Schools
 

Some schools agree to remove banners encouraging a vote on school tax

Signs such as this one at Esperanza charter school on South Carrollton Avenue are likely to be coming down soon at some campuses, after attorneys struck a deal with a Civil District Court Judge today. However, the board that oversees Esperanza wasn't named in the lawsuit, and it's not clear whether this sign will stay.

Marta Jewson / The Lens

Signs such as this one at Esperanza charter school on South Carrollton Avenue are likely to be coming down soon at some campuses, after attorneys struck a deal with a Civil District Court Judge today. However, the board that oversees Esperanza wasn't named in the lawsuit, and it's not clear whether this sign will stay.

The Orleans Parish School Board and several charter schools have agreed to remove banners encouraging people to vote on a school-facility tax on the ballot in Saturday’s election.

The decision came despite a delayed hearing on the matter, after attorneys met behind closed doors with a Civil District Court judge.

Attorney Willie Zanders, representing several community groups, filed a lawsuit against the School Board last month seeking the removal of the banners that ask people to vote on the tax and depict smiling children giving the thumbs-up sign.

He said the signage amounted to the illegal use of public facilities and money to promote a vote for the tax, which would set up a standing maintenance program for nearly all New Orleans public school. Schools can conduct educational campaigns about ballot initiatives, but they cannot advocate for or against a measure. The judge in the case last week said the intent of the signs appeared to encourage a vote for the tax.

Many of the signs were paid for by the Louisiana Association of Public Charter Schools, a private group. Zanders named that organization and Executive Director Caroline Roemer Shirley in the lawsuit, but Civil District Court Judge Tiffany Chase dismissed Shirley and her group from the suit. Last week, an attorney for the organization his clients did not have control over the buildings and hadn’t hung up any signs.

On Wednesday, Zanders added several charter school operators to the suit after the School Board said it did not control the charter-occupied buildings, or what signs hung on them.

Those late additions, coupled with court holidays, led to several requests for delays being filed in court Monday which put off a scheduled hearing until Thursday.

However, after meeting with Chase in her chambers for about 20 minutes Monday morning, attorneys for the charter schools and School Board said they would be removing signs from the buildings.

School Board attorney Bill Aaron said banners would be removed at the School Board’s six direct-run schools. Despite the fact that the School Board owns a majority of the buildings that charter schools occupy in New Orleans, they do not control those buildings.

Attorney Lee Reid was in court Monday representing seven charter school boards: New Orleans College Prep; Morris Jeff Community School; New Beginnings Schools Foundation; Firstline Schools, Inc.; KIPP New Orleans Schools; Advocates for Science and Math, and Advocates for Academic Excellence. He also represents the charter school association.

“We’ve consented to remove the banners,” Reid said after the private meeting with the judge.

A banner that had previously hung on the Old Carrollton Courthouse, owned by the School Board, was no longer there Monday morning, though one at Esperanza Charter School was still visible Monday.

“We await a final hearing on Thursday to see if, in fact, all signs have been taken down,” Zanders said.

Zanders said several of the signs many have violated state law that prohibits political signage at polling places.

“It is a misdemeanor to place a sign within 600 feet of a polling place,” Zanders said.

Many local schools serve as polling places, but that matter is not addressed in this lawsuit.

The hearing was reset for Thursday at 9 a.m, though lawyers on both sides agreed the hearing would not be necessary if all signs were removed by then.

Help us report this story     Report an error    
The Lens' donors and partners may be mentioned or have a stake in the stories we cover.
  • nickelndime

    Caroline Roemer Shirley paid for the damn signs – she quickly pointed out that the signs were not paid for with public money – yeah, right! . Her 501(c)(3), LAPCS, should not have been excluded from the suit. It looks like Judge Tiffany Chase needs to have “The Law” highlighted for her. It costs time and money to initiate and argue cases in court. The signs should not have been put in front of the public. They were seen and their influence has not been determined – yet! The defendants (all of them) should be court ordered to pay. 12/01/2014 5:03 PM