Following the sending of this press release, attorney Jimmy Faircloth, the lawyer who filed the Jindal lawsuit held a press conference.
In opening the media event, Faircloth issued a statement that coincided with the below press release.
Moments after that statement, we were technically ready to record the entirety of the press conference.
I personally asked Faircloth three questions:
The first related to whether the Jindal administration would be filing a writ of mandamus or some other legal device to prevent BESE from hiring an attorney to protect its interests. Fairfield responded that the question should be directed to the Division of Administration.
The second related to public perception that the lawsuit and the administration's recent conversion in opposing Common Core was motivated by his Presidential ambitions. In short, Fairfield responded that the issue was federal versus state control over education and that the governor had significant support for his anti-Common Core position and legal approach.
The third question asked Fairchild (who appeared to defend BESE's need to proceed with the legal intervention as an indispensible party because without them, the case might not be able to proceed), how could BESE hire an attorney to intervene in the lawsuit if the Jindal administration was denying them the right to hire an attorney, even one who was not charging the BESE for services rendered. Faircoth said that the facts underlying my question was not accurate and that the administration has only submitted written questions about the hiring of Phil Preis, a Baton Rouge attorney.
Today, the Jindal Administration challenged the proponents of Common Core by filing a lawsuit to invalidate the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC). The filing challenges the MOU on the basis that it offends state sovereignty by attempting to improperly delegate the constitutional authority of BESE and the Legislature to a “consortium” of other states. The non-delegation doctrine is recognized in both federal and state law and is based on the principle that certain powers authorized to the state cannot be delegated to other public or non-public entities.
The Jindal Administration’s outside counsel Jimmy Faircloth said, “In simple terms, the non-delegation doctrine protects the democratic process by preventing a constitutional body from assigning or transferring its constitutional obligations to other public or private entities. By its clear terms, the PARCC MOU purports to commit the development of Louisiana education policy to a private non-Louisiana entity controlled by a ‘Governing Board’ consisting of individuals who are completely unaccountable to Louisiana voters. The procurement dispute is a result of the illusion that the PARCC MOU somehow insults the assessment process from the strictures of state law. It squarely demonstrates the very harm that the non-delegation doctrine is intended to prevent.”
To view the legal filing, click here.