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

Home

burden many families in the PACT community as well as those who would like to join it, by indefinitely delaying school enrollment. Id., ~~ 16-18. Look's assertion of no harm to others is naive. He claims that "the requested injunction will cause no harm to defendant since the court could in short order calendar the matter for trial." PI's. Br. at 7. The kindergarten lottery has already been pushed back and the K-12 lottery is fast approaching on April 15th. Granting a temporary injunction prior to the 15th would cause immediate harm to PACT by tying its hands so it cannot fill its classrooms. Parents of new applicants and parents of existing PACT students would have no certainty that their children would be enrolled in PACT. The harms faced by PACT if an injunction is granted far outweigh Look's speculation that his son might not be admitted to the particular school he prefers. The second Dahlberg thus weighs against the injunction. 3.. The public interest.. Public policy would be impeded if Look's admission policy replaced PACT's because it would shrink the potential beneficiaries of PACT's educational offering of choice by restricting P ACT enrollment to Ramsey residents and their siblings. Because the number of Ramsey applicants and applicants with a sibling preference is greater than the number of places available in PACT's 2008-09 kindergarten class, Look's admissions policy would displace the lottery process altogether. DeBruyn Aff., ~ 14. Instead of opening up PACT's admissions process equally to all applicants as Look claims, Look's admission policy would actually increase the number of admissions that are predetermined by preferences. PACT's interpretation of the statute effectively levels the playing field for all individuals who do not qualify as siblings or two-mile rule beneficiaries, keeping enrollment in the remaining spots to be filled by lottery open to a broader class. If Look's procedure was instead 19 -146-