Laserfiche WebLink
<br />kindergarten applications. Further, plaintiff v.vas advised at that time by defendant that <br />plaintiff's understanding for a- preference was incorrect because ''to'Wn''. as contained in <br />M.S. 124.D. 10 Subd. 9(3) was not synonymous with "city". <br />Vill. <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 /> <br />- Ramsey kindergarten enrollees by unfairly administering the legislature's mandate as set <br /> <br />forth in M.S. 124.D. 10 Subd.9(3). Thereafter, plaintiffcontacted the senator in his <br /> <br /> <br />locale and attorney who requested a legal opinion from the Minnesota Department of <br /> <br /> <br />Education ()1DE) on the legitimacy of defendant's contention. <br /> <br />IX. <br /> <br /> <br />On or about January 25,2008, MDE gave an opinion on the interpretation of M.S. <br />124.D. 10 Subd. 9(3) that supported plaintiff's position. Thereafter, defendant postponed <br />the kindergarten lottery from 2-1-08 to 4-1 5-08. ~t is unknown whether defendant has <br />held a lottery for grades 6-12 applicants. <br /> <br />X. <br />Subsequently, on February 11,2008, plaintiff met with the administrator of <br />defendant to discuss ran:J#ications of the MDEopinion. The defendant administrator- <br />advised plaintiff that he disagreed with the MDE opinion and indicated he woul~ use <br />efforts to reverse the MDE opinion and/or seek an opinion from the office of the attorney <br />general reversing the decision beCause he had a personal belief that a preference to <br />Ramsey residents was ba~ policy because he feared a Ramsey student iOflux wouIdbe <br /> <br />-42- <br /> <br />-179- <br />