ACLU: Banner Needs to be Removed Now
The ACLU issued a release this morning stating the prayer mural is supposed to come down immediately, despite what has been reported otherwise.
Officials from the state chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union today said it never agreed to a delay of the removal of the prayer banner at Cranston West.
Despite media reports yesterday stating otherwise, Steve Brown, executive director of the ACLU, said the ACLU did agree to give the school district more time to respond to their request for $173,000 in repayment of attorney's fees, but "agreed to nothing else."
“Earlier this month, the parties in the case filed a stipulation in court, agreeing that the prayer mural in the auditorium must be taken down ‘immediately’ if the Defendants decided not to appeal," Brown said. "We were stunned to learn yesterday that notwithstanding that stipulation, notwithstanding the City’s position that this is a School Committee decision, notwithstanding the School Committee’s vote last week not to appeal Judge Lagueux’s decision, and despite Mayor Fung’s earlier public statements that he hoped that the School Committee would not appeal, school officials are now taking the position that, in fact, they do not have to remove the mural at this time because 'the City' has not formally expressed its decision whether or not to appeal," Brown said.
"After least week's School Committee vote, everybody seemed to acknowledge and recognize that the case was over. Under the circumstances, it is unclear to us whether the City, separate from the School Committee, is genuinely thinking about appealing, or whether this is an attempt by some petty officials to dredge up a new excuse to avoid complying with the Court’s decision. We call on the Mayor to immediately address and resolve this issue," Brown said.
Superintendent Peter Nero said the district has consulted with an architectural firm that said it would cost about $1,000 to remove the banner from the wall and keep it intact.
The School Committee has received four offers for new homes for the banner and will decide where the banner should go at a future meeting.
Ross Stapleton-Gray
12:11 pm on Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Why would the City have standing to file an appeal? It wasn't a party to the original lawsuit, was it?
Stephanie Culhane
5:56 pm on Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Yes it was, the city owns the buildings and was listed in the law suit separate from the school committee.
John Cranston
12:32 pm on Thursday, February 23, 2012
The mural is an asset of the city and under the Cranston City Charter the disposal of assets is left to the City NOT the School Committee. You should know this you are an elected official.
C
8:19 pm on Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Im pretty sure most people in RI would like to see this headline..."Steve Brown Needs to be Removed from the ACLU".
Maple Leaf
11:02 pm on Wednesday, February 22, 2012
The legal definition of "immediately" is without delay or excuse. Mayor Fung is courting contempt of court if he tries to avoid complying with the judge's clear ruling that the banner must be removed immediately. The city could be subject to fines and the executive to jail time. Taking down the banner does not not appear to be tied to whether the city is still considering the ACLU's costs. Since the ACLU knocked off hundreds of hours of lawyers' fees, I'm amazed that they have the temerity to ask for anything more. The losers' share could easily have been another $200,000 but they have shown not a shred of appreciation that the ACLU tried to be easy on their budget. If the city wants to re-open negotiations, I hope that the ACLU can then add the costs that they have waived back onto their bill.
KAP
6:31 am on Thursday, February 23, 2012
Why can't someone just take a paint brush to the words Heavenly Father and Amen? Then the school is not violating anyone's constitutional rights and it won't cost $1000 to do it.
Maple Leaf
4:09 pm on Thursday, February 23, 2012
Read the judge's ruling: the school refused that option, and chose to fight for the banner. Now that they lost, they can't go back and ask to compromise. The judge ruled that "Heavenly Father" is a Christian phrase and that even the internal language makes the School Prayer a prayer. It's not needed since there is a secular school creed saying much the same thing on the opposite wall.
The judge was guided by previous Federal and Supreme Court cases in making his decision. This body of case law defines how the U.S. Constitution is interpreted and cannot be ignored by those who would quibble about its exact words.
The banner was unconstitutional when it was put up, right after school-sponsored prayer was ruled illegal. It still is.
The school committee and community proved by their reaction that the banner's purpose is religious, its effect is religious, and it serves to divide the community into "us" and "them." Thus it failed all three elements of the Lemon Test for religion in government, which includes city-owned schools. Does that help?
Nothing stops the school from removing the banner now, school is out, and storing it safely until it's settled which religious institution gets it.
Kimberly Manchester
8:04 am on Thursday, February 23, 2012
The cost of removal is an issue. The school committee has been running in the red for the past few years (please don't start about "than why did they try to defend at such expense", Maple Leaf!). I think that whoever wants the banner should pay for the removal and transport costs.
www.asktazi.com
John Cranston
12:35 pm on Thursday, February 23, 2012
While I my comments are not for or against the banner. Out School Committtee with two members, Frank Lombardi and Andrea Iannazzi, being lawyers knew that if they lost they would have to comply with the court order. I bet the mural would be down in ten minutes if it came out of their personal pockets and not ours.
Gail Patterson
11:09 pm on Thursday, February 23, 2012
I thought also that there is a time period of 30 days to make an appeal in the Court....Many times when one receives a decision from the court on cases, the person has a legal right to an appeal which is 30 days from the time of the courts decision....anytime after that you can no longer appeal the decision and the decision of the court stands as it is!!! It seems to me that this case is being treated differently than all other cases in making an appeal process...why is that? Shouldn't they be given the same amount of time to appeal and draw up some facts that may help change the decision in an appeal??
Small Change
12:26 pm on Thursday, February 23, 2012
Shouldn't be costly.
It doesn't need to be 'replaced' or 'repaired' - the best plan would be just to rip it off the wall and leave an unpainted scar with the bolt holes left in place.
Replacing a simple humble entreaty to behave morally with an ugly blank would nicely symbolize the atheistic demand that we should believe in nothing and stand for nothing.
Indeed , for a very small fee we could have a small bronze plaque made and set in the middle of the symbolic desolation that would simply read-
'For They Shall Inherit The Wind.'
Yes, I am serious.
Maple Leaf
4:16 pm on Thursday, February 23, 2012
The judge must know his Christians! The detailed specification for removing the banner called for it to be covered with wood and painted to match the wall if the case were appealed or for the banner to be removed and the wall to be repaired if the case were not appealed.
Your prayer banner obviously did not teach the people of Cranston to behave with dignity nor to be good sports when they lose, so it will be no loss to community morals.