Journal coverage; District 4

In the Journal this morning, link, a report on the contest in District 4.

About me was written;

A key part of candidate Charles “Ched” MacQuigg’s appeals to voters is that he wants to make the board more responsive to community and teacher input.

MacQuigg, 64, a former APS teacher, said he would like the district to hire an outside entity to conduct an ethics review of APS administration and its practices.

MacQuigg sued the district because the school board told him he could not attend board meetings, saying his behavior was disruptive. He vehemently denies his behavior was disruptive. A District Court judge granted a temporary injunction allowing him to return to board meetings.

To which I would add;
Not only do I vehemently deny that I ever disrupted school board meetings or did any of the other things they allege, but there is not one shred of actual evidence to support any of their allegations that I did.

And that the Chief Judge of the Federal District Court who reviewed the evidence found;

• "... that it was what Plaintiff said rather than any non-verbal conduct that offended the Board and led to his expulsion."

• "There is no serious question here that the speech that Plaintiff typically engages in at Board meetings constitutes protected speech."

• "... that although Plaintiff’s remarks were addressed to individual Board members and APS administrators, his remarks could not reasonably have been understood as personal attacks on the persons to whom they were addressed."

• ... the justifications offered by the Board are pretexts masking viewpoint discrimination.

The Journal chose to not report that taxpayers have spent nearly three-quarters of a million dollars on a non-viable defense in search of yet more admissions of no guilt.