Blog

Aug 15, 2023

Surprises in the County Budget — $135,000 Range Hood!

Published on By The Warren County Board of Supervisors’ outrage on August 8th was a request for $135,000 for a range hood for the Senior Center. It came with only one bid and a lot of excuses. Why

Published

on

By

The Warren County Board of Supervisors’ outrage on August 8th was a request for $135,000 for a range hood for the Senior Center. It came with only one bid and a lot of excuses. Why couldn’t they call around for commercial stock hoods used by every restaurant in America? Because they have already invested $6500 in engineering! That’s the price of a reasonable commercial hood, and will now run the project over budget! That’s a personnel issue, not a reason to throw a hundred-thousand dollars away.

I am clearly missing something, but it’s on video, so you, too, can wonder why Board members didn’t come out of their seats and lay waste to the very idea of appearing without three estimates in hand.

And Ed Daley’s proposed new four-person assessment office is scheduled for a public hearing on August 22 (ref: my 5/8/23 rant). After we add that to our tax bill, plus potential library litigation, and the increasing numbers of foster children, I’m sure we won’t even notice a customized range hood exceeding ten times the cost of a commercial stock item.

A look at the budget for social services suggests that their budget goes red in September, and the average cost per child in foster care is less than it was in FY-2020! That suggests to me that we might have better uses for our tax dollars and perhaps our free time.

C.A. WulfWarren County

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the letters published on this page are solely those of the respective authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the Royal Examiner’s editorial team, its affiliates, or advertisers. The Royal Examiner does not endorse or take responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or validity of any statements made by the authors. The statements and claims presented in the letters have not been independently verified by the Royal Examiner. Readers are encouraged to exercise their own judgment and critical thinking skills when evaluating the content. Any reliance on the information provided in the letters is at the reader’s own risk.

While the Royal Examiner makes every effort to publish a diverse range of opinions, it does not guarantee the publication of all received letters. The Royal Examiner reserves the right to edit letters for clarity, length, and adherence to editorial guidelines. Moreover, the Royal Examiner does not assume any liability for any loss or damage incurred by readers due to the content of the letters or any subsequent actions taken based on these opinions.

In submitting a letter to the editor, authors grant the newspaper the right to publish, edit, reproduce, or distribute the content in print, online, or in any other form.

We value the engagement of our readers and encourage open and constructive discussions on various topics. However, the Royal Examiner retains the right to reject any letter that contains offensive language, personal attacks, or violates any legal regulations. Thank you for being a part of our vibrant community of readers and contributors, and we look forward to receiving your diverse perspectives on matters of interest and importance.

Commentary: President Trump’s Role in the Ukraine War

All I Have Learned, I Learned From Books

Library Book Removers – WC’s new ‘Ruling Class’?

Investigating the Reasons for the Book Ban Campaign

Virginia Budget Negotiators Announce Deal on Tax Rebates, New Education Investments

Supervisors Approve Rushmark-Rockland Industrial/Commercial Rezonings and OK Move to 2-Year Real Estate Reassessments

Public Questions, Public Answers – OK with Samuels Library!

Virginia Budget Negotiators Say Deal Likely By End of Week

Is Anyone Who Claims to Oppose Removal of Books From the Library Ever For Books Being Removed From the Library?

After Another Library Content Public Debate, Supervisors Agree to Delay SVGC Rezoning Public Hearing to October 24

Public Questions, Public Answers

Published

on

By

The salaciously obscene book-banning cabal revealed their true mission on their website: Seize the library! Couch that any way you want, and it remains the government illegally seizing private property. Holding them up by luring them into a County building was like luring someone into a blind alley for a mugging. Today a library. Tomorrow a farm. Read history before it, too, is banned!

The library could just block access to the book-banning cabal to ensure that their kids aren’t assaulted by a book, and our librarians aren’t attacked with defamatory hate. And those from outside the county who took up time at our BOS budget hearing can buy their books in their own county with their own tax dollars! Shame on the BOS for enabling this cabal and bringing national infamy while decent library employees were defamed.

While taxpayers sleep, their tax bills grow from this reckless spending. This is just one more example. No one has done an analysis of the increased cost of actually buying the library and running it. Negotiations are behind closed doors, but my guess is that the library doesn’t want to sell, and the County doesn’t really want to buy. This is not about money, books, or children. It is about the freedom to live without asking the permission of a ruling class.

C.A. WulfWarren County

Published

on

By

Following a July 15 meeting of the Property Owners of Shenandoah Farms (POSF), board Chairman Tracie Lane posted an “Open Letter to the Warren County Board of Supervisors” on POSF’s new website.

That letter, reprinted below in its entirety, cited what POSF members believe are exorbitant private contractor costs billed to the Sanitary District.

To date, Lane informs us no answer has been received to any of the questions, including why a change from the originally announced County Public Works Department as the installer to contractor GEI.

Open Letter to the Warren County Board of Supervisors – August 10, 2023

Dear Vicki Cook and the Warren County Board of Supervisors,

On March 15, 2023, a letter (from the County Public Works Department, signed by Sanitary District Manager and Deputy Public Works Director Michael Coffelt) was posted on the Warren County Shenandoah Farms Sanitary District web-page stating “At the direction of the County Administrator, Warren County Public Works will begin the next phase of mailbox clusters …”

On March 24, 2023, March 28, 2023, and April 7, 2023, three invoices from GEI were signed by a “Warren County Representative” for the project “Mail Boxes Venus Branch” with a total cost of $4,176. The concrete pad installed for this project measures 16’ x 2’ and is 4 inches thick. The final GEI invoice for the project includes the following:

Excavator, track min. 35,000 lbs – 12 hours @ $108 per hour on 3/23/23, 3/27/23, and 3/28/23

Certified flagger – 45 hours @ $37 per hour on 3/23/23, 3/27/23, and 3/28/23

Foreman w/ truck – 15 hours @ $81 per hour on 3/23/23, 3/27/23, and 3/28/23

The site for this project is a parking lot. The Property Owners of Shenandoah Farms previously installed four mailbox sets in the location. This project was a continuation of the existing installation, adding six mailbox sets (that POSF, which installed the initial mailboxes at the site, estimated a cost of $300 to $400 to accomplish).

Please answer the following questions:

On March 15, 2023, sanitary district property owners were informed via a letter on the sanitary district web page that Public Works would be installing the concrete pad but 10 days later GEI submitted the first invoice for the project. What is the justification for the switch? Why weren’t property owners informed of the change?

Why was a flagger needed for 45 hours for a project at the end of a parking lot?

Why did it cost $4,176 for the labor and equipment for a 16-foot x 2-foot concrete pad?

Where is the invoice that includes the actual concrete used for this project?

Why weren’t Sanitary District staff and equipment used for this project instead of a contractor?

I look forward to your response to these questions.

Sincerely,Tracie C. LaneChair, Board of DirectorsProperty Owners of Shenandoah Farms

Published

on

By

I wish to thank the author of the recent letter to the editor, “Investigating the Reasons for the Book Ban Campaign.” Her diligent efforts to provide her best version of the related history was useful. As a Warren Count taxpayer, devoted parent, retired DoD careerist and patriot, and committed Christian, I now have a better understanding of the progress made and who to express my thanks to for their committed efforts in leading this call for accountability and responsibility within the Samuels Library issue.

While no doubt the author does not have all the details and actual specifics accurate, her effort is seemingly excellent. Although her use of the terminology “book ban” is quite inaccurate. The effort by this loosely formed group, and I believe she gives them greater credit for close coordination and organization than may be deserved, is that they have achieved bringing to the public square nefarious business geared towards our youth, which should have every adult alarmed and wanting to be better informed. While I won’t pretend to have inside knowledge as to the Library’s intentions, the facts are apparent that they are, at the very least, good with allowing sexually charged literature to be accessed by our youth. It seems their intentions are perhaps much more severe than even that, but as I don’t have first-hand knowledge, I’ll leave my opinion there.

I am a fan of public libraries and have used them all my life and have encouraged my children to do so as well. But until recently, I never had reasons to doubt the intentions of the library. I am dismayed to understand through this process that our public library in Warren County is no such thing but rather a private company running on the backs of the public, literally, the taxpayers. The easy no-brainer “fix” on this is for the money managers, i.e., the Board of Supervisors, to cease this business and either take over public ownership of the library through a fair process in the public forum, working with the library or simply stop funding the library as it exists with public funds for sexually charged themes towards our youth. This is not about hatred or anti-anything except public morality and common decency. No youth books in the public library should be about sexuality, hetero or homo, period.

At the end of the day, my take on all the bantering back and forth between the two sides is as simple as this: borrowing from one of the greatest movies ever made, do the tax-paying citizens of Warren County prefer to live in a town like Bedford Falls, or Pottersville? And a simple election referendum in November, worded fairly, would put the issue to rest, once and for all. Let’s continue civil discourse and let the electorate resolve this since neither “side” seems to be succeeding in doing so.

Ken ReuwerFront Royal, VA

Published

on

By

In the last few months, we’ve heard a lot of claims about alleged reasons for the aggressive recent campaign to remove LGBTQ+-themed books from Samuels Public Library. The most often repeated of these reasons is that there are “pornographic books in the children’s section,” a claim which is prominently plastered on the Clean Up Samuels website.

But is this really about graphic pornography and sexually explicit content in general? The forms submitted by Clean Up Samuels members would seem to contradict this, as they even denounce innocent picture books like “Bathe the Cat” for having an “LBGT agenda” simply because the main character’s parents are depicted as two loving male partners. (Spoiler: It’s a children’s picture book, the most explicit content is that the two dads are holding hands in one of the illustrations, which I’ve included with this post).

So what really started all of this outcry?

Let’s ask Thomas Hinnant, a Christendom alumnus who got a lot of press coverage in right-wing media outlets a few months ago while serving as a spokesperson for Clean Up Samuels, which calls itself a “leaderless, grassroots movement” in its press releases.

Hinnant was quoted by the Daily Caller, saying, “What started this whole thing off is an elderly woman, a grandmother had a couple of her grandchildren with her in ‘Samuels so-called Public Library’ and her grandson, four years old, walked into the aisle next to her and pulled out one of these sick books. … It’s indescribable what he pulled out, actually. That’s what brought this to folks’ attention. A bunch of us went into the library and discovered there were lots of, I don’t even want to call them books, but propaganda pieces with this pornography.”

Well, that certainly sounds bad. It’s a compelling story. And yet – that isn’t quite what happened, is it Thomas?

Interestingly, there were other, similar but slightly different versions of this story going around, including an email sent Feb. 1 by a concerned mother who claimed that her 4-year-old son picked up “Love, Violet” (a picture book about a little girl with a crush on her female classmate) from a library display, and she was horrified when he brought it to her to review, and she learned that books like this were “dispersed throughout the children’s books and they are not in a separate section.”

The truth, however, is that this campaign has been in the works for a long time, seemingly spearheaded by none other than Mark Egger, who appears to have an obsession with targeting queer people – most recently delivering an extremely graphic, transphobic rant at the recent BOS public hearing on Aug. 15, and having previously been involved in a similarly ideological and virulent campaign against the adoption of anti-discrimination policies for trans youth in Warren County Public Schools.

Egger was joined in this latest effort by fellow St. John’s parishioners Jane Elliot, Isaac, and Julia Easton.

The timeline

JAN/FEB

Egger sent an email to Jane Elliot on Jan. 29, 2023, with the subject line “Pervert books at the library,” in which he says, “Remember that I am only including books for kids that are promoting homosexuality and/or boys becoming girls and girls becoming boys. … I am not including any other books that might have other issues someone might not like – I’m only including the ones that are proselytizing our children into homosexuality or mental illness (so-called transgender).”

Also, on January 29th, an email went out with the subject line “Samuels Library is NOT FAMILY FRIENDLY. WARNING!”. This email described books at the library which were “promoting the ‘alternative lifestyle'” and included a list with titles such as “Love, Violet,” “I Love You Because I Love You”, “Mama and Mommy and Me in the Middle” and similar – while also engaging in casual bigotry towards members of the homeless community.

Tom McFadden Sr. sent an email to Jane Elliot the next day (Jan. 30, 2023) with the subject “Fwd: pervert books at the Library” (and cc’d his entire “nonpartisan” political email list, the Front Royal Catholics Civic Engagement Group). In this email, he says, “these books promote sexual fetishes [by which he means expressions of queer identity, as is clear from context in this email as well as other emails sent by him with similar language]. … If it is contrary to your culture, say so!”

An email sent from a different source on Jan. 31 to a private women’s mailing list said: “thank you to all who put together this list of objectionable books. … The LGBTQ+ has a very intentional agenda which they call ‘grooming of the next generation’ into homosexuality and transgenderism.”

On Feb. 1, the previously mentioned email describing how the author’s son found “Love, Violet” on a bookshelf was sent *in response* to that message about the LGBTQ+’s “intentional agenda”, and we can see that the campaign was well underway by this point, as Egger had already compiled this initial list of titles he took issue with.

In response to that Feb. 1 email, Jane Elliot sent a response in which she stated, “Attached is a list of forty-nine (49) — hardly a few — problem young children’s books at Samuels. Most of the list has been put together by Mark Egger.”

APR/MAY

On April 23, McFadden’s email list received an email titled “Bad library books – Supervisors could help”. In this email, it is stated that “a team of 3 Front Royal Catholics have been working together for about 2 months to bring about change”, and refers to the author’s distaste for the “filth” in the library, which he describes as “sexualy (sic)-explicit and gender dysfunctional material in its children’s and juveniles sections.”

It goes on to state that “the Catholic team has been working with the Library Board and with two members of the Board of Supervisors but has not yet made a breakthrough. … Warren County’s organized Christian parents may have to call upon our elected representatives to make sure the library’s standards are changed to Warren County’s ‘community standards.’ This is another example of why Shenandoah District residents need to vote for a Supervisor candidate who is pro-family on May 5th.”

This email did not specify who those two BOS members he mentioned were. However, a later email sent by the moderators of the Front Royal Catholics Civics Education Group (one of whom is Tom McFadden Sr.) stated that Jay Butler (who submitted his own removal forms and stated on the forms that it was on behalf of the Board of Supervisors), and Vicky Cook (who is involved with the Moms For Liberty chapter founded by Leslie Mathews) had both attended the “Beer, Babysitting and Cleaning Up Samuels Library” event on May 13th, as did Richard Jamieson, unopposed candidate for Delores Oates’ soon-to-be-vacated North River District Supervisor seat (when she makes her run for state senate in the Nov. election).

This email update also received a reply from another St. John’s parishioner, Elizabeth Poel, who thanked Tom Sr. for the update, stating, “the queer rot is suffocating.”

On May 20th, another email went out with a message from Isaac Easton, in which he says, “In our forms [filled out at the event on May 13th], we focused on the whole gamut of child grooming – porn, LGB, trans, etc. This was great, and it’s important to hit all of these issues because we want them all gotten rid of. That said, when making our case to the broader public, we want to focus exclusively on graphic porn being available to children. It’s our most winnable argument. To that end, we need you guys to write letters too that say we don’t want pornography in the Samuels Library children’s section.”

Isaac also provides an example of such a letter and asks that people send their drafts to him to review before submitting them to the editor. He finishes with: “NOTICE how the attached letter doesn’t highlight anything about the scene being LGBT.”

Tom Sr.’s list receives another email on May 26 with the subject line “Don’t let June be taken over by the perverts and atheists”. The author says the Library Board and staff have “responded with arrogance to our efforts to clean out the ‘literature’ which promotes unnatural sex to children.” It goes on to say that “we do not suggest defunding the Library but, rather, cutting its funding to the point where its management will have to choose between adopting community standards or looking for another job.”

This email also states that “At least 4 of the 5 members of the Board of Supervisors are known to be sympathetic to our clean-up campaign. If scores of us show up at the public hearing on the County’s budget and demand reform, it will give them cover to act boldly.” The email ends with a call to action to attend the BOS meeting on June 6th, and the rest, as they say, is history.

Another email went out to the Front Royal Catholics mailing list on May 31st, urging people to write to the BOS. This email stated, “What we object to is having the tax money we pay … being spent by the Library to purchase and display books that offend natural law simply because some minuscule number of LGBTQ adults or others (including the Library’s management) want our children exposed to that ‘lifestyle’.”

JUN/JUL

In July, the Clean Up Samuels group held another form submission event (+BBQ), and submitted another round of forms containing appalling homophobic and transphobic language. Tom Sr. sent out an email afterward that described the event as “We filled out forms objecting to the counter-culture (transgender) books.”

So here we are — It’s mid-August, and they are claiming that we are being disingenuous to state that this group is doing all of this to remove LGBTQ+ representation from the public library. In fact, they are actively trying to pivot their messaging (see Richard Jamieson’s latest letter to the BOS and recent letter to the editor) to focus less on the content of the books at all and more on financial data alongside a claim to speak for all Republicans, stating that theirs are majority views due to Warren County party affiliation demographics (I know quite a few local Republicans who would be unhappy to see these people speak for them, but that’s a topic for another time).

But I think it’s safe to say that to those in the know, they have made it supremely clear what their agenda is from square one: the erasure of LGBTQ+ representation from the public square. Luckily there are more people in this community who love their LGBTQ+ neighbors than there are bigots who hate them. As long as the people of Warren County who care about freedom of speech and diverse representation continue to show up and speak out, this group may win a few battles, but they will not win the war.

Bridget RandolphBrooklyn, New York(longtime county resident, age 5-22, and CC graduate)

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the letters published on this page are solely those of the respective authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the Royal Examiner’s editorial team, its affiliates, or advertisers. The Royal Examiner does not endorse or take responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or validity of any statements made by the authors. The statements and claims presented in the letters have not been independently verified by the Royal Examiner. Readers are encouraged to exercise their own judgment and critical thinking skills when evaluating the content. Any reliance on the information provided in the letters is at the reader’s own risk.

While the Royal Examiner makes every effort to publish a diverse range of opinions, it does not guarantee the publication of all received letters. The Royal Examiner reserves the right to edit letters for clarity, length, and adherence to editorial guidelines. Moreover, the Royal Examiner does not assume any liability for any loss or damage incurred by readers due to the content of the letters or any subsequent actions taken based on these opinions.

In submitting a letter to the editor, authors grant the newspaper the right to publish, edit, reproduce, or distribute the content in print, online, or in any other form.

We value the engagement of our readers and encourage open and constructive discussions on various topics. However, the Royal Examiner retains the right to reject any letter that contains offensive language, personal attacks, or violates any legal regulations. Thank you for being a part of our vibrant community of readers and contributors, and we look forward to receiving your diverse perspectives on matters of interest and importance.

Published

on

By

In December 2022, outgoing Oklahoma Attorney General John O’Connor dropped a bombshell opinion that, if upheld by the courts, has the potential to change education forever.

He wrote his opinion at the request of the Statewide Virtual Charter School Board, who asked if the restrictions against religious organizations sponsoring charter schools remained legal with recent court cases that seemed to challenge the idea that the First Amendment Establishment Clause meant a separation between church and state. In his opinion, O’Connor not only agreed with the board that the religious restrictions were now unconstitutional but went a step even further and said that charter schools were, in fact, not officially public. So even if the Establishment Clause restricted states from working with religious institutions, it would not apply to charter schools.

At the time, Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt and many in the Legislature praised this opinion. Stitt said, “Attorney General John O’Connor’s opinion rightfully defends parents, education freedom, and religious liberty in Oklahoma. Ultimately, the government takes a backseat to parents who get to determine the best learning environment for their child.”

Based on this support, on June 5, 2023, the board approved an application from the Catholic church for the country’s first religious charter school. While there is a great deal of support in the state, surprisingly, one of the voices of opposition came from the new state attorney general, Gentner Drummond, who believed it unconstitutional.

“The approval of any publicly funded religious school is contrary to Oklahoma law and not in the best interest of taxpayers,” Drummond said. “It’s extremely disappointing that board members violated their oath in order to fund religious schools with our tax dollars. In doing so, these members have exposed themselves and the State to potential legal action that could be costly.”

The new school is clearly setting up a legal showdown that possibly will reach the Supreme Court and could have huge implications for the nation.

To understand how two Republican attorneys general can come to two different opinions, it is necessary to look back and try to understand what seems like a simple clause in the Constitution but yet has been interpreted so differently.

The Establishment Clause states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

There are different ways to view this clause. The most accepted is that the federal government may not establish a required state church the way England had with the Church of England. It’s prohibiting the free exercise thereof that gets tricky.

It has been commonly believed that the second part prohibited the national government from interfering with the state governments that did have required state churches, of which there were several.

The main debate has always been, does the Establishment Clause actually protect religion or build a wall between church and state? It is this difference that can help explain the two differing opinions.

Those who believe in a wall between church and state take that line from the writings of Thomas Jefferson. The line separation between church and state is the most misquoted line in the Constitution in that it is not in the Constitution, yet today almost universally accepted as so. In truth, the line comes from a letter from Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association. Those who believe in a wall of separation have been in the minority for most of the nation’s history. Most have accepted religion in government and believed only that government could not interfere with religion. A great example is George Washington placing his hand on the Bible when he took his oath of office, something that is not required but most modern presidents have followed. Further evidence is that it took 89 years for the Legislature or the courts to make any religious laws until they outlawed polygamy in 1878. Even then, it took 70 more years for the courts to make a ruling that began to change this common interpretation.

In 1947 a case came before the courts that is like the current issue in Oklahoma.

In New Jersey, a school board was reimbursing parents for the cost of bussing their children to private schools, including religious schools. In what became known as Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the U.S. Supreme Court narrowly ruled, 5-4, that this practice was unconstitutional. In this landmark decision, Justice Hugo L. Black made two important decisions. First, he declared that the 14th Amendment clause of equal protection meant that the Bill of Rights applied to the states as well as the federal government, and so the Religious Establishment Clause now applied to states as well. (It is hard to believe now, but until 1947 the Bill of Rights only applied to federal charges, not state ones). Secondly, and more importantly, Justice Black cited Jefferson when he ruled that government cannot pass laws that “aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.” With this one case, Jefferson’s wall was suddenly erected, and future courts would follow this example. Under this ruling, Oklahoma could not allow a religious charter school.

The new ruling did not mean all justices agreed, as many minority decisions continued to read the Establishment Clause in the original way.

In a 1953 religion verse education case known as Zorach V. Clauson, the state of New York allowed students release time for religious instruction off campus. Justice William Douglas wrote in favor of allowing release time, saying, “The First Amendment, however, does not say that in every and all respects there shall be a separation of Church and State. Rather, it studiously defines the manner, the specific ways, in which there shall be no concert or union or dependency one on the other. That is the common sense of the matter. Otherwise, the state and religion would be aliens to each other—hostile, suspicious, and even unfriendly.” In other words, Douglas was arguing that the government does not need to be hostile to religion to be separate.

However, it still seemed as if the courts continued moving closer to constructing a complete wall. Probably the most important case on this subject, and one that closely mirrors Oklahoma’s situation, is the 1971 case Lemon v. Kurtzman.

In the case, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a practice in Pennsylvania where schools were helping to pay for teachers’ salaries and books at religious institutions. Alton Lemon led the charge against Pennsylvania for violating the Establishment Clause. Acknowledging the First Amendment’s language is vague, the Court determined a simple three-question test to determine if any government ran afoul of the Constitution. What the Lemon Test asks is, 1) is the primary purpose of the assistance secular? 2) is the assistance promoting nor inhibiting religion? and 3) is there any excessive entanglement between church and state? The test was supposed to clarify the Establishment Clause, and yet in some ways has only made it more confusing, especially the “excessive entanglement.” What the Lemon Test has done, in practice, was case by case and brick by brick built up the wall of separation.

Then came the 2016 election of Donald Trump and his appointment of three conservative justices. There are many cases that have chipped away at the wall of separation, including the 2019 American Legion v. American Humanist Association case. But the Virtual Charter School Board brought up three cases in particular in their question to O’Connor that he addressed. According to O’Connor’s reply, in Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia Inc. v. Comer (2017), the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a Missouri law that forbade Trinity Lutheran Church from applying for a government grant to buy recycled tire parts to soften playgrounds. The Court ruled that Missouri had “expressly require[d] Trinity Lutheran to renounce its religious character in order to participate in an otherwise generally available public benefit program,” which “was a ‘clear infringement on free exercise’ and no compelling anti-establishment interest that could justify such discrimination.”

In the case of Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue (2020), the Montana Legislature passed a law that gave tax credit to anyone who donated to private school scholarship funds. Because state funds were involved, the scholarships could not be used for religious schools. When the state’s attorney general disagreed, the state’s supreme court dismantled the program. The U.S. Supreme Court reinstated the program, citing, The Free Exercise Clause “protects religious observers against unequal treatment” and against “laws that impose special disabilities on the basis of religious status.” The state did not have to give tax credits for private schools, but if they did, they could not discriminate against religious schools.

Finally, the last case O’Connor discussed in his opinion was Carson v. Makin (2022). In this case, the state of Maine had assisted parents in rural areas without public schools to pay for private school tuition. Beginning in 1981, Maine required that funds from the state could only go to nonreligious schools. Like the other cases, the U.S. Supreme Court called this practice discriminatory and ruled that if Maine was going to support rural parents, they could not discriminate against religious schools.

The Oklahoma Virtual Charter School Board felt that these recent rulings should allow for religion to apply for a charter school, and Attorney General O’Connor agreed. O’Connor wrote in his opinion, “We believe, based on the First Amendment and the Trinity Lutheran, Espinoza, and Carson line of decisions, that the U.S. Supreme Court would likely hold these restrictions [charter school shall be nonsectarian] unconstitutional.” O’Connor then spent the rest of his 14-page draft giving more specific reasons why religious charter schools should be legal, including topics like, “The State cannot enlist private organizations to ‘promote a diversity of educational choices,’ and then decide that any and every kind of religion is the wrong kind of diversity. This is not how the First Amendment works.”

He broke his argument down into five major points. The most interesting of these points is the fourth because after arguing for several pages that religious schools should not be discriminated against, he changed his argument to make the point moot. In the fourth part, he basically wrote that even though charter schools are publicly funded, they are, in fact, not actually public schools.

To make his point, O’Connor referenced the case Rendell-Baker v. Kohn (1982), which involves a private school in Massachusetts called New Perspectives School that dealt with difficult students. The students were referred to by the public schools and received funding from the state to work with these students. When the school fired a teacher, Rendell-Baker, over a policy debate, the teacher and others later fired sued, claiming their First Amendment rights were violated and due process for state teachers was not followed. In a 6-2 decision from the U.S. Supreme Court, it ruled with the school and said private contractors like the school are not public simply because they contract with the state. Based on this, O’Connor wrote, “Rendell-Baker and Caviness counsel strongly toward a federal law finding that Oklahoma charter schools are not state actors and thus not vulnerable as an initial matter to an Establishment Clause challenge.” O’Connor concluded with, “just because the provision prohibiting charter schools from being sectarian ‘in its programs, admission policies, employment practices, and all other operations’ is likely unconstitutional does not mean that religious or religiously affiliated charter schools can necessarily operate however they want.

The constitutional problem is singling out religion, not necessarily the provisions found elsewhere regulating various aspects of charter schools. For instance, as it currently stands, federal law does not, in all likelihood, prohibit Oklahoma from enforcing requirements like those indicating that charter schools must be “as equally free and open to all students as traditional public schools” or must not charge tuition or fees, so long as hostility to religion is not present.”

While the Statewide Virtual Charter School Board must have been thrilled with the O’Connor opinion, when Attorney General Gentner Drummond took office, he repealed his predecessor’s opinion and replaced it with one of his own. In a Feb. 23, 2023, letter to the board, Drummond wrote, “The cases identified in your request…involve private schools, not charter schools. This office has previously recognized that charter schools ‘are public schools established by contract.’ Consequently, the cases cited in your request concerning private schools have little precedential value as it relates to charter schools.”

Drummond went on to state that the question of whether charter schools are state actors is yet unsettled, and he hopes the courts will take on the question soon. Currently, according to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, charter schools are state actors, so religious school is unconstitutional. Drummond ends his opinion with, “This previous point relates to a much broader aspect of the issue at hand. As a strong supporter of religious liberty, I am obliged to note that the Opinion does nothing to advance that worthy cause. Religious liberty is one of our most fundamental freedoms. It allows us to worship according to our faith and be free from any duty that may conflict with our faith. The Opinion, as issued by my predecessor, misuses the concept of religious liberty by employing it as a means to justify state-funded religion. If allowed to remain in force, I fear the Opinion will be used as a basis for taxpayer-funded religious schools which is precisely what SISCVS (St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School) seeks to become.

“Further, this office is obligated to point out that the approval of the SISCVS application will create a slippery slope. While many Oklahomans undoubtedly support charter schools sponsored by various Christian faiths, the precedent created by approval of the SISDVS application will compel approval of similar applications by all faiths. I doubt most Oklahomans would want their tax dollars to fund a religious school whose tenets are diametrically opposed to their own faith. Unfortunately, the approval of a charter school by one faith will compel the approval of charter schools by all faiths, even those most Oklahomans would consider reprehensible and unworthy of public funding.”

There is no doubt that the ruling of the Statewide Virtual Charter School Board to create a religious charter school will end up in the courts. The issue at hand is, does the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment really mean the government should not interfere with religion or that there should be a strict separation between the two? Two questions will need to be determined. First, can religions sponsor public charter schools? The second question might make the first one moot. It asks are charter schools actually public. If the answer to that question is no, then the first is not longer needed. If yes, then does disallowing religions to sponsor charter schools discriminate? The Lemon Test would probably say no to religious charter schools, but with a much more conservative court today, the Lemon Test may no longer apply as more recent decisions are tending to favor religion.

James Finck, Ph.D., is a professor of history at the University of Science and Arts of Oklahoma and writes for the Southwest Ledger. He can be reached at [email protected].

Published

on

By

A quick search in the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library database regrettably lacks any evidence that Lincoln ever said, “All I have learned, I learned from books,” or anything else about getting books from a friend. Nor does either statement appear anywhere in the nine-volume Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler. Beautiful as these sentiments are, there is no evidence that Lincoln said them beyond citationless Google searches. While fake Lincoln quotes are far from new or particularly important in isolation, they are indicative of a pattern by lazy local bureaucrats to insult readers with errors of both logic and fact, followed by excuses for them.

First, before economically illiterate ideologues embarrass themselves further, a quick word is needed on how prices and exchanges work. Modern economics since the 1870s began with dismissing the relevance of an “average price” of anything to understanding the terms of a particular exchange. I should hope these same economic illiterates do not make turns at traffic stops based on the “average” amount of traffic. This is rooted in a concept called marginal utility – the costs and benefits between alternatives are compared on the margin, not on “average.” Averages are, of course, helpful for understanding different questions, but in the ongoing witch hunt, this would, at best, conflate a general claim with a particular claim. These basic concepts are typically understood well enough following a high school course in economics, logic, and statistics but apparently not well enough by Warren County’s self-anointed, all while claiming the expertise needed to transfer decision-making authority away from taxpayers and parents on behalf of their children. Having addressed the obvious, I’m happy to continue a constructive discussion with the adults.

Devon Downes is Warren County’s resident Classical Liberal. An endangered species in American politics, you will find no one more absolutist about the protection of individual rights and more contemptuous of collectivist ideologies. His proposal for privatization is not without some merit. Given the concerns that have been expressed, you would think the first people to advocate privatization would be the apologists for Samuels Public Library. Let’s not forget that the initial concern made in the Royal Examiner on August 7, 2023, was that the Board of Supervisors was imposing a religious agenda on others without their consent.

The case for privatization echoes the case made by Jefferson, Madison, and Paine in favor of the separation of church and state, doing away with political-religious establishments supported by taxpayers and maintaining the individual’s right to the free exercise of religion. While our local anointed should be satisfied with this arrangement given their own objections, Devon’s own understanding of Lincoln suggests they will never be satisfied with anything short of positive support, by force if necessary. The same bureaucrats are perfectly happy imposing a religious dogma that reduces individual human beings – and children at that – to a group identity (which might explain why they can’t distinguish one proposal from another, but I digress). In their search for religious persecution, they didn’t bother checking the mirror as they became too busy searching for heretics to burn.

Supposedly, it wasn’t clear why Lincoln’s observations are relevant to this ongoing discussion, so let’s revisit what he said. “[M]y understanding is that Popular Sovereignty, as now applied to the question of slavery, does allow the people to have Slavery if they want to, but does not allow them not to have slavery if they do not want it.” As regards the library, do we, as taxpayers, not have a right to a say in what we have paid for? It was just recently alleged that more than five hundred reconsideration forms do want sexually suggestive books removed entirely. If this is the case, are these more than five hundred patrons and constituents not entitled to a say in what they have paid for as taxpayers, or are a minority of bureaucrats entitled to discriminate against views less anointed than their own?

Devon’s argument builds on the intellectual tradition of the American Founding, yet no less of a figure than John Stuart Mill recognized the appropriate role of public institutions provided the government doesn’t impose bans on private options. A ban is to “officially or legally prohibit,” we have examples of such bans in the attempt at alcohol Prohibition in the 1920s, the more recent failure of drug prohibition, and bans on guns in schools and other government buildings. Parents are perfectly free to buy any books they please for their children wherever books are sold, just as consumers are free today to buy alcohol, marijuana, and guns. But library bureaucrats would seem to require the public library to make available alcohol, marijuana, and guns, calling the absence of taxpayer support for these items equivalent to “censorship.”

All the people of Warren County ask for is a say in what they pay for. Let’s settle these problems by a majority vote, not by rule from a minority of bureaucrats. As we resolve the issue at the ballot box, we are happy to wait on Warren County’s anointed to clarify if they think taxpayers should have a say in what they pay for or if taxpayers should not be forced to pay for what they do not want. In either case, they have to pick a lane.

Stephen KurtzWarren County

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the letters published on this page are solely those of the respective authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the Royal Examiner’s editorial team, its affiliates, or advertisers. The Royal Examiner does not endorse or take responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or validity of any statements made by the authors. The statements and claims presented in the letters have not been independently verified by the Royal Examiner. Readers are encouraged to exercise their own judgment and critical thinking skills when evaluating the content. Any reliance on the information provided in the letters is at the reader’s own risk.

While the Royal Examiner makes every effort to publish a diverse range of opinions, it does not guarantee the publication of all received letters. The Royal Examiner reserves the right to edit letters for clarity, length, and adherence to editorial guidelines. Moreover, the Royal Examiner does not assume any liability for any loss or damage incurred by readers due to the content of the letters or any subsequent actions taken based on these opinions.

In submitting a letter to the editor, authors grant the newspaper the right to publish, edit, reproduce, or distribute the content in print, online, or in any other form.

We value the engagement of our readers and encourage open and constructive discussions on various topics. However, the Royal Examiner retains the right to reject any letter that contains offensive language, personal attacks, or violates any legal regulations. Thank you for being a part of our vibrant community of readers and contributors, and we look forward to receiving your diverse perspectives on matters of interest and importance.