‘News of Interest’ Section

Complying with Legal Issues Confronting Oregon’s Charter Schools

By:
Matthew D. Lowe and Mark P. O’Donnell
O’Donnell Clark & Crew LLP

Friday, April 2nd
1 to 4 p.m.
Wilsonville Inn & Suites, in Wilsonville
 

 I. Charter School Governance Issues

A. Principles for Good Governance and Ethical Practice by the Panel on the Nonprofit Sector

 1. Legal Compliance and Public Disclosure (Principles 1-7)

 2. Effective Governance (Principles 8-20)

 3. The Internal Revenue Service’s increasing role in corporate governance

B. Governance in the Electronic Age – Perils and Pitfalls

C. D&O insurance coverage issues and when to notify your Insurer about a potential claim

II. Complying with Open Meetings Law and Public Records Requests

III. Maintaining the Integrity of the Charter Agreement – Steps to take to avoid Charter Termination and to maximize the chances of Charter Renewal

IV. Employment Issues for Charter Schools

A. Establishing Effective Hiring Practices

B. Employee Handbooks and Policies

V. Q&A – Ask your questions and learn from the experiences of others in the Charter School Community.

Please RSVP to Janice Slater via phone at (503) 306-0224 or email janices@oandc.com

OPB.com

BY ETHAN LINDSEY
Bend, OR  June 19, 2009

A casino in Florence will face questions in court about its legality – after a ruling Thursday from the state Supreme Court.

Judges ruled that Florence residents can challenge the constitutionality of a deal that set up the Three Rivers Casino.

The Oregon constitution bans casinos.

But governors have, in the past, entered compacts, or made deals to let tribal governments in Oregon build casinos.

The Three Rivers case goes back to a lower court, in Eugene, where attorneys expect the state and tribes to argue the casino is a federal issue.

Kelly Clark is the lawyer for the Florence citizens group known as People Against a Casino Town.

Kelly Clark: “I don’t know the endgame. If we win, it means the casino is operating illegally. What happens next is up to the United States attorney, as to how they would enforce the law.”

Some hope the casino will be forced to close.

The $60 million tribal casino on the Oregon coast opened five years ago – it is owned and operated by the Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Umpqua, and Siuslaw.

© 2009 OPB

KMTR.com
June 18, 2009

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) – The governor’s authority to approve the site for tribal casinos can be challenged under a ruling by the Oregon Supreme Court.

In a unanimous opinion, the court said People Against A Casino Town, or PACT, could raise a constitutional challenge to Gov. Ted Kulongoski’s approval of a gaming compact with the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Suislaw Indians.

The group has opposed the Three Rivers Casino in Florence, claiming the Oregon Constitution expressly prohibits casinos.

The Supreme Court sent the case back to Lane County Circuit Court in Eugene for another hearing.

Siuslaw News
June 18, 2009

The Oregon Supreme Court today ruled that a citizens’ group has the right to challenge the constitutionality of the agreement by Governors Kulongoski and Kitzhaber to a compact siting the Three Rivers Casino in Florence, on the grounds that the Oregon Constitution expressly prohibits casinos. The citizens’ group, People Against A Casino Town (PACT) has been challenging the casino since shortly after it was approved, filing a string of lawsuits in state and federal courts.

The case will now go back to the Circuit Court for Lane County for a decision on the merits.

For the complete article see the 06-24-2009 issue.

by Lori Tobias,
The Oregonian
Thursday June 18, 2009

Opponents of the Three Rivers Casino in Florence will have their day in court.

The Oregon Supreme Court ruled Thursday that People Against A Casino Town, or PACT, have the right to challenge the constitutionality of a compact signed by former Gov. John Kitzhaber on the grounds that the Oregon Constitution prohibits casinos.

The compact is an agreement between the state and tribe regarding how the casino will operate, and paved the way for the opening of the Three Rivers Casino in 2004.

The case will go back to the Lane County Circuit Court for trial.

The lawsuit targets only the Three Rivers Casino; however, if the circuit court rules in favor of PACT and agrees the casino is in violation of the state constitution, the decision could have implications for every tribal casino in the state.

"We’re disappointed in the decision," said Bob Garcia, spokesman for the Coos, Lower Umpqua & Siuslaw Indians. "But it doesn’t change the basic facts which are as long as the state engages in gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, the tribes have the absolute right to engage in the same gaming the state does."

PACT has been battling the casino since before the compact was signed. They started with a petition in 2003 signed by 2,300 voters asking Kitzhaber to oppose the casino and take the necessary legal action to stop it. Since then, the case has been in Oregon Supreme Court, Lane County Circuit Court, U.S. District Court and the Oregon Court of Appeals.

"For five years, we have been getting bounced around from court to court to court with every procedural trick in the book to avoid having to answer one question," Portland attorney Kelly Clark said. "Today, the court said, ‘You have to answer that question.’ And that is: How is it in a state whose constitution expressly prohibits casinos that our governors keep siting casinos?"

Clark said he expects a decision on the case by fall. If the court finds in favor of PACT, that would mean at least the Three Rivers Casino is illegally sited, Clark said.

"Then, the compact is null and void. Would they require them to shut it down? Would Congress pass some exception? I don’t know. But it would least get us a clear-cut answer," Clark said. "This casino was illegally sited from the beginning."

The U.S. Supreme Court opened the door to gambling on reservations in 1987 when it ruled in California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians that tribes had the right to engage in certain kinds of gambling on Native American lands.

In 1988, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act gave states a role in negotiating how gambling could be conducted. The act requires a state to negotiate a compact with the tribe if the state already permits the type of gambling the tribe seeks to establish.

Other Oregon tribes began opening casinos in the 1990s. The Coos, Lower Umpqua & Siuslaw Indians first opened their casino in a humble 16,000-square-foot facility that visitors sometimes likened to Quonset Hut. By December 2007, the tribe was ready to move into its new home, a $60 million destination resort six times the size of the original building. That made it the sixth largest casino in the state.

The casino employs about 430 people, with a annual payroll of about $12 million, Garcia said.

He called the lawsuit frivolous.

"All this lawsuit is doing is wasting taxpayers money," he said. "If the residents of the state of Oregon want to end tribal gaming, stop the Oregon lottery, stop the Oregon slot machines," Garcia said. "Then they can have a say in what tribes do in Oregon. Take care of your own house first."

The Daily Courier
June 18, 2009

The result was expected. The reasons why are still unknown.

The Grants Pass City Council Thursday night voted to fire City Manager David Frasher effective July 1, not once but twice.

They declined to give any reasons for the firing based on legal advice.

The first vote was on a motion and the second on a resolution. Both had the same result.

Councilor Lisa Berger said the councilors had received advice that both methods could be used.

City Attorney Doug McGeary advised the council to vote on Frasher’s status in the form of a resolution because that was how Frasher was hired.

Councilor Rob Pell, however, cited the same advice Berger noted and said a motion is “absolutely acceptable.”

However, Mayor Mike Murphy refused to bring forward the motion, citing McGeary’s recommendation.

Council President Bill Kangas then called for the question and he, Berger, Pell, Ward Warren and Mark Townes voted for the motion. Del Renfro voted no and Tim Cummins declined to recognize the vote. Richard Michelon missed the meeting.

Townes then moved to vote on a resolution and it passed 5-2, with Renfro and Cummings opposed.

The significance of the two votes is the mayor can veto a resolution, but not a motion. Murphy indicated he will veto the resolution.

Several hundred people attended the meeting in the Rogue Theatre and nearly five dozen testified, with a majority supporting Frasher.

Frasher declined to comment following the meeting. “I want to digest it first,” he said.

Townes, talking to many who testified in support of Frasher, said if they were sitting "up here" (on the council), they might not feel the way they do and he told them "you have to trust the council."

Berger said "we can’t give you any reason … it’s frustrating" and she encouraged citizens to look at the public record documents to find her reasons.

Cummings called the Frasher saga a "train wreck" and a "disaster." Renfro said he felt that the council was "thumbing its nose" at the majority of local residents in this instance. Cummings also said he thought it would be difficult to hire a new city manager under these circumstances.

Early on, Mayor Mike Murphy made a statement, saying that it seemed like many of the concilors’ minds were already made up concerning the future of Frasher. He encouraged the council to listen to the public testimony.

Frasher spoke and thanked the people who came out to support him. He also said it was clear the council could fire him without giving a reason, but alluding to a severence package in his contract, he said, "That’s why it’s expensive when you do that."

KDRV.com

By Andrea Calcagno
June 18, 2009

GRANTS PASS, Ore. – The Grants Pass City Council voted to terminate City Manager David Frasher Thursday night, in a 5-2 vote in front of a packed house at the Rogue Theater.

Councilors did not give a public reason for the termination, which takes affect July 1st because Frasher’s severance package was not budgeted into the current fiscal year. After the public comment portion of the meeting, Interim City Attorney Douglas McGeary advised the council not to give any reasons for the possible termination due to legal repercussions for the city and council members personally.

Before the meeting, a group defending Frasher protested in front of the theater. The group has begun efforts to recall six members of the city council. They filed paperwork last week to begin collecting signatures for an election to oust the council president and another member. The group says it will file petitions next dealing with four members who took office in January. State law gives officeholders six months before they are subject to recall.

KTVZ.com
Associated Press
June 19, 2009

www.OregonLive.com

by Paul Mones, guest opinion
Tuesday June 02, 2009, 8:30 AM

Our state legislators are in the midst of dealing with one of the worst fiscal crises in recent memory. No doubt they will have to make many tough, unpopular decisions this year. However there is one legislative decision they need not fret over because it is a no-brainer. House Bill 2827 is a simple piece of legislation that gives an extra measure of justice to victims of child abuse.

In the words of one of the bill’s co-sponsors Chris Garrett (D-Lake Oswego ) – the other sponsor is Rep. Andy Olson (R-Albany) – this bill "will ensure an effective civil remedy for victims of child abuse."

The bill extends the present statute of limitations by giving victims until the age of 40 to file an action against their abuser, requiring that claims be initiated by the time the victim turns 40 years old or within five years of when the injury or the connection between the abuse and the injury is discovered. The bill has unanimously passed the house but curiously has not received the same overwhelmingly positive reception in the Senate.

The extension of the statute of limitations makes common sense because it recognizes that most child victims of sexual abuse cannot confront their debilitating problems until they are mature adults. Moreover, most victims can’t even make the connection between the abuse and their psychological problems until they have some real distance from the time period of their abuse.

Child abuse is the perfect crime because its victims are too powerless, too confused to help themselves when they are actually being abused. These children travel quietly through their days interacting with teachers and passing police officers, friends and neighbors, never revealing the anguish of their existences. And if by chance someone asks them how they are being treated at home their responses will be uniformly the same: OK.

As adults we expect all human beings to escape or at least want to escape when someone injures them, but for victims of abuse, the reverse occurs. And that is in fact perhaps one of the most insidious aspects of child abuse: It binds the child closer to the abuser. The abuser’s threats and intimidation engender in the child not only fear but self-blame and embarrassment – all of which turns a child’s survival mechanisms topsy-turvy. Emotional attachment and sexual violence become so inextricably confused that even when the abuse is reported, the child will often kick and scream as they are being removed from their draconian environment by a social worker.

The other aspect that makes child abuse a perfect crime is that most adults continue to believe that child-rearing is a private matter. They don’t want a relative, friend or neighbor telling them how to raise their child so they won’t intervene in someone else’s family. While we all cherish our right to privacy, our devotion to this cornerstone of democracy is strangling the lives of thousands of children every year. Abusive parents and caretakers thrive on isolation and that is exactly what their relatives, friends and neighbors give them.

Daily, people turn a blind eye to the screams, bruises and frightened eyes of battered and molested children. Their reaction actively reinforces the offender’s omnipotence and tells the child you’re on your own, no one is going to help you. By powerful social training we are more likely to intervene on behalf of a dog being kicked by its owner than a child being mistreated by a parent. As Americans we routinely gawk at the suffering of car accident victims but we avert our eyes and ears when we see a child being backhanded in a supermarket.

It is often only when a child becomes a mature adult that he or she has the strength and emotional resources to confront the scourge of their past.

We have done much in Oregon over the past few years to protect victims of abuse, the most recent example being the passage of HB 2062, which will prevent schools from silently moving sexually abusive teachers one district to another. If the Senate saw fit just several weeks ago to join the House in ending the scandalous practice of allowing sexually abusive teachers from negotiating sweetheart deals with their school districts, then it surely should see the wisdom in HB 2062.

Paul Mones is an attorney and a children’s rights advocate.