Minutes - Council Work Session - 09/08/2008

Home

he would like to stay out of school district business. Councilmember Look stated that he also would like to wait until the appellate court makes a decision and recommends tabling this item. Councilmember Strommen stated that she was opposed to the Council taking any action when this was originally discussed and this is still her opinion. She stated that if the Council would like to have a discussion about what the City's role may be in promoting a premier educational system in the City and looking at all opportunities, she may be interested, but she feels this is a side issue and is not in favor of moving this item forward. Councilmember Olson stated that she agreed with Councilmember.Strommen and is not in favor of taking part in such a resolution. She stated that she thinks charter schools have a unique role and it isn't up to the City to decide what that role is. Councilmember Dehen stated that this is in the appeal process and there is potentially one more appeal process after this phase. He stated that as a way to handle this as inexpensively as possible, they submitted briefs rather than making oral arguments, however he is unsure when a decision will be made. Daniel DeBruyn, Administrator of the PACT Charter School, asked to make a few statements. 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 from 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 rejecting 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 Work Session/September 8, 2008 2of6