Posted By: Okemos Law
To whom it may concern:
I completely agree with the views expressed on this webpage, and I am saddened to see that so many parents must remain anonymous in efforts to defeat the bond for fear of retribution from administrators and teachers. However, I believe that the anti-bond movement can gain some strength by pursuing the following legal action in Michigan courts:
There is a strong argument to be made that the Okemos Technology Bond ballot question should enjoined because the bond violates provisions in M.C.L. 380.1551a which prevents the issuance of bonds for the school district's ordinary operating expenses. By concurrently issuing a list of "Budget Implications" (which would be triggered in the event that Technology Bond fails) with the Technology Bond ballot question, the Board of Education has created a de facto "ordinary operating expense" bond which is expressly prohibited by Michigan Law. Jurisdiction lies under M.C.L. 380.1551a(4) for any resident of the school district to file for such an injunction. Unfortunately, I am too busy over the next week to pursue this, but if there are any lawyers amongst this anti-bond movement, I strongly suggest that someone file the action before the election. Admittedly, it is a tenuous legal argument, but given that the Board was bold enough to issue the three-tiered "Budget Implications", a judge may just be persuaded enough to enjoin the question from the May 8th ballot. Additionally (and more importantly), even if the legal action fails, the lawsuit would have positive collateral effects of: (1) generating front-page anti-bond exposure in the local media (e.g. LSJ, WLNS, WILX, etc.); (2) furthering anti-Board sentiment for the additional expense that would be incurred by the District in defending against the action; and (3) likely mobilizing and informing people with anti-bond sentiment about the coming vote.
Also, the yard signs are a great idea. If it gets off the ground, please let me know and I would be happy to provide my address.