Minutes - Council - 09/23/2008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

hockey sports program and dollars generated from pull tabs and wanting those dollars to stay in this community. He stated that there is no rush at this point and reiterated that a decision wasn't really made at the district court level. Mr. DeBruyn stated that he feels that this resolution should never have been before the Council. He stated that it has been stated several times that PACT has not been following the law, and they have been. He stated that the district court did make a ruling. He stated that he thinks it is fair that he get a chance to read the statement made at the Work Session tonight. He stated that the Work Session wasn't on television or publicized, so he feels it is fair that the other side is represented and would like to read his statement for the public. He stated that he wouldn't review the whole situation but wanted to make note of comments made at the April 8, 2008 meeting. He stated that he would like the resolution placed back on the table for a final decision in this matter. He read comments by the Council from the minutes of the April 8, 2008 Council meeting. He stated that the motion was made to table this item, until the District Court had issued an opinion. He stated that his point in being here is that the District Court has ruled in favor of PACT's interpretation, which, in his opinion, does a number of things: 1. It addresses the need for a judicial review as requested by Councilmember Look; 2. It allows all "opinions" to be placed aside, as noted by Councilmember Look, and defines the law; 3. It states that PACT Charter School has been following the law and has been above board in all of its operations. PACT has not been mistakenly or intentionally rejected parts of the law as was directly stated by Councilmember Dehen; nor have they chosen to accept only those parts of the law that they feel apply. In fact, PACT has been correctly interpreting the law, its policies, and has never been "entrenched in a position contrary to the law" as proposed by Councilmember Dehen; 4. There are no hidden intentions, either by the school administration, or any part of the PACT organization in dealing with the enrollment policies. The intention has been and will continue to be to follow the law; 5. It clarifies that the enrollment practices at PACT Charter School have never been detrimental to Ramsey residents as this preference was never allowed under the law. As a result, one cannot lose what was never there to begin with; 6. It clarifies that PACT Charter School has never "cherry picked" its students as proposed by Councilmember Dehen. Ironically, the enrollment practices, as defined by the District Court, does just the opposite. It opens up enrollment to any student in the State and does not further restrict enrollment preference to residents; 7. It indicates that the resolution currently on the table actually requests something contrary to the law (MN Statute 124D). He stated that the position of PACT has always been that this is not in the best interest of Ramsey residents or the PACT Charter School. He stated that for these reasons he is asking that the Council bring back the resolution and reject it, in its entirety. He stated that if individuals choose to take an individual lawsuit beyond the district court it is not a Council issue. Mayor Gamec stated that he agrees that he doesn't feel this is a Council issue. City Attorney Goodrich stated that he did not think the motion on the floor is appropriate the way it is worded Councilmember Jeffrey withdrew his motion, Councilmember Strommen withdrew her second. City Council / September 23, 2008 Page 12 of 21