Agenda - Council - 04/08/2008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

immediate injunctive relief. Miller, 317 N.W.2d 710. Look essentially asks that someone else be disadvantaged instead of his son. Look's construction of what would occur ifthe town preference were expanded to apply to the City of Ramsey is simply inaccurate. Look contends that ifMDE's statutory interpretation is correct, hios "son would be a preferenced student in a lottery among the Ramsey resident kindergarten applicants (60) plus any Ramsey siblings (represented to be 0) competing for 36 kindergarten spots. Thus, Look's son would have a 60% chance for enrollment." PI. Br. at 6. But an exclusive lottery for Ramsey residents would not result even if the Town Preference applied to a charter school located in a city. There is no precedent for advancing or weighing anyone of the possible preference categories (siblings, proximity, or residence) over another, or for excluding siblings from the Sibling Preference based on the residence status of their brothers or sisters. The statute expressly mandates that a charter school "must" both give preference for enrollment to a town resident or proximity applicant "before accepting other pupils by lot" and "shall" give preference for enrollment of a sibling "before accepting other pupils by lot." Minn. Stat. S 124D.1 0, subd. 9 (3) (2006). There is no indication that the Sibling Preference is in any way tied to the Town Preference. Look's affidavit exhibits further establish that an injunction is not required to avoid irreparable harm. An email from Look's attorney to PACT states that he "and other families have paid alternative school fees for other kindergarten spots." Look Aff., Ex. 5 - (email from John P. Dehen to Daniel DeBruyn). Thus, parents whose children mayor may not be admitted to P ACT under either the current admissions policy or one that would award a preference to Ramsey residents, have already begun to make other educational arrangements. Running -144- 17