What Do They Want, Really?

The three main local papers each delivered yesterday's news in their unique way. The Post was informative, accurate, thorough, they interviewed a couple of the players. The Gazette, too, was direct, factual, well-written, very concise (of all the media, I'd have to say their coverage has been the best through all of this). And of course The Times made it sound like ... well, here's their headline: Picking of sex-ed panel rankles family groups. Mmm, "family groups," sure, that's what this is about, rankling family groups.

But let's pick out the news here. All three reporters, it looks like, interviewed CRC President Michelle Turner. We want to figure out what's going on here, let's see what she said.

The Post has her like this:

But Michelle Turner, a parent and president of CRC, which submitted one nominee, said the board's request violates the terms of a settlement the two sides signed in June. Turner said the agreement allows CRC and PFOX -- not the board -- to designate whom they wish to serve on the advisory committee.

"We have a signed settlement that we would each be able to choose our representative," Turner said. "For them to change the rules -- what kind of ethical practice is that?"

She said the new conditions don't apply to their representatives because the board made the changes after the two sides signed the agreement. A representative for PFOX could not be reached for comment.

and there's a little more, toward the end...

For now, CRC is not budging, and Turner said the group would not submit additional names. It is unclear, however, whether CRC's nominee, Retta Brown, will be permitted to serve because she was a part of the original committee that worked with Montgomery educators on the previous curriculum. O'Neill said the board recognizes that CRC and PFOX are entitled to seats under the terms of their agreement, but if the two groups decline to follow the rules, their seats might go unfilled.

OK, so CRC wants to interpret the agreement as saying that they, and not the school board, will select their members for the committee. Even though the agreement itself says they will be selected by the board, according to standard policy.

And they want to call this a "change" of the rules. But of course the rules weren't made yet when the agreement was signed -- why would you have deadlines and qualifications and application procedures for a committee that you don't even know is going to exist? Are they really going to take that argument to court?

The Gazette had this from the same lady:

Reached by phone after the board’s decision, Turner responded to [board member] Abrams' comments, saying the settlement agreement did not include any mention that a nominee could not have served on the disbanded committee.

"He, having a law background, ought to know that if you sign an agreement, you are bound by that agreement," she said. "And writing a resolution or policy subsequent to the agreement cannot have bearing."

Turner said her group has no intention of changing its nomination, adding that the group was in contact with the Orlando, Fla.-based Liberty Counsel, which provided CRC and PFOX with legal help when it sued the school board.

"If an organization changes an agreement, it could certainly lead to further litigation,” Turner said. "But I’m not a lawyer, so I can only speculate. ... We acted in good faith with the Board of Education and ask them to reciprocate."

OK, great quotes. This is as clear as it gets, they want to sue, they "have no intention" of following the rules. They think they only have to follow the settlement agreement, not the board's rules. Mmm, OK, good luck with that one.

And then The Times:

Michelle Turner, president of CRC, said the schools negotiated an agreement in June with the understanding that her group and an ex-gay group would designate one person each to sit on the committee.

Days after the June 27 agreement, however, the schools said each group would submit three names, and the schools would pick the representatives.

"We had a signed agreement with the schools in good faith, and as soon as we signed it, they designed a policy to undermine it," Mrs. Turner said.

"I think it's an underhanded little game to play," she said.

From The Times' quotes, we see that Ms. Turner feels that it was a dirty deal for the board to establish rules for application for membership on the new committee, or at least for the board to expect CRC and PFOX to follow them. Like they were trying to trick them or something.

In case their thinking is not clear, Ms. Turner read this statement at public comments in the morning session:

In order to ensure true representation on the new Citizen's Advisory Committee for Family Life & Human Development, the seat issue was very important to the CRC and PFOX during settlement negotiations.

For that reason, we (you, PFOX, CRC) agreed to one seat each for PFOX and CRC and that the CAC would be limited to 15 people. At no point prior to signing the agreement did the school noard inform us that there would be a change in the rules under which you have operated in the past. At the time we signed the agreement, the old practice existed where we -- CRC & PFOX -- would designate a person for that seat, and unless otherwise not qualified, then the nomination was to be accepted.

The agreement required CRC and PFOX to submit the designee by July 1. As of July 1- the new policy did not exist. Thus we cannot be bound to the new policy. The new policy did not come into existence until more than a month after the settlement agreement was signed.

I believe it is in the best interest of MCPS and you, members of the Board, to honor the agreement as it was originally intended and bring this matter to a close. It is up to you.

Well, all-righty now.

Here's the legal question, it seems to me: When MCPS and these two anti-school-district groups signed that agreement, was there any reason to believe, using common sense, that no other policies would apply to them?

I don't know a lot about this stuff, but I'll bet lawyers have a Latin phrase that means "This document does not imply anything that is not stated in this document." Don't know what that is, but I'll just betcha there's some fancy phrase for that idea, which must be common in contract law. This is our agreement, and we haven't agreed on anything else.

Look at the wording of the settlement HERE.

Section 6 is the relevant one -- here it is in full:

6. MCPS agrees that the newly-constituted CAC, for the term during which the consultation on the Revisions contemplated by the Board's May 23, 2005 resolution will occur, will include a maximum of 15 members and will include one representative of PFOX and one representative of CRC, to be selected by the Board in accordance with Section C(2)(a)(3) of Board Policy BMA, provided such representatives are Montgomery County residents and are otherwise qualified and able to serve on the committee. PFOX and CRC will inform the Board of their nominees in writing by July 1, 2005.

There is no other mention of limitations or privileges for the complaining groups. The committee will include one member from each group.

Oh, but there is this:

9. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed to diminish or enlarge the legal right of MCPS to develop, revise or implement curriculum, including curriculum that provides information on sexual variations and promotes tolerance of others regardless of sexual orientation.

Yes, the school board retains all its regular powers to do what it needs to do to develop curriculum. Like define a process for applying, spell out requirements for membership, set some deadlines, stuff like that.

Sorry you lawsuit-lovin', gay-hatin' groups don't like the way this is working out. Really, I'm sorry.

Now dry your eyes, come up with three valid names, and try to make it look like you really do care about developing a curriculum for our kids.