2008 Woodie Awards
Battle for Measure C Episode VI: Return of the Funds
Funds Secured After Court Battle
Ehssan Barkeshli
Issue date: 1/7/08 Section: News
|
When the bond measure passed in June 2006, Saratoga lawyer Katz immediately opposed the district, saying that Measure C lacked the accountability provisions required by Proposition 39, such as a detailed project list. Katz also claimed that the voting scheme for the proposition was unconstitutional because it excluded nonresident property owners like him from voting.
After losing in trial court last year, Katz appealed again for a court hearing on Nov. 15. The former lawyer filed his case and appeared before the court representing himself. After ninety days, the court released its decision in the district's favor.
"Needless to say, as bond counsel to the district, as well as having represented the district on the validation and appeal, [I] am thrilled with the court's decision. We have finally put an end to similar claims that might be raised against all districts by a disgruntled taxpayer," said David Casnocha, bond counsel to the district on this issue, in an e-mail to De Anza College administrators.
"Regarding Katz's feelings that he had a right to vote, the court said look, the issue is governmental, that's been decided many times. We're not hearing that issue," said Jeanine Hawk, De Anza College vice president of Financial Services.
Local residents have more knowledge and interest in local affairs, and that is the basis for excluding nonresidents from voting on matters of local importance. The court asserted that the voting scheme was fully constitutional.
"Regarding the first issue, which had to do with the project definitions on our Prop 39 ballot, they dismissed it, saying that there's been an outstanding job done outlining where the money will go. The court even included the full ballot text for Measure C in the opinion as a model for other districts to rely on in constructing a project list that satisfies the requirements of Prop 39," said Hawk.
"The Recorder," a local daily paper read by lawyers, stated that the level of specificity urged by Katz was "impractical and unnecessary." "For instance," it continued, "he said that they would have voters informed as to which buildings would receive new fire safety doors or which roofs would be repaired and replaced. What Katz demanded was beyond what voters needed to know, and it would be inconsistent with the district's need to apply funds based on specific needs once funding was actually available."
Be the first to comment on this story