02/23/2011: "Confident There Will Be A Recall"
I am very pleased with the posture of my Petition and the Superior Court's scheduling of "In Re: School Board Recall" for a sufficiency hearing on February 23, 2011 at 1:30 pm.
I, however, remain extremely disappointed with the cooperation received from the School District in the resolution of this controversy.
I have made no fewer than seven separate written requests for public documents starting January 18. To date, I have only been allowed to review a sum total of ONE document, the District's general liability insurance policy. I believe that the District's action in it's handling of public documents is contrary to the express provisions of Washington's Public Documents Act and, perhaps more importantly, contrary to the notions of fair play, due process, and justice. I have been in contact with the Washington State Attorney General's office for assistance in procuring the requested public documents.
Additionally, the recent revelation that Superintendent Thompson repeated failed to correct the highly material fact that his Masters Thesis was merely a research paper, profoundly alters my perception of this matter.
Let it be remembered that the School Board was put on notice that members of the public had questions concerning Thompson's purported Thesis well prior to my filing of the Petition. Help was promised, but none was delivered. This fact alone, leads me to believe that I may wish to withdraw the current Petition, and immediately refile a new one in effort to capture what I believe to be yet another ground for recall. I will be contemplating such over the next several days.
I appreciate the work of the Prosecuting Attorney's office in preparing the Ballot Synopsis and other materials in this matter. I agree with the Prosecuting Attorney that my claims seeking equitable relief from the District are not appropriately addressed in the same matter as the Petition.
I disagree, however, with the Prosecuting Attorney with some of the conclusions he drew as to the sufficiency of charges stated in the Petition. Many of his conclusions were based on the lack of specificity of fact in the Petition. As my understanding of the facts has greatly increased since my initial filing, I am confident that in the event of withdrawal and refiling, I can now supply the Prosecuting Attorney with the information needed to revitalize many, if not all, of the declined claims
I recognize that by statute, the Prosecuting Attorney's office is the attorney of record for the District and also, by statute, is responsible for determining the sufficiency of charges for my Petition. I believe that the ultimate conclusions as to the sufficiency or insufficiency of the charges are best left for determination by the Court. Happily, such is provided for by law.
San Juan Island