DOJ: Board should force compliance
The U.S. Department of Justice argues that the Monroe City School Board has the power to bring the district into compliance with its ongoing consent decree.
The department, in a response to the board's motion for judgment on the pleadings, states that the board is ultimately responsible for what the Department of Justice deems failure to comply with deadlines. The department alleges that the board missed four deadlines since a motion to show why it should not be held in contempt was filed in June and argues the board did not ask the judge to dismiss the claim in a timely manner.
Read more: DOJ, MCSB resolve some staffing questions | Monroe schools contempt argument continues | District provides consent decree data
Monroe City School Board attorney Doug Lawrence previously asked U.S. District Judge Robbie James to dismiss the department's claim for relief against the board and its individual members. Lawrence argued that Superintendent Brent 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.
Louisiana state statute requires that all policies and procedures adopted by a school board meet court order requirements, the department argues. The Department of Justice argues that the board members cannot individually sway staffing decisions but have the ability to do so as a body. While state law requires the board to place personnel actions under the purview of the superintendent, the board is required to cure noncompliance on the superintendent's part and has the ability to adopt policies or procedures that force the district to comply with the court order.
The Department of Justice argues: "Additionally, while the board, in its motion and supporting memorandum, places responsibility for the failures to comply with the consent decree on the superintendent and decries the lack of cooperation and communication fostered by the superintendent, it nonetheless ratified the superintendent’s conduct (failures to comply with the consent decree) when it extended his contract. Indeed, on July 19, 2016 — almost one month after the United States filed its contempt motion and thereby put the school board on clear notice that the district was out of compliance, the school board voted to extend the superintendent’s contract for 30 additional months. In short, the school board — while constrained to act within the confines of its power, still has the power and obligation to comply with the consent decree."
In December 2015, the board adopted the consent decree as proposed by the Department of Justice with no alterations made. The consent decree is meant to "desegregate the district’s faculty and administrative staff, improve and make viable the medical magnet program at Carroll High School and equalize access to course offerings," according to the Department of Justice. The medical magnet program at Carroll was required by the court in an April 1999 order as an attempt to increase the diversity of the student population at the school.
The Department of Justice 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.
Follow Bonnie Bolden on Twitter @Bonnie_Bolden_ and on Facebook at http://on.fb.me/1RtsEEP.