take oath before a circuit or associate circuit judge of the city, which oath shall be kept of record in the office of the board, that he possesses all the qualifications required by this section, and that he will not, while serving as a member of the board, become interested in any contract with or claim against the board, directly or indirectly, or as agent or employee of any individual, firm or corporation which is so interested, and that he will not be influenced, during his term of office, by any consideration except that of merit and fitness in the appointment of officers and the engagement of employees.

3. No compensation shall be paid to the members of the board, but they are exempt from service as election officers during the term of office.

And wouldn't the Board of Election Commissioner have been remiss to certify Purdy for election?

Not to speak of the Board of Education itself that had to approve candidates for election purposes.

If anyone is sued, it would seem these two boards could be sued for being remiss in their fulfilling of their responsibilities to certify the candidates!

By the way, three individuals with the name of Irons are plaintiffs on the case. A little suspect, wouldn't you say?

^

A case of too many Irons in the fire, eh?

This legal discussion is fascinating (not). Personally I'm more interested in Veronica's claims--she sounds pretty paranoid to me. She's been sending people middle-of-the-night over-the-top e-mails and the PD reports today that she isn't eating. She and Ms. Bourisaw seem to think that security guards are this season's fashion accessory. I find myself hoping that Veronica is simply a drama queen as opposed to slipping around the bend and living up to her nickname, Veronica O'Crazy.

Damian,

No I am not The Southsider, but it is telling that once again you avoid the issue at hand and talk about something random and unrelated. Meanwhile, I am thankful I have wireless internet, my one man - outside my house - protest/hungerstrike against The Southsider has gone unanswered. Please apologize for you terrible language so I can eat. I am hungry.

... oh yeah and the kids and so forth. (Damian Rocks)

Pretty Concerned, you make some extreme claims and resort to name calling. Have you seen any emails that are over the top and sent out in the middle of the night. A lot of people aren't eating much due to the heat.

Also, you are probably unaware of the threats she has received. If Superintendent Williams went nowhere without an armed body guard, including to the Casino for dining and gambling
with Floyd Irons, perhaps these ladies are entitled as well.

Caped Jackass, why don't you lighten up or get a life.

===Following is the Missouri State Statute for qualifications to serve on a board of education:

NO! This is not relevant to all school districts. It is relevant to only school districts in a City that does not reside within a County. You are misreading a number of sections that refer to each other as the general rules. There is an entirely different stet of rules for KC and for other boards.

You did attempt to condescend to me about not knowing much about the SLPS, but then you don't even understand that most of what you are citing is specific to the SLPS.

It might have been obvious if you read the text of the what you keep citing:

===The members of the board of education shall be elected from the city, as provided in section 162.601, on a general ticket, and shall be at least twenty-four years of age, citizens and residents of the city, and shall have been residents and citizens for at least three years immediately preceding their election.

Here's a hint. Many school boards are not only within one city and many don't have any cities within their boundaries. This is a very basic point.

----And wouldn't the Board of Election Commissioner have been remiss to certify Purdy for election?

The Board of Election wouldn't have any liability since it would go to seating a candidate> The SLPS corporately might have some liability, but most of all the problem would be anything passed with Purdy's vote being a deciding factor could be questioned.

===If anyone is sued, it would seem these two boards could be sued for being remiss in their fulfilling of their responsibilities to certify the candidates!

Essentially that is part of what the suit is doing--asking to declare that Purdy's votes where they are deciding are null and void. If successful, the reorganization of the Athletic Department could be challenged.

===Pretty Concerned, you make some extreme claims and resort to name calling. Have you seen any emails that are over the top and sent out in the middle of the night.

I get them with some regularity. Dave has gotten them, and I think Patterson has gotten them. In fact, they are a joke with many people. The tacky stationary and all caps are my favorite parts. The conspriacy theory rambling wasa lot more fun when Moore was making it up.

---Caped Jackass, why don't you lighten up or get a life.

And another person who cannot understand sarcasm.

The E-mails are common knowledge, they actually get shot around the city for the enjoyment of many. Veronica's nuttiness has caused the scoffing of many, me included.

Oh Caped, Damian, go put your skirts on, this is not a church. I'll swear if I want to, and there's nothing you can do about it.

And Damian, are you even reading the statutes before you cut and paste them? I hope not, I would hate to think you are that daft.

The Legal issue here that Archpundit is correct about and has been trying to explain to you is this: State law does not prohibit hiring relatives of school board members, or school board members from serving when they have relatives in the district (anymore, statute was repealed in 2003). However, the School Board did not ratify that change to its rules. So the rule is still on the books in the SLPS, no in the state. But the school district has the right to set its standards more restrictive than the state. That is the issue here, Damian.
Get it or do you need me to draw you a picture?

Guys, if the Board did not ratify the changes, it would at least have to remove the number of the State Statutes because it does not apply.

As one who is very much acquainted with St. Louis Board of Education policies and who has read most of them (you should see all the volumes I have been through), I'm telling you that the way they are written up refers to their basis on the State statutes listed below on the same page.

Surely, a veteran board member like Purdy would know his rights in light of the board policies and their bases. He is not fool enough to put himself in position to be ousted on such a technicality. And there are enough previous board members around (Davis, McKinney, Hilgemann, Haas, Mahoney, Bender, et al) who would have said something.

ArchPundit, everyone knows how much you hate Purdy, but that doesn't mean this will fly.

====As one who is very much acquainted with St. Louis Board of Education policies and who has read most of them (you should see all the volumes I have been through), I'm telling you that the way they are written up refers to their basis on the State statutes listed below on the same page.

But again, where do the by-laws automatically revoke anything related to a change in state law? If state law does not preempt stricter local rules--and so far no one has shown this to be the case--then this would seem to be the primary other way that the requirement would be nullified. Simply because state law was different at the time and the by-law referenced it does not mean the rule was changed.

Now, can you confirm that you understand finally that the SLPS Board has an entirely different set of qualifications under State law than any other school board? For a guy bragging about how he knows so much about the District, this seems like a pretty basic point to have to go over and over again.

==Surely, a veteran board member like Purdy would know his rights in light of the board policies and their bases.

All evidence to the contrary. Purdy sat around for over six months while the District went insolvent as Board President and helped burn through a reserve over three fiscal years without making any significant budgetary changes.

My feelings about Purdy are rather irrelevant to the points I'm making, which as I said earlier, may affect Fowler as well. The question is what does the case law hold, not how I "feel" about someone or something.

ArchPundit, can't disagree with you more. Though your feelings about Purdy are irrelevant, they certainly color most of your bias. Purdy has given response to what happened financially, but you are unwilling to accept the man's word.

Hopefully, "the case law hold" will be more objective than you have been.

===ArchPundit, can't disagree with you more. Though your feelings about Purdy are irrelevant, they certainly color most of your bias. Purdy has given response to what happened financially, but you are unwilling to accept the man's word.

What was his excuse? That state funding was reduced? Yeah, over three years and he didn't do anything. He knew for six months the District was ready to implode and did nothing.

Same thing with NCLB. When asked by the American in 2002-2003 how the District was going to deal with restructuring, he and Hammonds both said they just didn't know. Brilliant leadership there.

Now if you'd care to explain how my analysis of the legal issues above is 'biased' please do. So far you were unaware of the different qualifications for SLPS Board Members from that of any other School Board in the state and you have yet to cite where by laws are automatically changed with changes in state law or how local control is preempted from implementing additional requirements. Instead you keep whining about how much you know and how others are biased.

ArchPundit:

You've been watching the School Board a lot longer than I have, and thought you might have insight into something I came across. I found in the Missouri Revised Regs that a district in a city of our size (over 300,000) is to have 9 Board members. I asked around, and those that I asked had no clue about this, but some alluded to a change a few years ago to reduce it to 7 members. Do you know anything about a reduction and why it might have occured?

Damian,
Ummm, maybe we should switch the discussion back to the issue we were winning and let the policy be debated by people who read the laws that they post, ok?
I will even start ... C'mon Southsider, stop swearing.

"Do you know anything about a reduction and why it might have occured"

Section 162.601 changed the number of directors to seven from nine, and attempted to create subdistricts based on wards. A court subsequently threw out the subdistricts.

===Section 162.601 changed the number of directors to seven from nine, and attempted to create subdistricts based on wards. A court subsequently threw out the subdistricts.

Wrong. Thanks for playing ;)

SB 781 in 1998 was passed reducing the Board size from 12 to 7 with subdistricts. The subdistrict portion of the bill was written by Lacy Clay in apparent retalation for the then Board firing two croni....errr hard working friends. I believe he also authored the Get Bill Purdy section of the law that didn't allow someone with close relatives to serve on the Board. Once Lacy went to Congress, the law was changed.

The reduction from 12 at large to 7 subdistrict seats was generally meant to force out several members and make the subdistricts friendly to local committeemen and such. The reduction was needed, the subdistricts were a bad idea--as we've seen it's already hard enough to get good candidates, let alone specific candidates from specfic groups of four wards each.

12 was a pretty unruly number--seven was better.

However, most of that should have been moot. Also included in the bill was a provision for an overlay board headed by three people--one appointed by the Mayor, one by the President of the Board of Alderman and then I think the last came from the State Board. If the SLPS was determined to be unaccredited at its next review, the Overlay board would take over. However, whomever wrote that portion of the law (I think it might have been Tom Bauer) didn't include that this was not subject to the negotiation of the settlement agreement as most of law allowed except the finance provisions so the SLPS Board simply negotiated a finding of provisionally accredited keeping the overlay board non-functional. The potential for such a Board exists until 2009 I believe when the provision sunsets. Once such a Board would takeover the District, the old form of governance would vanish and either the state or the overlay board would determine a new method of governance.

I had thought the overlay board provision went away after initial accreditation, but I'm told it will continue until 2009. Frankly, if I'd known that in 2003 when the District was about to go solvent, I would have suggested that as a better way to proceed than keeping the current form. Few Districts have much success with directly elected Boards from small rural communities to the biggest cities.

Which had 9 members?

St. Louis is considered a Metropolitan School District in the law--a District that resides in a City not within a County.

Kansas City is effectively the only City other than one that is not within a county that is over 300,000 people so the provision applies to them.

There are then two other forms of Districts that I'm familiar with---7 member boards (which are distinct from the SLPS), and urban boards (also distinct).

Someone might correct me if I have something slightly off, but I think this gets across how the state has set-up different Boards of Education. Essentially St. Louis and KC have individual rules the Lege has passed and then two others cover most of the rest of the Districts--though urban Districts are pretty small in number given they are tied to a population of 75,000 or more in 1960.

ArchPundit:

Great information. Any way you could be coaxed to run in '07?

Thanks for the history lesson. I seem to have repressed memories on this subject -- probably from blunt force trauma.

According to the footnotes, Section 162.601 codifies SB 781.

I live in U City right now--so even if I moved back in to the city tomorrow, it would be 2009 before I'd hit the residency rule.

U City only happened as we needed to move closer to Metrolink and couldn't find anything in our price range in Skinker-Debaliviere.

The larger issue is that my twins will be entering school in two years and I'm not a big fan of the honors track in the SLPS. That's not so much of a slam as a personal preference.

So, no.

===Thanks for the history lesson. I seem to have repressed memories on this subject -- probably from blunt force trauma.

Hey, I'm almost as obsessive as Emma on school issues. DJ and I are having a similar discussion on e-mail too.

And to add one other issue why I really wouldn't want to run--I really don't think direct election of school board members works very well. In some communities it ends up being okay, but in districts of all sizes directly elected School Boards are terribly dysfunctional. In small towns it's often parents who are upset their kids didn't make the team or their kid had a problem with a specific teacher. In mid-size towns it's often a stepping stone or some sort of status symbol instead of a supervisory board. In large cities the battles are over large groups of stakeholders versus a population that largely doesn't vote or doesn't have kids in the system.

I could run in another community, but I'm convinced that in large cities where we can reasonably fashion other arrangement that might work better and above all, provide better stability in terms of reform efforts. This works both ways. The problem of short tenures for Superintendents is nationwide and different people have different views of how to implement reform. The problem is that there isn't much in the way of stable coalitions when direct election occurs and so turnove is the norm as different coalitions form with different strategies.

The problem right now would be to fashion a mechanism that would satisfy everyone. That's why 1998 or 2003 would have worked better as a time to make the change.

To belabor the point--I don't think electing 'better' people matters much if the institution is flawed.

To The Southsider and the Caped Jackass, Since swearing is not just okay with you but promoted, permit me to add one to yours and addressed to you both: wallah yhekemik!