Laserfiche WebLink
<br />9. Regarding paragraph VIII, lacks information or knowledge as to what plaintiff <br /> <br /> <br />believed and lacks information or knowledge regarding plaintiff s contacts with his attorney. or <br /> <br /> <br />senator. Denies that PACT's administration of MSA 9 124D.10 subd. 9(3) is unfair, erroneous <br /> <br />or harmful. ' <br /> <br /> <br />10. With respect to paragraph IX, admit that Chas Anderson, Deputy Education <br /> <br /> <br />Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Education ("MDE"), wrote a letter regarding the <br /> <br /> <br />interpretation of 9 124D.10 subd. 9(3) on or about January 25, 2008. Lacks information or <br /> <br /> <br />knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to whether the January 25, 2008 letter is an "opinion" of <br /> <br /> <br />MDE. Denies that either MDE or the January 25, 2008 letter support plaintiffs position. <br /> <br /> <br />Admits that PACT postponed the kindergarten lottery until April 15, 2008. States that PACT has <br /> <br /> <br />not yet held a lottery for applicants wishing to enroll in grades 6-12 for the 2008-2009 school <br /> <br />year. <br /> <br />11. Regarding paragraph X, admits that plaintiff met with PACT's administrator, <br /> <br /> <br />Daniel DeBruyn, on February 11,2008 and that DeBruyn then advised plaintiff that he disagreed <br /> <br /> <br />with the interpretation of 9 124D.10 subd. 9(3) that was expressed in the January 25, 2008 letter <br /> <br /> <br />from Chas Anderson, to the extent that the letter indicated that "town" should be read to include <br /> <br /> <br />cities. Lacks information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to whether the January 25, <br /> <br /> <br />2008 letter is an "opinion" ofMDE. <br /> <br /> <br />Denies that DeBruyn indicated that he or PACT would use efforts to "reverse the MDE <br /> <br /> <br />opinion." States that DeBruyn communicated to plaintiff that PACT might seek additional input <br /> <br /> <br />from the Attorney General regarding the proper statutory interpretation of 9 124D.10, and that he <br /> <br /> <br />advised plaintiff that P ACT welcomes Ramsey residents, along with all other applicants who do <br /> <br /> <br />not qualify for the statutorily mandated sibling and proximity preferences, equally. <br /> <br />-1 52~155903V4 <br /> <br />2 <br />