arcnav.gif (3459 bytes)

Back to School Governance Charter Amendment main page

Complaint for Declaratory Judgment
Superior Court of the District of Columbia
Dino Drudi
June 22, 2000

DC Watch Home

Council Period 12

Council Period 13

Council Period 14

Council Period 15

Election 1998

Election 2000

Election 2002

themail

Search DCWatch

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Civil Division

DINO JOSEPH DRUDI
938 Perry Place, NE
Washington, DC 20017,
Plaintiff,

V.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BOARD OF ELECTIONS AND ETHICS
441 4th St, NW, Suite 270N
Washington, DC 20001

and

BENJAMIN F. WILSON,
BOARD CHAIRMAN

and

Case No. 0004616-00

THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
441 4th St, NW
Washington, DC 20001

and

THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
Defendants

COMPLAINT for DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF

COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Dino Joseph Drudi, by and through his attorneys, Kenneth H. Rosenau, Rosenau & Rosenau, and for his cause of action states and alleges as follows;

1. The Plaintiff is a resident and registered voter of the District of Columbia residing at 938 Perry Plaee, NE, Washington, DC, 20017.

2. The Council of the District of Columbia ("Council") is the legislature of the District of Columbia. The District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics ("Board") is an agency of the District of Columbia. The Chairman of the Board is an agent of the District of Columbia performing his duties primarily within the District.

3. This Court has jurisdiction over the persons and subject matter of this action based upon D.C. Code §11-921.

4. District of Columbia Code §1-229 requires that any proposed act of the Council, before final adoption by the Council, must be read twice in substantially the same form, with at least thirteen days intervening between each reading.

5, On or about February 15, 2000. the Council passed District of Columbia Bill 13-469, later signed as Act #13-295. also known as the School Governance Charter Amendment Act of 2000 (hereinafter "Act"), without having read the proposed Act twice in substantially the same form.

6. On each of two occasions before the reading and passage of the Act, a proposed act bearing the same name and number of the Act was read. These earlier read acts, while addressing some of the same issues addressed by the Act, were not in substantially the same form as the Act as passed.

7. The Act, if ratified by referendum, will change the composition of the District of Columbia Board of Education and the method of selection of its members. The Act will empower the Council to create a State education agency with certain powers over all schools within the District.

8. Must importantly, though, the Act will allow the Council to in the future alter both the composition of the Board of Education and the method of selection of its members without ratification by referendum. That is, the Act will take control over these decisions out of the hands of the public and put it into the hands of the Council. This is one of the clauses of the Act which had not previously been read.

WHEREFORE, the plaintiff prays for relief in the following forms:

1) a declaratory judgment that the School Governance Charter Amendment Act of 2000 was illegally passed by the Council of the District of Columbia,

2) an injunction prohibiting the Defendant from conducting the referendum on the school Governance Charter Amendment Act of 2000 as it currently has been passed;

3) in the alternative, an injunction prohibiting the Defendant from tallying and reporting the results of any such referendum;

4) such other relief as the Court finds just and equitable.

Respectfully submitted,
Dino Joseph Drudi

By his attorneys,
Kenneth H. Rosenau #342733
Rosenau & Rosenau
1424 16th Street N.W., Suite 502
Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 628-2323
Attorneys for the Plaintiff

Back to top of page


Send mail with questions or comments to webmaster@dcwatch.com
Web site copyright ©DCWatch (ISSN 1546-4296)