Checkered background of Morris school district

It was August of 2006, two months after I left the Morris paper, when we learned that a Morris school board member was sentenced to a year of confinement and two years of supervised release. The Stevens County farmer had sold crops he pledged as collateral on ag loans. He was sentenced by U.S. District Court Judge Ann D. Montgomery for selling soybeans he used as collateral to obtain two loans in 2001 totaling more than $212,000.
On his own behalf, the farmer said he "always intended to pay the loans." He obtained two commodity loans from the Farm Service Agency's Commodity Credit Corporation in November of 2001. This information is from the Stevens County Times. The case was investigated by the USDA and was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Frank J. Magill.
The offending individual resigned from the Morris school board in September. Some people thought he should have resigned sooner. The case hovered for a time. I had a conversation with a former school administrator who suggested restraint, giving the old "innocent until proven guilty" argument. I think that was shallow. Did the offending individual even offer a formal plea of innocence? Was it even that kind of case?
Subsequent to the judgment, I remember taking Mom to a holidaytime staff gathering at UMM where I saw this person among employees. I wondered how someone with his record could be in that position.
 
Too much restraint?
I suppose the "judgment pending" argument was also used when our principal a few years back got nailed with four charges of first degree criminal sexual conduct. Well, that was quite the pickle. And to think this involved the high school principal? A person who in the broad sense should set an example with exemplary behavior?
This individual on the hot seat was kept on, due to the "judgment pending" argument, i.e. "innocent until proven guilty." How far can we allow this argument to stretch? The charges against the principal were dropped. How could the prosecutor have been ambivalent about this? If the prosecutor, who was from outside Stevens County, really truly believed that four counts of first degree criminal sexual conduct were justified, why could not he have carried his convictions into trial?
Just think of the kind of media attention such a trial would have attracted. We are lucky that the case did not make it into the Star Tribune. I checked diligently. I even phoned in a tip. My theory is that the wise souls at the Star Tribune exercised their own judgment, concluding the charges were questionable based on the facts of the case.
I personally felt that the known behavior of the principal showed him in a light where the board could have justified severing its ties with him. I know, I know, a lawyer probably cautioned the board against this due to potential legal action the individual might take if - yes - if the charges were dropped.
The legal litmus test ought not be the only one. But I guess a lawyer would demur. If the worst-case scenario played out and the dismissed principal successfully sued, I suppose the lawyer would have his career scarred. Government employees get far more the benefit of the doubt than the poor saps in the private sector. That's unjust.
There is nothing wrong with setting the highest possible standard for people in our schools. Public schools have the enormous power of compelling kids to attend the bricks and mortar institutions, where they are subject to rules and a regimen that can make it seem like prison. I think it can stultify one's whole life.
Today I think the system is getting more generous. It had better get better, since the monopolistic bricks and mortar model is facing competition from alternatives.
 
Moving to the present
I am writing about all this now because we have a new tidbit. A new piece of ignominy that can be pinned to our Morris school district.
We see this headline from the KMRS/KKOK website: "Former school board member to make court appearance." Oh my, what now? So on Monday, this person - I'm withholding names in this post - will make a court appearance. We learn that he was arrested and charged in June on a second degree burglary charge for breaking and entering into a neighbor's house without consent. The neighbor's security camera identified the person in the house. The neighbors said they had locked their narcotics in a filing cabinet because they believed their medications had been disappearing.
I'm wondering why the county attorney felt he had to tell the radio station about the "best case scenario for the defense." Why not just let the defense take care of itself? Why help the media understand or appreciate what maneuvers the defense might attempt? The prosecutor should be focused on the prosecution IMHO. That's his job.
The allegedly offending individual served on the school board from 2005 to 2016. He used to operate a business that now has a "for sale" sign in front. At present he faces a potential felony charge with a maximum penalty of ten years in prison and/or a $20,000 fine.
Why does our school district get dragged through these situations? It's not conducive with having a good community image.
Speaking of community image, it looks like Morris could end up a stone's throw from an ICE detention facility. Those places are concentration camps. We can only hope the public associates Appleton more than Morris.
We heard our nation's president speak at a political rally the other night, for 90 minutes, in a manner conjuring up images of Nuremberg in the rise of you-know-what. How will this all play out?
- Brian Williams - morris mn minnesota - bwilly73@yahoo.com