Vidrine asks judge to dismiss relief claim
Monroe City Schools Superintendent Brent Vidrine asked U.S. District Judge Robbie James to dismiss the U.S. Department of Justice's claim for relief against Vidrine.
A hearing to determine whether the Monroe City School Board and Superintendent Brent Vidrine should be held in contempt of court is scheduled for 9 a.m. Wednesday.
Vidrine's attorney, Scott Wolleson, argues that "very public conflict" existed among Monroe City Board members from when the consent decree was filed in December until the DOJ filed a motion for contempt on June 24. "Now, DOJ seeks to sacrifice the superintendent for the bad blood on the board," Wolleson wrote.
Wolleson argues that conflict among board members, among other reasons beyond Vidrine's control, delayed implementation of the consent decree. The DOJ and the district both requested that the court grant extensions on consent decree deadlines, but Wolleson argued that the DOJ takes the position that Vidrine should be held in contempt because the requested extensions delayed full compliance.
In his argument, Wolleson stated that the district has fulfilled substantially all of its obligations "despite many obstacles — such as DOJ’s shifting interpretation of MCSB’s desegregation obligations."
He argues that the "DOJ’s claim that the superintendent be held in contempt for the district’s failure to fulfill its desegregation obligations under the consent decree is fatally flawed, destined to fail and must be dismissed under Rule 12(c) in light of controlling authority of the United States Supreme Court."
Wolleson also argues that the DOJ motion fails to state a valid claim for relief because civil contempt sanctions are premature until the public body has first been held in contempt and remains noncompliant for a reasonable period of time. He also states the DOJ did not "assert any factual basis whatsoever to support the conclusion that the imposition of individual fines is necessary to achieve compliance. ...
"In fact, in the entire 50-year history of this lawsuit, no superintendent or any individual MCSB member has ever been found in contempt and subjected to the imposition of a personal fine such as that DOJ now demands this court impose," Wolleson states.
The DOJ requests that if the board and Vidrine cannot show just cause why they should not be held in contempt they be granted two weeks to come into compliance. If that two week deadline passes, the motion that a fine of $100 a day for each day of noncompliance be instated and that the fine will double for each calendar week of noncompliance.
Conflict of interest
On June 15, the court held a status conference in which Vidrine and several board members participated. They were urged to work toward compliance before the school year. Contempt was not mentioned in the minute entry.
On June 24, the DOJ filed its motion against the board, the individual board members and Vidrine.
The court held an attorneys-only status conference on June 27 to discuss the motion. During that conference, MCSB attorney Doug Lawrence advised there was a board meeting scheduled for June 28, and a followup conference was set for June 29. A hearing on the contempt motion was set for July 6.
According to documents filed under seal by the DOJ, Lawrence had already made statements to the DOJ via email that implied Vidrine was to blame for the district's failure to meet consent decree deadlines by the time of the June 27 status conference. Wolleson cited an April 29 email.
Wolleson argues that if those statements reflected the position of the board or any of its members, there was a clear conflict of interest in Lawrence representing Vidrine, the board members and the board as a whole.
On June 29, Vidrine participated in a status conference without independent counsel and discussed "facts arguably related to the merits of the motion." The July 6 hearing was converted to a statue hearing.
The court held two counsel-only status conferences Sept. 6 and 8, and the hearing was scheduled for Sept. 19.
On Sept. 9, the court issued a minute entry notifying Vidrine to enroll his own counsel or be prepared to represent himself. Wolleson said it was the first known disclosure of a conflict, and the minute entry seemed ominous to Vidrine.
Wolleson enrolled as Vidrine's counsel on Sept. 19 and participated, for the first time, in a conference call with all parties Saturday. The DOJ expressed intent to follow through with the hearing, and the motion on Vidrine's behalf was filed Monday.
"Frankly, this motion should have already been filed by counsel for MCSB. The superintendent should not be prejudiced by the failure of his prior counsel to timely file this motion," Wolleson argues.
Follow Bonnie Bolden on Twitter @Bonnie_Bolden_ and on Facebook at http://on.fb.me/1RtsEEP.