When the the District and their lawyers contradict one another

Upon reflection about his morning’s story about the Minnesota Dept of Ed giving the thumbs up to the Western Middle school and Piedmont elementary over 180 days after the proposals were taken to them (such proposals are usually green lighted withing 60 to 90 days) Something bigger than the half year delay caught my attention.

“More than six months after the Duluth school district submitted plans for a new western middle school and a combined Lincoln Park/Piedmont elementary school, the Minnesota Department of Education has given approval for the project to move forward.”

The district got word of the approval — normally issued in 60 to 90 days — this week, said Kerry Leider, property and risk manager for the district.

This contradicts what the School District’s attorneys told the Sixth District Court. As I recall (I’ll have to track down the court hearing transcripts to confirm this) they claimed that a surety bond was needed because the court case would slow down the bonding for these schools and by implication slowing down the construction phase. Of course, this is wrong. the taxpayer’s suit has in now way slowed down the Red Plan or its bonding. In fact the District has been accelerated the Red Plan construction to beat the school board elections. Until now the taxpayer’s suit has been little more than a mosquito to be brushed off.

So is the taxpayer’s suit that caused a postponement of the bonding? Here’s what today’s story says:

“With the green light granted, Leider said the district plans to sell bonds to cover construction costs for each project — about

$71 million — in the next two months, pending approval by the School Board. Meanwhile, contractors are finishing schematic designs, he said.”

There is much else in the arguments of the District’s attorneys which does not pass the smell test. But they sure are stinking up the News Tribune with innuendo that is far more public relations than legal analysis.

About the author