Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [howardpubliced] Re: MSDE Opinion -- Royalties Policy Appeal

Expand Messages
  • Allen Dyer
    colleen, no. i don t think so. the working conditions not being something that can be delegated by the local boards is a different issue. something that
    Message 1 of 11 , Oct 31, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      colleen,

      no. i don't think so. the "working conditions" not being something that can be delegated by the local boards is a different issue.

      something that might be interesting re: "working conditions" -- bring the state board of education into the collective bargaining process and get approval for the desired "working conditions" from the state board. just brainstorming.

      allen

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "colleendolphin" <colleendolphin@...>
      To: <howardpubliced@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 8:28 PM
      Subject: [howardpubliced] Re: MSDE Opinion -- Royalties Policy Appeal


      | Allen,
      | Is this similar to the concern that I have that the public domain status of our state collective bargaining/arbitration laws are being compromised by claims by some state agencies that they have the power to decide what topics are working conditions to be negotiated and what topics are under unilateral control of a state agency?
      | Colleen
      |
      | --- In howardpubliced@yahoogroups.com, "Allen Dyer" <aldyer@...> wrote:
      | >
      | > colleen,
      | >
      | > for many years i have been concerned that the public domain status of our state public documents is being compromised by claims by some state agencies of the power to copyright public documents and i have committed many hours in efforts to seeking an authoritative ruling by the maryland judiciary that the maryland constitution does not allow for maryland state documents to be copyrighted.
      | >
      | > so...yes, i do intend to continue my quest and, should the maryland court of appeals declare open season on our state documents, i will advocate for a state constitutional amendment to recover our freedom.
      | >
      | > allen
      | >
      | > ----- Original Message -----
      | > From: colleendolphin
      | > To: howardpubliced@yahoogroups.com
      | > Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 8:54 PM
      | > Subject: [howardpubliced] Re: MSDE Opinion -- Royalties Policy Appeal
      | >
      | >
      | > I'm a little confused. If the copyright law is beyond the scope of the State Board, then how could our local board (Ho. Co.) have a policy on it? Also, does this decision mean that you will be taking the issue to court Allen?
      | >
      | > Colleen
      | >
      | > --- In howardpubliced@yahoogroups.com, "Allen Dyer" <aldyer@> wrote:
      | > >
      | > > ALLEN DYER, BEFORE THE
      | > >
      | > > Appellant MARYLAND
      | > >
      | > > v. STATE BOARD
      | > >
      | > > HOWARD COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION
      | > > OF EDUCATION,
      | > >
      | > > Appellee Opinion No. 09-36
      | > >
      | > > OPINION
      | > >
      | > > INTRODUCTION
      | > >
      | > > Allen R. Dyer, a member of the Howard County Board ofEducation, has petitioned this Board, in his capacity as a "citizen and a public official" for several declaratory rulings on the legality of certain actions of the Howard County Board of Education (local board). The local board has filed a Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Affirmance. Mr. Dyer has responded.
      | > >
      | > > FACTUAL BACKGROUND
      | > >
      | > > In Mr. Dyer's Petition, he requests two declarations: (1) that the Howard County Board policy dealing with copyrights and royalties is illegal; and (2) that the Howard County Board is without legal authority to suppress publication of legal memoranda requested by Mr. Dyer.
      | > >
      | > > In its Motion to Dismiss, the local board seeks dismissal on the grounds that Mr. Dyer lacks standing to request a declaration on the Royalties Policy. The local board seeks summary affirmance on the issue of disclosure of legal memoranda.
      | > >
      | > > STANDARD OF REVIEW
      | > >
      | > > A party may file for a declaratory ruling on the interpretation of a public school law or regulation of the State Board that is material to an existing case of controversy." COMAR 13A.01.05.03. The State Board uses its "independent judgment on the record before it in the explanation and interpretation of public school laws and State Board regulations." COMAR 13A.01.05(E).
      | > >
      | > > LEGAL ANALYSIS
      | > >
      | > > Before reaching the local board's standing issue, we consider first the jurisdiction of this Board to hear this case at all. Under our own rules, in order for this Board to issue a declaratory ruling, the law to be interpreted and applied through the declaration must be an education law or regulation. COMAR 13A.01.05.03 and .05. As the Court of Special Appeals explained, a ruling by the State Board under its declaratory procedures must relate to the applicability of a rule, order, or statute enforceable by the State Board. McIntyre v. Board ofEducation ofKent County, 55 Md. App. 219, passim (1983).
      | > >
      | > > In his petition, Mr. Dyer requests declarations concerning the local board's application and use of the federal copyright laws, the constitutionality of using a copyright on public documents, the creation of a monopoly by the use of copyrights on public documents. A ruling on copyright laws and their use or applicability to public documents is far beyond the legal purview of this Board. Copyright law is not a law enforceable by this Board.
      | > >
      | > > The same analysis applies to Mr. Dyer's request for a declaration on the power of the local board to prevent an individual member from releasing a legally privileged and confidential memorandum. That issue does not involve education law.
      | > >
      | > > CONCLUSION
      | > >
      | > > For these reasons, we dismiss the Petition.
      | > >
      | > > James H. DeGraffenreidt, Jr.
      | > > President
      | > >
      | > > Charlene M. Dukes
      | > > Vice President
      | > >
      | > > Mary Kay Finan
      | > >
      | > > S. James Gates, Jr.
      | > >
      | > > Madhu Sidhu
      | > >
      | >
      | >
      | >
      | >
      | > ------------------------------------
      | >
      | > This is the Howard Public Education Mailing List. All original messages posted here are placed in the public domain unless the poster states otherwise. Re-published messages (i.e. newspaper articles) retain their original copyright status.Yahoo! Groups Links
      | >
      |
      |
      |
      |
      | ------------------------------------
      |
      | This is the Howard Public Education Mailing List. All original messages posted here are placed in the public domain unless the poster states otherwise. Re-published messages (i.e. newspaper articles) retain their original copyright status.Yahoo! Groups Links
      |
      |
      |
      |
    • colleendolphin
      Allen, I guess I don t understand why the State Board gets to decide working conditions. I just recently wrote a paper comparing/contrasting state laws and
      Message 2 of 11 , Nov 1, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Allen,
        I guess I don't understand why the State Board gets to decide working conditions. I just recently wrote a paper comparing/contrasting state laws and court decisions between Maryland teachers and Rhode Island teachers. What the MD State Board has deemed "not a working conditions to be bargained" has been deemed a working condition in Rhode Island. Where the courts in Maryland have given jurisdiction to the State Board, the Supreme Court in Rhode Island has not. They refer back to the original intent of the law that first allowed collective bargaining and arbitration. Do you have any insight into this?
        Colleen

        --- In howardpubliced@yahoogroups.com, "Allen Dyer" <aldyer@...> wrote:
        >
        > colleen,
        >
        > no. i don't think so. the "working conditions" not being something that can be delegated by the local boards is a different issue.
        >
        > something that might be interesting re: "working conditions" -- bring the state board of education into the collective bargaining process and get approval for the desired "working conditions" from the state board. just brainstorming.
        >
        > allen
        >
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: "colleendolphin" <colleendolphin@...>
        > To: <howardpubliced@yahoogroups.com>
        > Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 8:28 PM
        > Subject: [howardpubliced] Re: MSDE Opinion -- Royalties Policy Appeal
        >
        >
        > | Allen,
        > | Is this similar to the concern that I have that the public domain status of our state collective bargaining/arbitration laws are being compromised by claims by some state agencies that they have the power to decide what topics are working conditions to be negotiated and what topics are under unilateral control of a state agency?
        > | Colleen
        > |
        > | --- In howardpubliced@yahoogroups.com, "Allen Dyer" <aldyer@> wrote:
        > | >
        > | > colleen,
        > | >
        > | > for many years i have been concerned that the public domain status of our state public documents is being compromised by claims by some state agencies of the power to copyright public documents and i have committed many hours in efforts to seeking an authoritative ruling by the maryland judiciary that the maryland constitution does not allow for maryland state documents to be copyrighted.
        > | >
        > | > so...yes, i do intend to continue my quest and, should the maryland court of appeals declare open season on our state documents, i will advocate for a state constitutional amendment to recover our freedom.
        > | >
        > | > allen
        > | >
        > | > ----- Original Message -----
        > | > From: colleendolphin
        > | > To: howardpubliced@yahoogroups.com
        > | > Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 8:54 PM
        > | > Subject: [howardpubliced] Re: MSDE Opinion -- Royalties Policy Appeal
        > | >
        > | >
        > | > I'm a little confused. If the copyright law is beyond the scope of the State Board, then how could our local board (Ho. Co.) have a policy on it? Also, does this decision mean that you will be taking the issue to court Allen?
        > | >
        > | > Colleen
        > | >
        > | > --- In howardpubliced@yahoogroups.com, "Allen Dyer" <aldyer@> wrote:
        > | > >
        > | > > ALLEN DYER, BEFORE THE
        > | > >
        > | > > Appellant MARYLAND
        > | > >
        > | > > v. STATE BOARD
        > | > >
        > | > > HOWARD COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION
        > | > > OF EDUCATION,
        > | > >
        > | > > Appellee Opinion No. 09-36
        > | > >
        > | > > OPINION
        > | > >
        > | > > INTRODUCTION
        > | > >
        > | > > Allen R. Dyer, a member of the Howard County Board ofEducation, has petitioned this Board, in his capacity as a "citizen and a public official" for several declaratory rulings on the legality of certain actions of the Howard County Board of Education (local board). The local board has filed a Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Affirmance. Mr. Dyer has responded.
        > | > >
        > | > > FACTUAL BACKGROUND
        > | > >
        > | > > In Mr. Dyer's Petition, he requests two declarations: (1) that the Howard County Board policy dealing with copyrights and royalties is illegal; and (2) that the Howard County Board is without legal authority to suppress publication of legal memoranda requested by Mr. Dyer.
        > | > >
        > | > > In its Motion to Dismiss, the local board seeks dismissal on the grounds that Mr. Dyer lacks standing to request a declaration on the Royalties Policy. The local board seeks summary affirmance on the issue of disclosure of legal memoranda.
        > | > >
        > | > > STANDARD OF REVIEW
        > | > >
        > | > > A party may file for a declaratory ruling on the interpretation of a public school law or regulation of the State Board that is material to an existing case of controversy." COMAR 13A.01.05.03. The State Board uses its "independent judgment on the record before it in the explanation and interpretation of public school laws and State Board regulations." COMAR 13A.01.05(E).
        > | > >
        > | > > LEGAL ANALYSIS
        > | > >
        > | > > Before reaching the local board's standing issue, we consider first the jurisdiction of this Board to hear this case at all. Under our own rules, in order for this Board to issue a declaratory ruling, the law to be interpreted and applied through the declaration must be an education law or regulation. COMAR 13A.01.05.03 and .05. As the Court of Special Appeals explained, a ruling by the State Board under its declaratory procedures must relate to the applicability of a rule, order, or statute enforceable by the State Board. McIntyre v. Board ofEducation ofKent County, 55 Md. App. 219, passim (1983).
        > | > >
        > | > > In his petition, Mr. Dyer requests declarations concerning the local board's application and use of the federal copyright laws, the constitutionality of using a copyright on public documents, the creation of a monopoly by the use of copyrights on public documents. A ruling on copyright laws and their use or applicability to public documents is far beyond the legal purview of this Board. Copyright law is not a law enforceable by this Board.
        > | > >
        > | > > The same analysis applies to Mr. Dyer's request for a declaration on the power of the local board to prevent an individual member from releasing a legally privileged and confidential memorandum. That issue does not involve education law.
        > | > >
        > | > > CONCLUSION
        > | > >
        > | > > For these reasons, we dismiss the Petition.
        > | > >
        > | > > James H. DeGraffenreidt, Jr.
        > | > > President
        > | > >
        > | > > Charlene M. Dukes
        > | > > Vice President
        > | > >
        > | > > Mary Kay Finan
        > | > >
        > | > > S. James Gates, Jr.
        > | > >
        > | > > Madhu Sidhu
        > | > >
        > | >
        > | >
        > | >
        > | >
        > | > ------------------------------------
        > | >
        > | > This is the Howard Public Education Mailing List. All original messages posted here are placed in the public domain unless the poster states otherwise. Re-published messages (i.e. newspaper articles) retain their original copyright status.Yahoo! Groups Links
        > | >
        > |
        > |
        > |
        > |
        > | ------------------------------------
        > |
        > | This is the Howard Public Education Mailing List. All original messages posted here are placed in the public domain unless the poster states otherwise. Re-published messages (i.e. newspaper articles) retain their original copyright status.Yahoo! Groups Links
        > |
        > |
        > |
        > |
        >
      • david_thalheimer
        We need a good legal opinion on this. I understand that some education policies are governed by state law, so of course Maryland and Rhode Island could differ.
        Message 3 of 11 , Nov 5, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          We need a good legal opinion on this. I understand that some education policies are governed by state law, so of course Maryland and Rhode Island could differ. I don't know what law is the source of "working conditions" bargaining rules or if the local BOE has any flexibility.

          - David T

          --- In howardpubliced@yahoogroups.com, "colleendolphin" <colleendolphin@...> wrote:
          >
          > Allen,
          > I guess I don't understand why the State Board gets to decide working conditions. I just recently wrote a paper comparing/contrasting state laws and court decisions between Maryland teachers and Rhode Island teachers. What the MD State Board has deemed "not a working conditions to be bargained" has been deemed a working condition in Rhode Island. Where the courts in Maryland have given jurisdiction to the State Board, the Supreme Court in Rhode Island has not. They refer back to the original intent of the law that first allowed collective bargaining and arbitration. Do you have any insight into this?
          > Colleen
          >
          > --- In howardpubliced@yahoogroups.com, "Allen Dyer" <aldyer@> wrote:
          > >
          > > colleen,
          > >
          > > no. i don't think so. the "working conditions" not being something that can be delegated by the local boards is a different issue.
          > >
          > > something that might be interesting re: "working conditions" -- bring the state board of education into the collective bargaining process and get approval for the desired "working conditions" from the state board. just brainstorming.
          > >
          > > allen
          > >
          > > ----- Original Message -----
          > > From: "colleendolphin" <colleendolphin@>
          > > To: <howardpubliced@yahoogroups.com>
          > > Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 8:28 PM
          > > Subject: [howardpubliced] Re: MSDE Opinion -- Royalties Policy Appeal
          > >
          > >
          > > | Allen,
          > > | Is this similar to the concern that I have that the public domain status of our state collective bargaining/arbitration laws are being compromised by claims by some state agencies that they have the power to decide what topics are working conditions to be negotiated and what topics are under unilateral control of a state agency?
          > > | Colleen
          > > |
          > > | --- In howardpubliced@yahoogroups.com, "Allen Dyer" <aldyer@> wrote:
          > > | >
          > > | > colleen,
          > > | >
          > > | > for many years i have been concerned that the public domain status of our state public documents is being compromised by claims by some state agencies of the power to copyright public documents and i have committed many hours in efforts to seeking an authoritative ruling by the maryland judiciary that the maryland constitution does not allow for maryland state documents to be copyrighted.
          > > | >
          > > | > so...yes, i do intend to continue my quest and, should the maryland court of appeals declare open season on our state documents, i will advocate for a state constitutional amendment to recover our freedom.
          > > | >
          > > | > allen
          > > | >
          > > | > ----- Original Message -----
          > > | > From: colleendolphin
          > > | > To: howardpubliced@yahoogroups.com
          > > | > Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 8:54 PM
          > > | > Subject: [howardpubliced] Re: MSDE Opinion -- Royalties Policy Appeal
          > > | >
          > > | >
          > > | > I'm a little confused. If the copyright law is beyond the scope of the State Board, then how could our local board (Ho. Co.) have a policy on it? Also, does this decision mean that you will be taking the issue to court Allen?
          > > | >
          > > | > Colleen
          > > | >
          > > | > --- In howardpubliced@yahoogroups.com, "Allen Dyer" <aldyer@> wrote:
          > > | > >
          > > | > > ALLEN DYER, BEFORE THE
          > > | > >
          > > | > > Appellant MARYLAND
          > > | > >
          > > | > > v. STATE BOARD
          > > | > >
          > > | > > HOWARD COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION
          > > | > > OF EDUCATION,
          > > | > >
          > > | > > Appellee Opinion No. 09-36
          > > | > >
          > > | > > OPINION
          > > | > >
          > > | > > INTRODUCTION
          > > | > >
          > > | > > Allen R. Dyer, a member of the Howard County Board ofEducation, has petitioned this Board, in his capacity as a "citizen and a public official" for several declaratory rulings on the legality of certain actions of the Howard County Board of Education (local board). The local board has filed a Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Affirmance. Mr. Dyer has responded.
          > > | > >
          > > | > > FACTUAL BACKGROUND
          > > | > >
          > > | > > In Mr. Dyer's Petition, he requests two declarations: (1) that the Howard County Board policy dealing with copyrights and royalties is illegal; and (2) that the Howard County Board is without legal authority to suppress publication of legal memoranda requested by Mr. Dyer.
          > > | > >
          > > | > > In its Motion to Dismiss, the local board seeks dismissal on the grounds that Mr. Dyer lacks standing to request a declaration on the Royalties Policy. The local board seeks summary affirmance on the issue of disclosure of legal memoranda.
          > > | > >
          > > | > > STANDARD OF REVIEW
          > > | > >
          > > | > > A party may file for a declaratory ruling on the interpretation of a public school law or regulation of the State Board that is material to an existing case of controversy." COMAR 13A.01.05.03. The State Board uses its "independent judgment on the record before it in the explanation and interpretation of public school laws and State Board regulations." COMAR 13A.01.05(E).
          > > | > >
          > > | > > LEGAL ANALYSIS
          > > | > >
          > > | > > Before reaching the local board's standing issue, we consider first the jurisdiction of this Board to hear this case at all. Under our own rules, in order for this Board to issue a declaratory ruling, the law to be interpreted and applied through the declaration must be an education law or regulation. COMAR 13A.01.05.03 and .05. As the Court of Special Appeals explained, a ruling by the State Board under its declaratory procedures must relate to the applicability of a rule, order, or statute enforceable by the State Board. McIntyre v. Board ofEducation ofKent County, 55 Md. App. 219, passim (1983).
          > > | > >
          > > | > > In his petition, Mr. Dyer requests declarations concerning the local board's application and use of the federal copyright laws, the constitutionality of using a copyright on public documents, the creation of a monopoly by the use of copyrights on public documents. A ruling on copyright laws and their use or applicability to public documents is far beyond the legal purview of this Board. Copyright law is not a law enforceable by this Board.
          > > | > >
          > > | > > The same analysis applies to Mr. Dyer's request for a declaration on the power of the local board to prevent an individual member from releasing a legally privileged and confidential memorandum. That issue does not involve education law.
          > > | > >
          > > | > > CONCLUSION
          > > | > >
          > > | > > For these reasons, we dismiss the Petition.
          > > | > >
          > > | > > James H. DeGraffenreidt, Jr.
          > > | > > President
          > > | > >
          > > | > > Charlene M. Dukes
          > > | > > Vice President
          > > | > >
          > > | > > Mary Kay Finan
          > > | > >
          > > | > > S. James Gates, Jr.
          > > | > >
          > > | > > Madhu Sidhu
          > > | > >
          > > | >
          > > | >
          > > | >
          > > | >
          > > | > ------------------------------------
          > > | >
          > > | > This is the Howard Public Education Mailing List. All original messages posted here are placed in the public domain unless the poster states otherwise. Re-published messages (i.e. newspaper articles) retain their original copyright status.Yahoo! Groups Links
          > > | >
          > > |
          > > |
          > > |
          > > |
          > > | ------------------------------------
          > > |
          > > | This is the Howard Public Education Mailing List. All original messages posted here are placed in the public domain unless the poster states otherwise. Re-published messages (i.e. newspaper articles) retain their original copyright status.Yahoo! Groups Links
          > > |
          > > |
          > > |
          > > |
          > >
          >
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.