Marshall Orson, non-suspended board member has taken time to email us at Get the Cell Out - ATL. We appreciate his correspondence although not sure it will get us anywhere in terms of the cell tower contracts that have a big question mark in their "status" column. Nonetheless, we thought his words were pertinent to the subject on everyone's minds lately - the future of the school system and the DeKalb Board of Education - so we are reprinting it for you below.
|Restore DeKalb meeting held a skeptical audience for ousted member|
Jay Cunningham. The federal hearing to determine if the ousting will
stick, starts tomorrow, March 1. Check back with us then for a full report!
Don't worry, we have not ended our SPLOST feud, nor are we putting all our eggs in the Fernbank basket. But, we are absolutely interested in speaking to whomever might be willing to assist us in the quest for the truth and protection for the children and their valuable playground space at our schools.
So, for that, we say thank you to all three of the newly-elected board members for being better than our previous ones thus far when it comes to corresponding with "the public." And, for at least giving us the impression that they are listening. Baby steps. This whole trust thing is going to take baby steps.
Here's the email text, received today. We're still trying to decode it from Legaleeze into English.
From: Marshall Orson
To: XXXXXX (firstname.lastname@example.org) Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 10:38 PMSubject: Why only 6
Dear (Get the Cell Out - ATL)
First of all, thanks for your note of the other day. I will try to keep from running afoul of the contracts. But, I am serious about wanting us all to do the right thing.
As for the question of why only the six. because the better reading of the law suggests that is the correct result. Those who want all 9 gone (often its a group that just does not like me!) focus on subsection e which has the all board members language. However, you cannot read that alone. The rules of statutory construction include the requirement that subsections be read in context with other parts. And, more importantly, there are no superfluous words.
So, you go back to subsections a and b where the term "eligible members" is used and you must figure out that term first. The State concluded (and I suspect, but do not know, there is an AG opinion to this effect) that it meant you had to be on the BOE at the time the probation commenced.
Further supporting this argument is a rule of construction that seeks to avoid illogical outcomes. In this case the State BOE could have held a hearing as early as December 27 (10 days) and three different people would be before them.
It would not be logical that a random event (ie the date they set the hearing) would dictate who was subject to the hearing).
For those who doubt the foregoing, they need to answer the question of who is an "eligible member" (or the converse!)? It's the threshold question.
Michael has his hands full but I continue to believe he is the right person at the right time. Now if we could only get past the craziness to get to the real work.
Also, thanks for coming to the Town Hall last week.