II. Referendum Lawsuit Ms. Floore explained the ACLU suit with Red Clay for the referendum procedures. Our attorneys filed a motion to dismiss. A Motion to Dismiss is not argued on the merits of the case. The judge ruled not to dismiss. The judge added to his ruling that we could avoid a trial with a revote. The Board will receive the advice from the attorneys on the process moving forward. Ms. Thompson also said there will be discovery, which will be expensive. We could ask for summary judgment. She further explained that there was talk about appealing to the Supreme Court right now. It will get very expensive really fast.
Mr. Clampitt asked what would happen if the claimants prevail? Ms. Thompson stated we lose the referendum. The collected money would be in question. Mr. Piccio asked if the collected money is being placed in escrow. Ms. Floore explained that there was no “stay” on the tax ordered. We are using that money for salaries and supplies and those things promised in the referendum. Mr. Piccio stated that whomever loses, will appeal. Ms. Thompson stated the people who brought the case to the ACLU aren’t paying the fees. Mr. Clampitt asked to we have any idea of the cost of an election. If we simply had another vote, we could avoid all of the cost. Ms. Thompson stated we could hold another vote without the events we had at the time of the first time. Ms. Floore explained that Christina held a referendum on the same day as ours, with events and their referendum did not pass. The factual elements in the judge’s opinion are not correct. Ms. Floore has not had any conversations with the attorneys. Mr. Clampitt believes that the Board should have this information so they can do a cost analysis and make a decision based on that. Ms. Floore said we cannot go back in time to February 2015, the conditions that existed at that time, no longer exist.