CENTER - A Knox County District Court judge has dismissed a lawsuit that sought to throw out a $3.8 million school bond issue approved by voters in the Verdigre School District last November.
District Court Judge Robert Ensz agreed with the school district and dismissed the suit Thursday that was filed by Philip Pierce, David Pierce and 25 other Knox County residents in January.
The suit was filed against the Verdigre school board, its president and the district. The plaintiffs alleged the Verdigre district bond election would not have occurred if not for school officials meeting in secret to put the issue on the ballot.
The school district disputed that any secret meetings occurred. They also argued, in part, that even if the landowners' claims were valid, the court should not throw out the election results.
Ensz agreed, writing, "The Court finds the plaintiffs' request for declaratory relief is moot."
It was unclear Friday as to whether the plaintiffs will appeal the ruling.
Tom DeLay, a Norfolk attorney representing the plaintiffs, said the 27 landowners just received the ruling Friday. It will take a few days to decide what they want to do, he said.
By law, they have up to 30 days to file an appeal.
Bill Kuester, superintendent of Nebraska Unified District 1, which includes Verdigre, was not available for comment Friday.
Kuester previously said that even if the lawsuit would be dismissed, construction could not start immediately.
The school board would have to meet again, approve a resolution and then sell the bonds before any ground could be turned.
Preliminary plans call for the new facility to have eight classrooms, K-12 library, science classroom and lab, special education room, new entrance with administrative office for security, a teachers' work room and possibly three small rooms for meetings.
Plans also call for two new locker rooms to meet ADA requirements with the gym. Other plans are to improve the air quality in the elementary school and in an annex building.
Reader Comments
Posted: Wednesday, April 01, 2009
Article comment by:
AK
nm. do you have any knowledge of this issue? it doesn't appear so. did you even read the article? it looks like you didn't even do that. the last 2 paragraphs tell what is being built. It doesn't say just a gym with a ramp.
All I hear about is people complaining that the voters were not informed enough. Well it is the responsibility of the voter to inform themselves and understand what they are voting on. If they are uninformed, they could have called the school and got some information, went to one of the town meetings, talked to a neighbor or friend. It isn't like this was put on the ballot the day before the election. People had time to get their questions answered.
Posted: Monday, March 30, 2009
Article comment by:
nm
If they dont want a revote, then wat are they scared of. I'll tell you, they are scared of the voters actually being informed enough on this election and them losing the school bond for their new gym with a wheelchair ramp. thats all they wanted. was a wheelchair ramp.
Posted: Monday, March 23, 2009
Article comment by:
Matt
AKW, thank you. I would think a violation of the open meetings law would be fairly simple to prove. And the fact that the plaintiffs are using a loophole to try to stop the bond issue even more so shows how pathetic they are.
Posted: Monday, March 23, 2009
Article comment by:
AKW
Kamarie,
You talk about the repeated violations of the open meeting law like it is a FACT but that didn't happen and that is why the lawsuit was thrown out. If it did happen, the lawsuit would not have been thrown out. Since no laws were borken, it is a "bona fide" election. The only reason this lawsuit happened is beocause the Pirece brothers and 25 other plantiffs didn't like that the election didn't go their way and want to make accusations to try to get it stopped.
Posted: Monday, March 23, 2009
Article comment by:
Kamarie
I am sorry that the previous comments are an exact reflection of the issue the plaintiffs were addressing. An election preceded by INCOMPLETE and INACCURATE information with repeated violations of Nebraska's Open Meetings Law on the part the Verdigre Board of Education is not in any way a "bona fide" election. I respect the plaintiffs for taking an unpopular stand in protecting the rights of the voting citizens. The similar efforts of past "thickheaded" citizens is the very reason we can discuss, evaluate, and make informed voting decisions without the necessity of resorting to name calling as our defense. I am appalled that someone would think that "the benefit of multiple communities" should be the responsibility of taxpayers in the Verdigre district. What evidence is there that such a project would get any so-called stimulus money? What evidence does Joan have that new buildings improve student achievement or reduce absenteeism? But these are all side issues and I would challenge anyone who wants to comment on this lawsuit to confine themselves to this issue: Is an election preceded by repeated violations of Nebraska's Open Meetings Law, including a closed meeting of the Board of Education, in fact a valid election? The plaintiffs in this suit contend that it is not and I personally hope they continue their pursuit in protecting the rights those who aren't informed enough to even realize that their rights have been violated.
