Agenda - Council Work Session - 09/08/2008

Home

c c- received preference under Defendant's admissions policies. It appears that no applicants qualified for the Proximity Preference. Fifty of the applicants are Ramsey residents, none of whom qualify for the Sibling Preference. On March 6,2008, Plaintiff Look :filed his complaint seeking a declaratory judgment of the rights of the parties and an interpretation of Minn. Stat. ~ 124D.10, subd. 9. Plaintiffs contend that Minn. Stat. * 124D.10, subd. 9, requires Defendant to give an admissions preference to applicants who reside in the City of Ramsey. At a hearing on Aprill4, 2008, Defendant indicated its intent to conduct two random lotteries the folloWing day. Through the first lottery, Defendant would offer the ten remaining places to applicants not qualifying for a preference, in accordance with its current admissions policies. Defendant also planned to conduct a second lottery consisting only of applicants who qualified for a preference and those who re~ided in the City of Ramsey, in keeping with Plaintiff Look's interpretation of Minn. Stat. ~'124D.10, subd. 9. Defendant did not intend to use the second lottery to offer admission to applicants unless PlaihtiffLook's futerpretation of Minn. Stat. ~ 124D.10, subd. 9, prevailed. At the hearing, Defendant argued that Plaintiff Look's action would become moot ifhis son were selected in the first lottery. The Court allowed both parties to supplement the record with evidence and argument on this issue in the event Plaintiff Look's child was selected. On Apri115, 2008, Defendant conducted both lotteries as scheduled. Plaintiff Look's minor son was selected in the first lottery and would be offered a place in the 2008-2009 kindergarten class under Defendant's current enrollment policy. Defendant subsequently filed a memorandum and supporting affidavit in support of its argument to have Plaintiff s action dismissed as moot. 2