Comments on: Randy Dorn says I-1240 is unconstitutional; he may go to court to overturn the initiative

By: Andrew

Andrew — Tue, 20 Nov 2012 23:52:57 +0000

You’re welcome, Dan.

By: Dan Overmitten

Dan Overmitten — Tue, 20 Nov 2012 20:24:36 +0000

I REALLY appreciate your inclusion of pertinent law. This article will be filed with my numerous other charter ones. I’ve watched as the EMOs (Education Management Organization) have spread across the country. I’m new to NPIA and am impressed so far.

By: Charlie Mas

Charlie Mas — Thu, 15 Nov 2012 14:18:40 +0000

Our constitution sometimes protects us from voting away our rights. Let’s hope it does so in this case. The initiative, as written, creates a completely un-accountable commission that makes ALL of the decisions about charter schools and gives them carte blanche about how they make them.

They are free to do as they please – even violate the provisions of the law – and there is no appeal and no way to hold them accountable. The initiative provides no process for removing members of the commission.

Also, am I the only one who finds it odd that the commission members are appointed by the governor, the speaker of the state house, and the lieutenant governor? And why does the initiative refer to the lieutenant governor in his role of President of the State Senate? Why didn’t they just say “Lieutenant Governor”?

The initiative was sloppily written. It is full of holes. There are no safeguards whatsoever. Read a few sections and ask yourself “What if it doesn’t happen that way?” and you will see that there are no protections. This came from ALEC, right?

By: Josh Kahan

Josh Kahan — Thu, 15 Nov 2012 06:35:30 +0000

A lawsuit is clearly justified since charter schools do not meet the definition of the term “common.” The typically first definition of this word in most dictionaries is: “shared by everyone.” Charter schools can exclude kids with learning disabilities, physical challenges, and behavior problems. They are therefore not truly “shared by everyone. ”

Charter schools will not be “uniform in character” as the State Supreme Court requires, but will often be schools with demographics quite different from public schools. This desire to be isolated from “problem children” is a primary motivator by many parents who sponsored and supported 1240.

By: Ralph Avoca

Ralph Avoca — Thu, 15 Nov 2012 02:19:38 +0000

Spot on analysis. Thanks so much for this write-up, I’ll be passing it along to friends.

By: Melissa Westbrook

Melissa Westbrook — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 23:46:10 +0000

Good work here. A couple of things to note:

- actually OSPI does have one single role in charter schools – they help figure out the financial end of the funding (which should be fun given we already underfund the schools we already have)

- also, thank you for printing entire sections of the initiative because you included one KEY piece, namely:

“Sections 209 and 212 of this act do not apply to the commission.”

Yup, two whole sections of the initiative do NOT apply to the Charter Commission. Section 209 outlines how the other authorizers – school boards – are to look at charter applications. The Charter Commission? Who knows?

Section 212 is about oversight and guess what? School Boards get their oversight from the Board of Education. Who oversees the Charter Commission? No one. Not the people who appoint them, not OSPI, not the BOE. They are fairly powerful in what they can do.

- Lastly, there are several other legal issues with 1240, not just constitutional. Like, is it legal to allow public entities to sell public land for less than it is worth? To force a district out of a building and they can’t charge rent?

By: Ruth L.

Ruth L. — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 16:55:25 +0000

Thank you Randy Dorn!