Rochester Public Schools says lawsuit will not impact tech levy referendum
Oct. 31—ROCHESTER — Rochester Public Schools Superintendent Kent Pekel says he's confident the district's upcoming referendum for a proposed technology levy will not be derailed by a last-minute legal challenge.
A lawsuit was filed this week accusing the district of misleading the public about the kind of levy it is trying to pass.
"We worked with our legal counsel to shape the entire structure of the referendum proposal and to write the actual ballot question," Pekel said. "We are entirely confident that our levy is properly constructed in terms of the use of funds and the ballot question itself."
If approved, the levy would provide roughly $10 million a year for the district to use on tech-related needs. The levy is scheduled to be on local ballots Nov. 7.
The lawsuit was filed by Casey McGregor, who according to Minnesota court records, is representing herself. McGregor released a statement, explaining that although she's involved with the
"Say No To The Taxman Committee,"
she filed the lawsuit as an individual. Court records do not show any set court dates.
Spanning nearly 40 pages, the lawsuit makes several arguments about the district's proposed levy. One argument is that the district is trying to pass the levy under the guise of a capital projects levy when it's actually — the lawsuit claims — a form of an operating levy. The lawsuit also argues under that definition, the district would be able to renew the levy at the end of its 10-year life without voter approval. It makes that claim under the logic that the Minnesota Legislature this year authorized school districts to renew an existing operating levy one time without having to put the issue on a ballot.
It also seems to suggest that the district is trying to manipulate its intentions regarding an existing operating levy that will expire in 2025.
Pekel has previously told the RPS School Board
that he would like to refrain from renewing or asking voters to increase the existing operating levy until they see whether voters would support the proposed tech levy.
"The whole scheme was to misrepresent an increase to flex spending as a smallish tech levy this year and renew a levy they promise voters would not be renewed without a vote," the lawsuit reads, referring to both the proposed tech levy and the existing operating levy. "This was a plan to achieve by an easier means than simply telling voters their straightforward intention: renewing the expiring operating capital levy ten million dollars higher."
Pekel said the lawsuit misunderstood the nature of the proposed levy.
He went on to say that although the district will formally reply to the lawsuit, its leadership does not see any way in which the lawsuit would delay or prevent voters from deciding on the levy Nov. 7.
"They clearly confuse the intended purposes of operating versus capital projects levies," Pekel said of the lawsuit. "Our counsel has assured us that this has no possible bearing on the vote."
