ILNews

Zoeller moves to strike Ritz’s suit against Board of Education

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Attorney General Greg Zoeller Thursday asked a court to throw out a lawsuit filed by Superintendent of Public Instruction Glenda Ritz against the Indiana Board of Education.

The AG’s office filed a motion to strike and asked Marion Circuit Judge Louis Rosenberg to set a hearing on its request. Zoller argues Ritz’s suit brought by Department of Education attorneys Bernice A.N. Corley and Michael G. Moore is barred by statute. Ritz, a Democrat, alleges in the suit that board members appointed by Republican governors acted illegally to strip her office of oversight of the A-F school-grading system.

The system adopted under Ritz’s predecessor, Republican Tony Bennett, was widely criticized after the discovery of emails indicating the department under Bennett’s leadership improved the grades of charter schools connected to campaign donors.

The motion from Zoeller, a Republican, cites I.C. 4-6-2-1 that provides the AG “shall prosecute and defend all suits that may be instituted by or against the state of Indiana.”

“Without the consent of the Attorney General, no state official may hire or utilize private counsel to represent herself in an official capacity suit,” the motion claims. “…Therefore, as Chair of the Indiana State Board of Education and Indiana Superintendent of Public Instruction, the representation of Plaintiff Ritz’s legal interests lies exclusively in the hands of the Attorney General,” the filing says.

Ritz’s suit claims the actions of board members, including drafting a letter to Republican legislative leaders to advocate for changing who’s in charge of school grades, violated Indiana’s Open Door law. The filing by the AG’s office makes no reference to the allegations in Ritz’s suit.

“Attorney General Zoeller noted that his office has not taken sides on the Superintendent’s Open Door Law complaint or on the underlying policy disagreement” between Ritz and the board of education, the AG’s office said in a statement.

“For purposes of this motion filed today, the Attorney General does not represent the 10 individual board members, but rather state government itself and he is asserting that legal authority.  The Attorney General will monitor any related legal matters that might arise and represent state interests as needed,” the statement said.

As of Thursday afternoon, no hearings had been scheduled in the case.

Zoeller's motion comes a day after education board member Tony Walker asked the court to dismiss the suit.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT