,
22 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
In court for the RCSD vs The City of Rochester #roc
RCSD’s attorney makes argument that it’s an advisory referendum thus against state law
Argued that it’s a poll and that “it does nothing.” Says it’s improper according to state law.
Says the provisions in the charter about board of ed are over 100 years old.
Judge asks about board of ed pay. RCSD says that is under the purview of the city charter.
RCSD says that it has standing to bring lawsuits
“While we certainly respect the position that the city is trying to lay the groundwork for state legislation it is premature”
Asked for permanent injunction to remove it from the ballot.
RCSD is not seeking and remedy for the 10k spent by city on letter to constituents.
It’s the city’s turn... the claim there is no merit to the suit
Says the city charter has independent authority over the salary and thus the board of education.
“There appears to hybrid law at work here.”
“While state laws explicitly repeals parts of the city charter it did not remove this part of the charter.”
Judge asks whether the referendum would cause a conflict with state law.
City says Says that if the referendum fails the board goes on without their salaries.
Judge asks if the city thinks this a significant municipal concern
City argues that that RCSD can’t argue that.
Judge asks if it’s obvious that the letter is advocating for a specific outcome. And whether its Warren’s opinion
City says the letter reflects the distinguished educator and city sentiment.
City Argues that Warrens “vote with me” quote means that she wants people to show up at the polls.
Decision will come tomorrow at noon
Not noon 10 am
