Laserfiche WebLink
<br />kindergarten applications. Further, plaintiff was advised at that time by defendant that <br /> <br />plaintiff's llilderstanding for a preference was incorrect because "town" as contained in <br /> <br />M.S. 124.D. 10 Subd. 9(3) was not synonymous with "city". <br />VIII. <br /> <br />On or about January 2008, anticipating a lottery for kindergarten applicants on <br /> <br /> <br />February 1,2008, plaintiff believed the defendant would continue its erroneous <br /> <br /> <br />enrollment practices potentially harming his son's enrollment prospects and other <br /> <br />Ramsey kindergarten enrollees by unfairly administering the legislature's mandate as set <br /> <br /> <br />forth in M.S. l24.D. 10 Subd. 9(3). Thereafter, plaintiff contacted the senator in his <br /> <br /> <br />locale and attorney who requested a legal opinion from the Minnesota Department of <br /> <br /> <br />Education (MDE) on the legitimacy of defendant's contention. <br /> <br />IX. <br /> <br />On or about January 25,2008, MDE gave an opinion on the interpretation of M.S. <br /> <br /> <br />124.D. 10 Subd. 9(3) that supported plaintiff's position. Thereafter, defendant postponed <br /> <br /> <br />the kindergarten lottery from 2-1-08 to 4-15-08. It is unknown whether defendant has <br /> <br /> <br />held a lottery for grades 6-12 applicants. <br /> <br />X. <br /> <br /> <br />Subsequently, on February 11, 2008, plaintiff met with the administrator of <br /> <br /> <br />defendant to discuss ramifications of the MDE opinion. The defendant administrator <br /> <br /> <br />advised plaintiff that he disagreed with the lvIDE opinion and indicated he would use <br /> <br /> <br />efforts to reverse the MDE opinion and/or seek an opinion from the office of the attorney <br /> <br /> <br />general reversing the decision because he had a personal belief that a preference to <br /> <br />Ramsey residents was bad policy because he feared a Ramsey student influx would be <br /> <br />-42- <br />