Any voter or concerned citizen that wonders how state income taxes impacts their local business climate needs not look any farther than this legislative year in Illinois state politics.  High income taxes have exported more working taxpayer wealth than our entire Missouri State Budget ($23 billion) from 1995 to 2008.  That didn’t stop state politicians from raising it further, prompting concerns and/or likely moves from Caterpillar, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, and Sears.

I traveled with Philanthropist Rex Sinquefield, a University of Chicago MBA Alumni, when he spoke on WGN’s Mike McConnell show last week.  As a retired entrepreneur whose investment business moved out of California, Rex Sinquefield understands how state tax policy directly impacts how businesses move and create jobs.  While Missouri is fortunate not to have politicians advocating for tax hikes today, Missouri is not well-poised to recover from this recession thanks to chronically-slow growth.  In fact, the Show Me State is one of only two states in the nation to never have a single decade of double digit growth in the last century.

MP3 of Rex Sinquefield on WGN’s Mike McConnell radio show.

There’s only one big reason to offer a constitutional amendment to permanently-end the tax on individual income:  to make Missouri competitive within our global job economy.  With the right tax policy, Missouri can apply its well-centered American position by giving you more of what everyone needs most – more in your wallet with every paycheck.  I hope that you will learn more from www.letvotersdecide.com or by following us by texting “MOREJOBS” at 41411.

Travis Brown, Rachel Keller Brown, Rex Sinquefield and Jeanne Sinquefield

In its fourth year, the annual Christmas benefit for St. Vincent Home for Children continues to build momentum. This year’s benefit brought in $75,000 through sponsorships from community leaders and businesses, and a live auction. St. Vincent’s creates a safe place for some of St. Louis’ most vulnerable children to live and learn.

One of the reasons that ideas like St. Vincent’s have been so successful is our country’s rich legacy of philanthropy. It is not casual. It’s not an afterthought. With centuries of growth and innovation, philanthropy has truly become a national treasure – and a nimble vehicle for change.

Early philanthropists like Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller used their wealth to create public assets – hospitals, schools, libraries, research – that are still used today. They popularized the idea that one could donate wealth while they were still alive, and that it could be a dynamic part of life, instead of a perfunctory part of a will.

In the early 20th century, fundraising grew to include more group giving, foundations that report on social conditions, and corporate giving. Recently, venture philanthropy and online fundraising have again revamped the idea of giving.

Applying the idea of venture capital to philanthropy has changed the donor-foundation relationship from one of transaction to one of ongoing support. Beyond financial support, a company assists with management and structural support, helps measure and improve outcomes, and typically invests over a period of years. Riffing on that model, organizations like Venture Philanthropy Partners pair D.C.-area donors who want to see great, positive change in their community with a portfolio of projects that combat a litany of issues facing children in D.C. Of charities and not-for-profits, VPP Co-Founder and Chairman Mario Morina says, “We ask them to do the remarkable, but we don’t give them the support to even do the negligible.” Venture philanthropy models hope to help donors give more strategically, and provide more comprehensive, long-term support for organizations.

Online giving has been especially powerful in giving donors of any size access and information to donate at any time. It’s a way for people to seek out causes they care about, and helps charitable organizations educate the public about their cause. E-philanthropy has also tapped small donors who may not be the target of mail campaigns, but could spare “as little as a cup of coffee”, and helped engage large efforts to respond quickly to disasters like Hurricane Katrina or this year’s devastating earthquake in Haiti. More than $30 million of donations to Haiti came in the form of text message. The Future of Philanthropy estimates that 25% of personal giving will be done online this year. But that still leaves 75% of personal giving that happens through personal appeals or fundraisers, and remains the core of fundraising.

Think about this for a minute: of the $303.8 billion charitable dollars given in the US in 2009, individual donors gave 75% of those dollars. The majority of US giving came not from corporations or foundations, but from individuals. In 2004, donations to tsunami victims reached $2 billion – three times what the US Government spent on disaster relief. Donations after Hurricane Katrina were nearly $6.5 billion, and donations to Haiti reached a similar level – in the first three weeks.

That’s an incredible force of people who weren’t coerced to give anything, but who chose to take action and donate to advance the causes they felt strongly about.

Missouri’s charitable giving is also quite strong: Missouri Foundations provide the state with $675 million in giving, and Missouri individuals gave $2.8 billion in 2008 (that’s an average of $3290 in contributions from each person who filed itemized charitable deductions). While individual donations may go to causes around the world, Missouri Foundation giving is a good measure of how Missourians support in-state needs.

We’re fortunate to work with the Sinquefield Charitable Foundation, which gives to such diverse causes as the Boy Scouts of America, music composition, education and chess – their giving directly impacts children in the area, our friends and neighbors, and it makes Missouri a magnet for organizations, talent and leaders who also want to see these causes thrive.

Philanthropy is more than a way to make us feel good. It might have that effect, but something more significant is driving this incredible scope of action. There’s a spark when we realize something is wrong – and that we have the tools or resources to do something about it. It’s a legacy our country has spontaneously nurtured, that we carry forward and improve upon, and it strengthens us as much as it strengthens the people we give to.

These children were about to be marginalized, forgotten. They were in limbo between adulthood and the haven of school because they were “incorrigible”: they’d broken laws, disrupted classrooms or violated public school safety codes. Some serious infraction had removed these children from their public school and funneled them into a labyrinthine system where education was unlikely and graduation seemed completely out of reach. These were the children Judge Edwards heard from daily, and it was only a matter of time before they ended up back in Edwards’ courtroom on more serious charges and with less hope.

The reaction from Edwards was superhuman. In April 2009, he saw opportunity in the closing of Blewett School on Cass Ave., and in a few short months he had a building, 45 community partners, and a Principal vetted by the toughest juvenile offenders to open ICA.

Innovative Concepts Academy, in just its first year, is getting local and national attention for the profound changes happening in the lives of the most “incorrigible” youth. A few ideas seem to be the pillars of this success, and are woven into every program:

ICA is a place to be safe. Sure, it’s replete with security tech and staff – but they also provide medical services and 3 square meals a day, counseling, and staff trained to deal with trauma victims. For Edwards, it’s not enough to treat symptoms like acting out in class: many of the kids at ICA may have witnessed violent crimes or may be in a situation that precludes success.

ICA is a place to learn – or for many students, the ONLY place to learn. A child expelled from school doesn’t lose access to classroom learning and accountability. A juvenile offender doesn’t while away time in a facility that further limits her opportunities. More than that, students get and learn respect. Some of the boys mention that adults take them more seriously when they’re wearing a tie. The entire staff and mechanism of the school reinforces the idea that effort is rewarded – even desirable – and that they are all capable.

Third, it’s a place to get inspired. While mandatory extra-curricular programs keep kids off the street and out of trouble, those 45 community partners have given ICA students a remarkable smorgasbord of activities that aren’t simply about marking time. Golf lessons, chess instruction, classical music, creative writing and ballroom dance are just a few of the ways students can spend their afternoons.

A St. Louis Magazine documentary of Innovative Concepts Academy ends with one young man at a piano knocking out beautiful riff after beautiful riff: for me, that made the ICA not just a good idea, but something we should cherish, support and replicate. Just think, a pianist, a chess master, an author, a thinker, a good parent, or a hard worker may be that child who was about to slip through the cracks.

The plight of students in St. Louis is often harsh. The dropout rate is untenable: some kids are homeless, others are hungry, and some are discouraged. In one year, a rejection of all the things that don’t work; a fresh start based solely on what at-risk kids need to choose a better path; and a resolute leader accomplished not just a good school, but also hope.

We now have hope that there are solutions to the problems that have baffled us – but only if we’re willing to be radical thinkers, and put our energy behind a good idea.

This weekend’s opening events included a “Queens of Jazz” concert at the Contemporary Art Museum St. Louis with Grammy nominee Ann Hampton Callaway and St. Louis’ own jazz queen, Denise Thimes, and the Opening Ceremony on Saturday. The Opening events had players draw colored scarves to determine their pieces for the opening round. They also hula hooped while playing chess, made moves with life-sized chess pieces, and participated in ‘bounty blitz’ matches! Two-time U.S. Women’s Champion Anna Zatonskih impressed crowds by defeating 5 challengers simultaneously – while blindfolded.

Rounds began Sunday, and continue through October 13th. Rounds begin daily at 2 p.m. at the Chess Club and Scholastic Center of Saint Louis, 4657 Maryland Ave., St. Louis, Missouri.

This morning, the club’s founder and chess advocate Rex Sinquefield joined his coach, Woman Grandmaster Jennifer Shahade on the Charlie Brennan show on KMOX. Listen to hear the interview on the Women’s Championship, Chess events around the city and the benefits of playing chess:

[pro-player type="MP3"]http://www.pelopidas.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/RS-and-JS-on-Charlie-Brennan-KMOX-10.6.09.mp3[/pro-player]

In 2007, Cole County Circuit Court Judge Richard Callahan ruled against the school district plaintiffs in favor of the state and 3 taxpayer-intervenors.  Today’s concurrent ruling comes after the school districts appealed that decision to the State Supreme Court, and ends the long, expensive court battle.

The decision that Missouri is meeting its obligation to fund public schools is prudent and saves taxpayers from shouldering billions of additional blank-check state spending for public education.  It has, however, cost both taxpayers and students.  School district plaintiffs spent taxpayer dollars, and taxpayers also support state legal services that defended Missouri’s formula.  Students lost out on millions of dollars that could have been spent in a classroom, but were instead spent in the courtroom.

This trial and the resounding dismissal of the plaintiff districts’ claims offer several distinct lessons as Missouri pursues excellence in education.

The State Supreme Court will not be the “good cop” and circumvent the powers of the legislative branch to appropriate funds. When local tax levies and lobbying efforts failed to change the funding formula to the extent that these school districts desired and they turned to Constitutional arguments to secure more funding, the court had this to say:

“Notably, the introductory clause… concerning the ‘diffusion of knowledge’ outlines the purpose and subject of Missouri’s public education system. But, it provides no specific directive or standard for how the State must accomplish a ‘diffusion of knowledge.’ Plaintiffs are attempting to read a separate funding requirement into [the clause] that would require the legislature to provide “adequate” education funding in excess of the 25-percent requirement… Such language does not exist….

Reading a free-standing obligation to provide certain school funding into the introductory language… would be contrary to the specific flexibility afforded the legislature…”

More money does not equal better education. Missouri cannot spend its way to excellent, or even adequate performance.   State funding is merely one aspect of the framework set up to house public education: it is how we as a state move resources toward the goal of educating our children.  Those resources can be spent wisely or poorly.  They can be spent on programs, materials and staff that educate effectively, but they may be spent on methods that don’t work.  The structure into which we put our resources is at least as important as how much we spend.

A new era of education reform is coming. Education Secretary Arne Duncan spoke in St. Louis last week, and presented a new way of thinking about funding education: tie it to reforms that work.

Announcing billions of dollars in grants available for education, Duncan gave caveats that grants would be awarded where innovation was the driving force. He stressed that Missouri should consider having a portfolio of options to offer children with different needs and strengths.

“In St. Louis, the city and Missouri the state has a chance to compete for unprecedented discretionary resources,” said Duncan. “In every one of the those applications, we’re going to look for capacity, we’re going to look for a visionary plan, we’re going to look for someone who wants to challenge the status quo and we’re going to look for folks who are willing to collaborate, and if St. Louis and Missouri can do that, you have the chance to do something very special in the years ahead.”

More than anything, the conclusion of the Adequacy Trial offers us a clear opportunity to shift our focus to a new way of thinking about improving Missouri education and also the way we can fund that goal.

Photo Credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/changedotgov/ / CC BY 2.0

Missouri Supreme Court Opinion available HERE.

Today marks the first day of public school in the newly-inspired Innovation Concept Academy.  The St. Louis community, and America-at-large, owes a lot to the courage of one man – Judge Jimmie Edwards.  In less than six months, he has embarked on what others might say would be nearly impossible:  1) to assume ownership of a new community school that exists outside the lines of a public school, 2) to unite a diverse coalition of public and private interests together to enrich the learning environment, and 3) to lobby for real, no excuse community change for youth who need it the most.

From a political perspective, the Innovation Concept Academy hits on all five of the recommended steps on which now Governor Jay Nixon campaigned last year.  His five points were:  to invest in public school options using public-private partnerships, to recruit talented teachers to challenged districts, to reduce class size, to re-establish local community support, and to make sure that alternative schools are available and effective.  The Academy seeks to challenge all of the obstacles facing those children who often get lost in the public school system without effective mentors, dedicated instructors, and guardian engagement.

This Tuesday, we accompanied Rex Sinquefield with Judge Jimmie Edwards on a walk-through of the Blewett school facility.  We are excited to report that the Chess Club and Scholastic Center of St. Louis will be partnering with the Academy to build a dedicated room to teach chess with its curriculum.  It is our hope that students can improve their math, science, reading, and critical thinking skills using a life sport like chess in a variety of environments (for classroom instruction, after-school partnerships, supplemental learning, and as a means to connect to our greater community).  If successful, such a model might provide a road map for urban progressives, mayors, governors, and civic patrons to do the same around the country.

In the coming months,  Room 103 will transform itself with the opening fall classes into a dynamic place to learn the game of chess.  Public school teachers, including educators as part of the AFT Local 420 Teacher’s Union have agreed to fill the classroom with ambitious goals of instruction (and smaller class size).  The Metropolitan Police Department of the City of St. Louis are moving in a sub-station to assist the facility with mentoring and community needs.  The community arms have even opened to accept other instructors from a wide variety of parish school environments. The manner by which so many organizations, from MERS Goodwill to local celebrities, have come together, can help pave the future of new school design.

Good luck Judge Edwards and Innovation Concept Academy.  Our children, our entire community, and our nation of neighborhoods, needs your model to succeed.

Rex A. Sinquefield with Judge Jimmie Edwards

Judge Edwards shows new classroom monitors to Rex Sinquefield

Future Chess Salon

]]> http://www.pelopidas.com/philanthropy/brave-education-st-louis-public/feed 0 http://www.pelopidas.com/blog/headline/rp-sinquefields-buy-bobby-fischer%e2%80%99s-chess-library http://www.pelopidas.com/blog/headline/rp-sinquefields-buy-bobby-fischer%e2%80%99s-chess-library#comments Sat, 13 Jun 2009 23:59:24 +0000 admin http://www.pelopidas.com/?p=473 St. Louis Business Journal – June 11, 2009

Philanthropist millionaires Rex and Jeanne Sinquefield spent $61,000 to buy the chess library of the legendary Bobby Fischer, including notebooks he prepared for his 1972 World Championship match with Boris Spassky.

The Sinquefields acquired the collection through San Francisco-based auction house, Bonhams and Butterfields.

“I am thrilled to have this collection from arguably the greatest chess player in history,” said Rex Sinquefield, founder and board president of the Chess Club and Scholastic Center of Saint Louis, in a statement. “I have been a lifelong fan of Bobby Fischer.”

The reclusive Fischer died in 2008 at 64. The collection purchased by the Sinquefields includes 320 books on chess; about 400 issues of chess-related periodicals; three sets of proofs for Fischer’s 1969 book, “My 60 Memorable Games”; and a number of bound volumes detailing the match histories of several chess masters, including Spassky.

The Spassky-related works center on Fischer’s preparation for his historic 1972 match, won by Fischer. The victory ended 24 years of Soviet domination of the World Championship.

The collection also includes a copy of “Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess,” with a note indicating that Fischer planned on suing the publishers.

Rex and Jeanne Sinquefield, who are retired investment company executives, said they weren’t yet sure of their plans for the Fischer collection.

St. Louis native Rex Sinquefield did influential research on historical stock market returns and pioneered many of the nation’s first index funds. He and his wife’s Sinquefield Charitable Foundation in Osage County supports organizations that enhance music, children, art and education.

The Chess Club and Scholastic Center was founded in 2007 with funding from the Sinquefield Charitable Foundation. It recently hosted the 2009 U.S. Chess Championship, which was won by Hikaru Nakamura. The center also will host the 2009 U.S. Women’s Chess Championship from Oct. 2-12.
© 2009 American City Business Journals, Inc.

FROM: http://stlouis.bizjournals.com/stlouis/mobile/stories/2009/06/08/daily58.html?ed=2009-06-12&ana=e_du_pub

Saint Louis, May 13, 2009 — After five rounds of the U.S. Chess Championship, Michael Brooks of Kansas City, Mo., has an impressive three points, putting him just one point out of first place. Brooks, of Kansas City, has defeated two grandmasters with ratings higher than 2600, including the seventh- and 15th-ranked players in the country.

Brooks went into the tournament with a rating of 2423. In addition to the two wins, he also has two draws. His only loss came in the first round to Jaan Ehlvest of Baltimore, the 11th-ranked player in the country with a 2649 rating.

If Brooks continues to rack up points, his rating is sure to climb.

“If he finishes the tournament with a performance rating still over 2,600 he will get one of the three norms required to attain the grandmaster title,” said Jim Voelker, a board member of the Chess Club and Scholastic Center of Saint Louis, which is hosting the championship. “I don’t think there has ever been a grandmaster from Missouri.”

Round 6 of the nine-round championship is today. The tournament concludes Sunday.

For a live update of tournament play on Twitter, go to www.twitter.com/ccscsl. Results of all matches are available at www.saintlouischessclub.org.

The Chess Club and Scholastic Center of Saint Louis opened in July 2008, and has over 500 members. The club also will host the 2009 U.S. Women’s Chess Championship from October 2-12.

For more information contact:
Laura Slay, Slay and Associates
314-504-0081 or lslay@slayandassociates.com
or
Jack Naudi, Slay and Associates
636-751-4965 or jnaudi@slayandassociates.com

Photos from the first two rounds of play are available below:

Round 1 Photos

Round 2 Photos

The SAB removed the policy yesterday, April 16th, but the lawsuit will continue to prove the unconstitutionality of denying equal protection under the law to those seeking to open Charter schools and the children and parents they might be able to serve.

There are many concerns that the policy end date will be arbitrary or that a de facto policy will continue, but both legislative and judicial actions in Missouri hope to expressly prohibit the restrictions.

Read the full text of the article HERE, or below:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
Eastern Division

Rex Sinquefield and W. Bevis Schock,
Plaintiffs,                                         Cause No.
___________
vs.
JURY TRIAL
DEMANDED
St. Louis Public School District, a/k/a
St. Louis City Public Schools,

Serve at:

801 North 11th Street
St. Louis, MO 63101

Special Administrative Board of the
Transitional School District of the
City of St. Louis,

Serve at:
801 North 11th Street, Room 108
St. Louis, MO 63101

Melanie Adams,

Serve at:
801 North 11th Street, Room 108
St. Louis, MO 63101

Richard K. Gaines,

Serve at:
801 North 11th Street, Room 108
St. Louis, MO 63101

Rick Sullivan,

Serve at:
801 North 11th Street, Room 108
St. Louis, MO 63101

and Kelvin Adams,

Serve at:
801 North 11th Street, Room 108
St. Louis, MO 63101

Defendants

COMPLAINT
Come now Plaintiffs Rex Sinquefield (hereinafter “Sinquefield”) and W. Bevis Schock (hereinafter “Schock”), by and through their undersigned counsel, and for their Complaint against Defendants St. Louis Public School District a/k/a St. Louis City Public Schools (“School District”), Special Administrative Board of the Tran¬sitional School District of the City of St. Louis (“Interim Board”), Melanie Adams (“M. Adams”), Richard K. Gaines (“Gaines”), Rick Sullivan (“Sullivan”) and Kelvin Adams (“Superintendent Adams”), state to the Court as follows.

JURISDICTION & VENUE

1. This action arises under the Constitution of the United States of America and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988. The Court thus has ju¬risdiction over the subject matter of the action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 & 1343.

2. This action also seeks declaratory relief in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2201.

3. All causes of action alleged in this complaint arose in the City of St. Louis. Most, if not all, of the acts and omissions underlying this complaint occurred in the City of St. Louis. All or most of the Defendants reside in the City of St. Louis. Thus, venue lies in this Eastern Division of the Eastern Dis¬trict of Missouri. E.D.Mo. L.R. 3-2.07 (A) (1) & (B) (2).

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
In accordance with Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and with Local Rule 38-2.04 of this Court, the Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury of all claims and issues in this action triable to a jury.

PARTIES
4. Sinquefield is an individual residing in Missouri and owning real property in the City of St. Louis. He has standing to bring this action as a tax-paying citizen of the State of Missouri and of the City of St. Louis. If the relief requested by Plaintiffs is not granted, it will result in a direct expenditure or loss of funds generated through taxation or an increase in levy in taxes or pecuniary loss to the School District and the taxpayers.

5. Schock is an individual residing in Missouri and owning real property in the City of St. Louis. He has standing to bring this action as a tax-paying citizen of the State of Missouri and of the City of St. Louis. If the relief requested by Plaintiffs is not granted, it will result in a direct expenditure or loss of funds generated through taxation or an increase in levy in taxes or pecuniary loss to the School District and the taxpayers.

6. Defendant School District is a political subdivision of the State of Missouri with its principal place of business in the City of St. Louis at 801 N. 11th Street, St. Louis, MO, 63101.

7. Defendant Interim Board (hereinafter, the “Interim Board”) has a principal place of business in the City of St. Louis at 801 N. 11th Street , St. Louis, MO, 63101.

8. Defendant M. Adams is, and at all times relevant to this action was, a Member of the Interim Board.

9. Defendant Gaines is, and at all times relevant to this action was, a Member of the Interim Board.

10. Defendant Sullivan is, and at all times relevant to this action was, a Member of the Interim Board.

11. Defendant Superintendent Adams is, and at all times relevant to this action was, a Member of the Interim Board.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS & ALL PRAYERS FOR RELIEF
12. On or about April 4, 2008, the School District, acting with or through the Interim Board, executed a certain purchase and sale agreement (hereinafter, the “Green Lea Agreement”) with one North Tower Group, LLC (hereinafter “North Tower Group”), for the sale and conveyance of a school property at Green Lea Place in the City of St. Louis (hereinafter, the “Green Lea School Property”). A copy of the Green Lea Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. (North Tower Group is not a party to this action.)

13. Included in the Green Lea Agreement as ‘Exhibit B’ to that Agreement is the fol¬low¬ing Deed Restriction (hereinafter, the “Deed Restriction”), which, on the whole, the Agree¬ment establishes as a condition of any conveyance to North Tower Group:

1. For a period of one hundred years from the date of recording of this Deed, Grantee agrees and covenants that no portion of the Property shall be used for the following (collectively, the “Restrictions”), without the prior written authorization of Grantor: A primary, elementary or secondary school of any kind providing instruction for any grades kindergarten through twelfth; provided, however, that a center providing care for children outside of such primary, elementary or secon¬dary school setting shall be expressly permitted.

Grantee further agrees that the Restrictions shall run with the land as binding on the Grantee, its successors, and assigns. In the event of a breach of the Restric¬tions, the non-prevailing party, as determined by the Court, shall pay the reason¬able attorney’s fees of the prevailing party.

14. On information and belief, the Plaintiffs allege that the inclusion of this Deed Restriction in the Green Lea Agreement was in accordance with a formal policy (hereinafter, the “Policy”) adopted officially by the School District or by the Interim Board, but adopted by the Interim board in any event.

15. The State of Missouri recently granted a certain third party, not a party to this action (hereinafter, the “Third Party School”), a charter to operate a charter school within the City of St. Louis for the purpose of teaching certain foreign languages to school students in the City.

16. Sometime after adoption of the Policy, the Third Party School, seeking to purchase one of a number of School District properties up for sale, approached a real estate agent retained by the School District (hereinafter, the “School District Realtor”) to commence negotiations for the purchase of one or more properties.

17. The School District Realtor questioned the Third Party School to determine the nature of its business, learned that it was an educational company holding a charter to conduct a charter school in the City of St. Louis, and immediately informed the Third Party School that the Third Party School would not be able to purchase any School District property to operate its school or for any educational purpose.

18. The Third Party School presently operates its school at one location in St. Louis; but it is seeking a second location and has identified a large number of parents and students waiting for it to expand its present facility or to acquire a new, larger school property.

19. The Third Party School wishes to acquire an existing school building as soon as possible, and most, if not all, of the existing school buildings in the City of St. Louis are presently owned by the School District.

20. The contract price for the sale of the Green Lea School Property to North Tower Group was substantially less than the Third Party School will have to pay in order to build a new school building or buildings to accomplish its school building goals.

Count I
Violation of Rights (Speech, Expressive Association, and Assembly) Under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution

21. Plaintiffs incorporate Paragraphs four (4) through twenty (20) as though fully set forth herein.

22. The Deed Restriction and the Policy which it reflects and implements violate the Free Speech, Free Association, and Free Assembly provisions of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America.

23. The Deed Restriction and the Policy deliberately place a substantial obstacle in the way of any parties, such as these Plaintiffs, wishing to set up a school in competition with the schools operated by the School District and in the way of any children wishing to attend such competing schools; and it does the same to the parents of all such children.

24. The Deed Restriction and the Policy are not authorized by any governing statute or regulation of the State of Missouri; if they are so authorized, they are repugnant to the Constitution of the United States of America in any event.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants on Count I in an amount to be determined at trial, for injunctive relief permanently enjoining Defendants from enforcing deed restrictions that purport to prevent property sold by the St. Louis Public School District from being used as primary, elementary, or secondary schools, including kindergartens through twelfth grades, for declaratory judgment that such restriction is void as a violation of Constitutional and statutory provisions, and all costs of this action and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and reasonable.

Count II
Violation of Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

25. Plaintiffs incorporate Paragraphs four (4) through twenty (20) as though fully set forth herein.

26. The Deed Restriction and the Policy which it reflects and implements violate the Equal Protection provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

27. The Deed Restriction and Policy deny equal protection of the laws to these Plaintiffs and to all charter schools and to all private educational institutions who wish to provide the services of primary, elementary, or secondary education to the public in competition with the schools operated by the School District, and who will be adversely and disproportionately impacted by the resulting lack of suitable facilities in which to provide their services.

28. The Deed Restriction and Policy deny equal protection of the laws to many children wishing to attend charter schools and private schools within the City of St. Louis rather than the public schools operated by the School District; and they deny the same protection to the parents of all such children.

29. The Deed Restriction and the Policy are not authorized by any governing statute or regulation of the State of Missouri; if they are so authorized, they are repugnant to the Constitution of the United States of America in any event.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants on Count II in an amount to be determined at trial, for injunctive relief permanently enjoining Defendants from enforcing deed restrictions that purport to prevent property sold by the St. Louis Public School District from being used as primary, elementary or secondary schools, including kindergartens through twelfth grades, for declaratory judgment that such restriction is void as a violation of Constitutional and statutory provisions, and all costs of this action and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and reasonable.

Count III
42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Violation

30. Plaintiffs incorporate Paragraphs four (4) through twenty-nine (29) as though fully set forth herein.

31. Defendants are all state actors so as to be liable for the deprivation of rights or liberties under the Constitution of the United States of America.

32. In adopting and enforcing and in continuing to attempt to enforce the Deed Restriction and the Policy, each one of the Defendants has, under color of statutes, ordinances, regulations, customs, and usages of the City of St. Louis and the State of Missouri, subjected or caused to be subjected each one of the Plaintiffs and each of the third-parties whose Constitutional rights are implicated in this action to the deprivation of the Constitutional rights alleged herein and to the deprivation of other rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants on Count III in an amount to be determined at trial, for their attorney’s fees as authorized by 42 U.S.C. § 1988, for injunctive relief permanently enjoining Defendants from enforcing deed restrictions that purport to prevent property sold by the St. Louis Public School District from being used as primary, elementary or secondary schools, including kindergartens through twelfth grades, for declaratory judgment that such restriction is void as a violation of Constitutional and statutory provisions, and all costs of this action and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and reasonable.

The Schindler Law Firm, P.C.

____________________________________
Joshua M. Schindler, Bar No. 22593
141 N. Meramec Avenue, Suite 201
St. Louis, MO 63105
(314) 862-1411
(314) 862-1701 Fax
josh@schindlerlawfirm.com
Attorney for Plaintiffs