Monroe Schools contempt argument continues
Disagreement over whether the Monroe City School Board and Superintendent Brent Vidrine should be held in contempt is ongoing.
Both the U.S. Department of Justice and the Monroe City School Board replied to and opposed Vidrine's request that the court dismiss a claim for relief against him.
In a separate filing, Monroe City School Board attorney Doug Lawrence asked U.S. District Judge Robbie James to dismiss the DOJ's claim for relief against the board and its individual members. Vidrine and the DOJ have 21 days to reply to the request for judgment. The board has 14 days to respond to those replies.
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.
Read more:
Lawrence states that testimony at hearings in July and October show Vidrine at all times was in control of the staffing decisions that would determine compliance with the consent decree. State statute, he argues, prevents the board or its members from being involved with staffing decisions, nor do board members have access to personnel data.
On Oct. 10, Vidrine's attorney, Scott Wolleson, argued that conflict among board members, among other reasons beyond Vidrine's control, delayed implementation of the consent decree. Wolleson stated the district has fulfilled substantially all of its obligations "despite many obstacles — such as DOJ’s shifting interpretation of MCSB’s desegregation obligations."
Wolleson also argued 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.
In reply, Lawrence states: "It is erroneously asserted that the MCSB must first be held in contempt before any finding of contempt can be made against the superintendent. In addition, it is asserted that the superintendent cannot be found in contempt unless the Monroe City School Board is determined also to be in contempt."
The DOJ argues that Vidrine's request seemed timed to derail an already-scheduled evidentiary hearing.
The DOJ attorneys assert that statements alluding to the district's substantial compliance with the consent decree are incorrect and James cannot consider evidence outside of that presented as part of the pleadings when making his determination.
The DOJ argues: "The defendants have repeatedly failed to comply with the consent decree, missing nearly 90 percent of the deadlines for which they were responsible and failing to cure their noncompliance with multiple consent decree provisions despite notification of the failures by their counsel and numerous letters, emails, phone calls, and several in-person meetings with the United States requesting that the district immediately comply."
Additionally, the DOJ argues that there is no bright-line rule that requires a court to sanction individual members of a governing body only after sanctioning the whole body or until the body has shown lack of compliance over time.
Vidrine has 14 days to reply. James plans to decide the motion without oral argument. Wolleson has requested a transcript of Vidrine's July 6 testimony. The transcript, when available, will be filed under seal.
On Oct. 25, The Monroe City School System provided consent decree data to the court and the DOJ. Representatives from the DOJ have held that the district has provided inaccurate information regarding the racial makeup of teachers and administrators in prior months. James ordered that Vidrine or the principals "provide a declaration affirming under penalty of perjury."
The information filed Oct. 25 includes a district threshold report and faculty roster for each schools as of Oct. 14 with declarations from Vidrine, the executive of human resources for the district and the principal and vice principal of each school, as applicable, that the information is correct. An attachment includes the birth certificates for two teachers who self-identified as a race different than what is listed on birth certificates on file in the district records.
The DOJ will reply no later than Nov. 14. James asked that only the information discussed in the conference be worked on rather than any other information requests from the Department of Justice or other consultants.
A telephone status conference for attorneys is set for 1:30 p.m. Nov. 17.
Follow Bonnie Bolden on Twitter @Bonnie_Bolden_ and on Facebook at http://on.fb.me/1RtsEEP.