Vallas Lawyer: Attacks On School Chief ‘Uncivil And Irresponsible’–Rule Of Law ‘Honored’ By Vallas

UPDATE: Connecticut Supreme Court summary here.

Steven Ecker, the appellate specialist who successfully argued the Paul Vallas case before the Connecticut Supreme Court, shares this exclusive commentary about the high court’s decision, what it means while also taking exception to statements by Vallas’ critics including Norm Pattis, the attorney for plaintiffs in the case. Ecker writes, “perhaps plaintiffs should follow their own guidance and reimburse the City for the cost of defending against a lawsuit that should never have been filed!” Ecker commentary:

Neither Mr. Vallas nor his lawyers are interested in gloating over the Supreme Court ruling. I have always felt–and I said in open court back in July–that I do not attribute bad faith to anyone here. Plaintiffs obviously hold strong views about what is best for the educational interests of Bridgeport’s children, and those views deserve respect. However, as I also suggested in the same courtroom on the same day, respect is a two-way street, and it is deeply unfortunate that Mr. Pattis, plaintiffs, and a handful of their supporters find themselves unable to acknowledge that people holding differing views are also acting in good faith, based on their own strongly held convictions about what is right for the schoolchildren of Bridgeport. The need that Mr. Pattis and others evidently feel to personally attack Mr. Vallas (and anyone else who has a differing viewpoint) is what I find so disconcerting. The allegations of corruption, cronyism, incompetence and the rest of the nonsense is both uncivil and irresponsible. It also is highly counter-productive in the long run.

The foregoing explains why I say what follows. Ordinarily I would not comment at any length. But the spinning endlessly promulgated by plaintiffs and their lawyer really warrants a response. So–
1. The Supreme Court’s ruling rests on a “technicality” (as plaintiffs now claim) only if the Constitution is a technicality. The ruling is fundamental and jurisdictional in nature. It holds that the trial court did not have the right, ability or authority to even CONSIDER (much less adjudicate) plaintiffs’ claims. The Supreme Court held that the decision whether or not to waive the certification requirement was conferred by statute upon the State Board of Education and Commissioner of Education. In other words, the legislative branch–our elected representatives–passed a law giving the executive branch (the SED) decisionmaking authority over this issue. The judicial branch, said the justices, does not have a role in second-guessing that decisionmaking. In other words, the Supreme Court held that a licensing decision of this nature cannot be challenged in court as plaintiffs did. The common law rule (in Connecticut and around the country) is that plaintiffs cannot do what plaintiffs did here.

2. It is noteworthy that the Supreme Court decision is unanimous. Not one of the justices agreed with plaintiffs.

3. Plaintiffs built their entire appeal on the idea of respect for the rule of law. They argued in very strong terms that Mr. Vallas didn’t respect the rule of law, his lawyers didn’t respect the rule of law, the Mayor didn’t respect the rule of law, etc. Now it’s time for plaintiffs to respect the rule of law. The law is, as we have been arguing from day one, that Mr. Vallas was lawfully appointed as the superintendent of schools in Bridgeport. Plaintiffs have the absolute right to say that he should not be the superintendent, he’s a rotten superintendent, that it was a mistake to appoint him, that the certification waiver was ill-advised, and so forth, if that is what they believe. It’s a free country. But, in fairness, they really should acknowledge that the rule of law has been honored by Mr. Vallas.

4. Plaintiffs have insisted that Mr. Vallas’s legal position was without merit. Mr. Pattis, their lawyer, went so far as to publicly guarantee victory in the Supreme Court. They have also argued that Vallas is wasting precious taxpayer dollars by defending against their lawsuit. Well, again, it is time to take account of these claims. If symmetrical justice applies, perhaps plaintiffs should follow their own guidance and reimburse the City for the cost of defending against a lawsuit that should never have been filed!

5. One final point. The Supreme Court decision is by no means a “moot” point. It establishes an important legal point, and also allows Mr. Vallas to help facilitate an orderly transition to a new superintendent. No doubt, Mr. Vallas has just announced that he will be returning to Illinois to seek public office there. Plaintiffs and their lawyer appear pleased by the news, which of course is their right. It is unfair, however, for them or anyone else to use this recent development in an effort to justify the costly and unsuccessful litigation waged by plaintiffs against Vallas over the past seven months, and it is equally unfair to use this news as a reason to ignore or brush aside the Supreme Court’s holding. The rule of law deserves greater respect than that.