Appeal authorization additional concerns...

Addition reasons why the September 10 motion did not and could not have authorized Mr. Luna to take action in appellate court:

1. The motion was approved 11 days prior to the final ruling on the 95th Judicial District Court on September 21, 2009.  It is not reasonable that the board could act to appeal ruling without reviewing the judgement and determining, if would be in the public interest interest to file an appeal.  For the board to approve an action to appeal without first determining what is in the best interest of district, the students, and taxpayers, would be a violation of the public trust.
   
2. Appealing the judgment of the district court is hardly reaching a final decision "as expeditiously as possible." It could  be reasonably argued that the motion prohibits the district's attorney from seeking an appeal.
3. The "final decision"in the "lawsuit pending in Judge Mohlberg's court" would be the trial court's judgment.  While this final decision is subject to appeal, it is otherwise a final decision. The district is not legally required to appeal the ruling of  the district court.
   
4. This resolution was passed unanimously, two of trustees voting in the affirmative have publicly stated their opposition to the appeal, or express serious reservations about seeking appeal prior to this vote. These trustees supported an motion in the October 12th special meeting to end the appeal. The language of the September 10th motion is worded to be so vague as to mean nothing and everything.  Because of wording of this motion is vague, it is not possible to ascertain from this motion the pleasure of  the board regarding a future appeal.
5. In the October 12, meeting  a motion was considered to terminate the appeal, and  the board president abstained from voting on motion.  The board president  cited a potential conflict of interest.  If a potential conflict of existed for the board president on a motion to terminate the appeal, certainly the same conflict of interest existed when voting to initiate the appeal.  However, when considering the September 10th motion, the board president did not relinquished the chair, nor asbstain from  the vote. If the intent of September 10th motion was to authorize the district's attorneys to seek an appeal, the board president acted when she perceived a potential conflict of interest.