|
Tribal Hunting Student Files |
Student Sues College in Small Claims Court
By Alexandra West
In January, third-year student Scott Talley filed a small claims suit against Lewis & Clark College President Michael Mooney over the college’s recently-imposed parking fees. Talley is not challenging Lewis & Clark for political reasons; rather, he is bringing this suit because of his deeply-rooted sense of justice.
“I believe Mooney’s intent in instituting the parking fee was dishonest,” Talley explained in a recent interview. Talley commented that he doesn’t believe this fee was imposed to reduce single occupancy vehicle traffic, which is how the College claims the revenue generated from the fees will be used. “I believe it was a mid-year supplemental fee to generate funds for new construction because capital fundraising, which ended last semester, did not raise enough money for the intended construction.”
Capital Costs
Talley argues that the money will go toward capital improvements like additions to the campus, parking lots, or a parking structure, and not to alternative solutions. Talley asserts that President Mooney, Dean Huffman, and Transportation and Parking Manager Michael Surface have all stated publicly that a portion of these fees will be applied to the costs of construction of new facilities.
To bolster his argument, Talley asserts that “the admissions information on the law school web page specifically states that students are not charged for capital costs associated with new construction.” On the school catalog web page, as well as in prior admissions booklets, under the heading Financing Your Education, the school states:
As a private institution, we base charges for tuition and general fees solely on the cost of instructional services provided to our students. Since the present law school campus was begun, completed, and fully paid for in the 1970s, students are not charged for the capital costs associated with new construction.1
Dean Huffman casts this statement in a different light. “I think that’s more of an historical statement. It means that students who go here have the advantage of not paying for capital expenses. But I think it’s hard to read that as a promise that we won’t ever use student money on capital expenditures in the future,” he stated in a recent interview.
It will be up to the Multnomah County small claims court judge to interpret the governing language. Meanwhile, Talley urges strict adherence with the plain meaning of the words in the catalog. He insists that, since it explicitly states that we are not charged for these costs, the school has no right to charge us for them.
Talley does believe, however, that all fees should be applied to alternative transport and neighborhood shuttles, as recommended by the Transportation Advisory Group (TAG) and SBA. Talley is not a member of law student group Coalition Advocating Transportation Sensibility (CATS), although to some extent his interests overlap with the group. Both Talley and CATS demand that the administration rank genuine promotion of alternative transportation as its chief priority.
Tuition and Fees
Talley’s next argument, which is perhaps his strongest, has to do with the fact that the parking fees were instituted without notice and in the middle of the school year. In the law school application for admission, under the heading Annual Costs, it states: “Tuition and fees are set in the spring of the year.” The parking fees were determined this fall, then instituted in January. Talley argues that this fee has clearly been set against the stated school policy.
“When I signed the application form,” he explained, “I agreed to abide by the school’s policies. I budgeted according to the yearly tuition and fee schedule, and I relied on the figures set in the spring.”
Elaborating further, Talley argued, “students are on a fixed income. The amount of money we borrow for our tuition and living expenses is based partially on the amount of fees and tuition, which is contractually set in the spring. To charge students an unexpected fee in the middle of the school year, when tuition and fees have already been set, in order to raise revenue for a capital cost associated with new construction for which we are not expected to pay, is unconscionable.”
Dean Huffman admits that he has not yet researched the issue, but responded by saying that he would be amazed if there isn’t some document that states that fees are subject to change according to the Board of Trustees. Huffman emphasized that he would be conducting research and preparing his arguments for trial, and assured, “I’ll have my ducks in order by then.”
Parking Structure
Talley also argues that students already pay for parking-related costs in their tuition, and that this new fee will be earmarked for structural additions rather than for true alternative transportation solutions. In a letter to President Mooney dated Sep. 24, 1998, Talley highlighted a comment made at a meeting by a college spokesperson that revealed that parking costs the college between $50,000 and $55,000 each year. “This money is paid for from a portion of our student tuition. This amount represents the actual cost of parking on campus,” Talley wrote.
In response to the suggestion that the parking fee is excessive, Huffman stated, in a letter from Jan. 26, 1999, that, “In fact, the fee does not cover the full cost of providing parking on campus. Even if it did, it would not be unconscionable in light of the cost of parking at other locations in Portland.”
In Mooney’s memo announcing the fee, he explained that all of the revenues from the parking fee will go to a “parking auxiliary” which will pay for alternative transportation initiatives and parking facilities. “I’m skeptical,” adds Talley, “because if you add up the total number of students, faculty, and employees paying this fee, and multiply it by $300, the annual cost of the fee, it ends up being almost exactly the cost of the proposed Huston parking lot, estimated by Dean Huffman to be about $1.2 million.”
Huffman mentioned that, as far as he knows, parking lots and structures are on the back burner. “This is partly because of the apparent dramatic increase in alternative transportation use,” he reasoned, but then qualified the statement with, “it will take time to tell.”
The small claims hearing is scheduled for mid-March. Until then, Talley continues to collect facts and figures in preparation for the court proceeding.
The hearing is scheduled for March 16 at 1:30 p.m. at the Multnomah County Courthouse. Correspondence between Talley and Huffman follows.
1 <http://www.lclark.edu/~lawac/LC/adm_financing.htm>.
September 24, 1998
To: Michael Mooney, President
C/O Lewis and Clark College
06115 S.W. Palatine Hill Road
Portland, Oregon 97219-7899
Dear Michael Mooney, President
I am writing to state my opposition to the proposed new parking lot fees and their method of implementation. Presently, my discontent is confined to the following arguments.
(1) The proposed fees do not reflect any genuine effort to reduce single occupancy vehicles as stated in your letter dated September 4, 1998.
(2) You state that we have grown used to parking for free, however in a meeting last year, a Transportation and Parking Services spokesperson stated that parking costs between $50,000 and $55,000 a year. This money is paid for from a portion of our student tuition. This amount represents the actual cost of parking on campus. This portion of my tuition has paid for my parking for two and a half years. When I decided to remain in my apartment in S.E. Portland for this school year, I relied on the fact that my portion of this Spring’s parking fees would come out of my tuition this spring as it has for the past two and a half years.
(3) By our student body president, I have been informed that with this new plan you intend to raise about $1,000,000 a year. This is nearly $950,000 a year more than we already pay for parking. A raise in cost of $950,000, when we already pay the actual cost from our tuition is unconscionable. This is in direct conflict with the concepts of good faith and fair dealing which is implicit in all contract agreements.
(4) As the school has taken no genuine action from student input and student concerns, we have no real assurance that the excessive amount of money you are taking from us will be used in ways that [sic] adverse to student body desires. I suspect that none of the students who are voicing their opinions will be here when this funding is applied toward “provision of parking facilities”.
(5) Even if you are able to take this money from students and school employees alike, and even if you use this money for a future parking facility, a number of students have suggested that this will be their total alumni contribution paid in full and in advance. A great deal of school funding comes from alumni support and to disregard the thoughts of these students may prove to be penny wise and pound foolish.
As students, the majority of us do not have much in the way of financial resources. I certainly cannot afford to add $40 to the amount I already pay for parking out of my tuition. Unfortunately, I work in Hillsboro and other means of transportation are not realistically possible.
This new fee is not only an unrealistic burden to place on students, but it is also excessive for non student employees. This new fee will cost non student employees who work throughout the year almost $500. I don’t want to rely on hearsay, but is it true that you suggested if the employees did not like this then they might need to find new jobs?
Anyway, if you returned the $50,000 to $55,000 in tuition that is being used for parking to the students, and then charged a reasonable amount for parking with incentives for car pooling and public transportation this would be acceptable. This would be incentive to cut down single occupancy vehicles. As for your parking structure or “provision of parking facilities” I am not sure why this should be my (or any present student’s) burden to provide the funding for this facility. I say this because I do not see why it is my responsibility to put money in a fund for a structure or “provision of parking facilities” that I will never be able to use. I find a hard time finding the bargained for exchange in the new “fee” that you are suggesting. I honestly feel that this is little more than a poorly veiled extortion scheme to fund a parking structure. The way this “fee” is presently suggested, the wealthier students will be parking on the upper campus and those without money will be parking in the adjacent neighborhoods or at the church and walking up the hill to school.
None the less [sic], I will do everything in my power to avoid this fee as it is presently proposed. I am however not opposed to a reasonable fee that does not go to this extent beyond the city’s condition of discouraging single occupancy vehicles commuting to campus and supporting alternative transportation options. Please get back to me at your convenience as I am interested in your response.
Sincerely,
Scott W. Talley
Scott Talley
910 S.E. 37th Ave. #202
Portland Or. 97214
P.S. Please send me documentation of the present amount we spend for parking and related expenses as well as the expected amounts your “fee” intends to generate I would also like to receive total number of students enrolled in the law school as well as the undergraduate campus.
January 24, 1999
Dear Dean Huffman
I am writing to address your apparent concerns that my small claims suit against President Mooney is something to the effect of “an embarrassment to the law school community” and “an unfounded abuse of the legal system.” I apologize if you have been left with this opinion because of any of my actions that are truly improper. However, I believe I have a valid, non-frivolous claim. As I have yet to see any meaningful interest in student input, small claims court appears to be the only medium through which my arguments will be acknowledged. I am disheartened that you would publicly state to the college newspaper that my actions are an embarrassment to my community without making an effort to educate yourself as to my arguments. I am pleased, however, that you have given me the incentive to inform you of my reasons for discontent with President Mooney’s actions.
On September 24, 1998, I sent President Mooney a certified letter (of which I am enclosing a copy) stating my opposition to the then proposed parking fees. I stated that: (1) the proposed fees do not reflect a genuine effort to reduce single occupancy vehicles; (2) we already pay for parking through our tuition and we relied on parking fees being included in tuition when enrolling for school, choosing our living situations, and making our year long class schedules last spring; and (3) the new fees are excessive, and the majority of these fees will be used to alter our present parking spaces in order to build additions to the school that most of us will never use. Along with a specific request for a response, I requested information as to parking expenses and expected amounts the fees would generate as well as a total number of students enrolled on both campuses. I received no response.
The arguments that I intend to make are based on the concepts of bargained for exchange, reliance, breach of contract, and unconscionability. I also intend to argue that this new fee is put in place without adherence to the tenants of good faith and fair dealing that are inherent in all contracts.
I have yet to feel that the law student community was given any meaningful consideration in the creation of these parking fees. In a “lunch with the dean” meeting last fall, the day after this new parking fee was imposed, you informed students that you were unaware that this parking fee had been implemented. This version was therefore imposed without our law school faculty approval. (I believe the law school faculty had unanimously voted to fund increased alternative transportation to campus.) Aside from the Pioneer Shuttle, which is a great start, little other alternative transportation has been added. T.A.G. submitted its proposal for alternative transportation funding and this fell on deaf ears. According to Student Rep. Robin Snyder, speaking about alternative transportation in the SBA notes of December’s Letter of the Law, “President Mooney claimed that the College is ‘still looking into this option.’ Though this option has been discussed for some time now, to date the administration has done virtually nothing to facilitate it.”
Aside from lacking in input from the law school community, I do not believe this parking fee has anything more than a nominal effect on deterring single occupancy vehicles from campus. Furthermore, I do not believe this issue of funding alternative transportation, which would reduce vehicle traffic, has been given the weight it deserves. The apparent reason this fee is being imposed is to expand college facilities. The amount of “any funds remaining” which will be used for “construction of new parking,” appears to be about $850,000. I genuinely feel that this money is being taken unjustly from students without our being given the opportunity to assert our interests in the application of these funds. These funds are being taken from us for “parking.” Parking however is not guaranteed and is often not available because of the single occupancy vehicle problem. We are, in a way, paying for services that may not be available because of President Mooney’s inaction on alternative transportation issues. These services would however be available if the fees charged were used in a manner consistent with the goals of deterring single occupancy vehicles by providing alternative transportation. With these ends as a goal, there might not be a need for a new parking facility, and the city’s mandate to reduce vehicle traffic would be met.
Once again, I do not see this concern of mine as frivolous, unmerited, or unfounded and, once again, I apologize if you perceive my actions as such.
As I stated to President Mooney in my September 24th letter, I am in no way opposed to paying a reasonable fee for parking. I do not however wish to pay a fee unless the fee represents a genuine attempt to reduce single occupancy vehicles and which provides for alternative means of transportation in a manner, [sic] which makes the service for which I am paying available. I do not believe the present policy was executed in good faith toward these goals. I am sorry if our opinions differ in this matter.
Sincerely,
Scott W. Talley
January 26, 1999
Mr. Scott W. Talley
910 S.E. 37th Avenue, Apartment 202
Portland, Oregon 97214
Dear Mr. Talley:
I am in receipt of your letter of January 24, 1999, regarding my reaction to your small claims suit against President Michael Mooney. While your source has gotten my statements a bit wrong, the gist is accurate. Let me explain why.
Although it has been a long time since I studied contract law, I am unable to imagine a plausible basis for the claim you have filed. I told the Pioneer Log reporter, I assume the source of your information about my position, that I was prepared to be persuaded otherwise. Your letter does not persuade me. If I were the judge, I would throw your claim out of court with an admonition not to file frivolous claims. As a legal educator and dean of your law school, I believe it is my responsibility to instruct our students on the appropriate and inappropriate uses of the legal system.
Based on your letter, I take it that the gist of your claim is that you were already paying for parking and that there was an implied contract to that effect upon which you relied. You reach this conclusion on the basis of several factual errors. I will mention only a few. I would be happy to visit with you about as many aspects of this as you might like to talk about.
You state that “the majority of these fees will be used to alter our present parking spaces in order to build additions to the school.” Not so. As the President explained in his memo announcing the fee, all of the revenues go to a parking auxiliary which will pay for alternative transportation initiatives and parking facilitates [sic]. You might be interested to know that the College has been selected to receive an award for its alternative transportation program, which is in no small part the product of efforts by many law students.
You state that I was unaware that the fee had been implemented and that there has been virtually no law student involvement. The latter is demonstrably false. As to my statement during pizza with the dean, in fact the fee had not been implemented at that time. There was a proposal of which I was unaware. But it was not implemented until there was extensive involvement of students, faculty and staff. While that involvement is essential to the welfare and character of our institution, it has no relevance to a claim of breach. The College has no legal obligation to involve anyone in the decision. That the College chose to involve anyone interested in participating is to its credit.
You suggest that the College has done nothing to encourage alternative transportation. That too is demonstrably false, in light of the extensive program outlined in the President’s memo. Your suggestion that the College’s efforts have done nothing to impact single occupancy vehicle traffic is at best premature. Early indications are that the program has had a significant impact on SOVs.
In your letter to President Mooney you state that you were already being charged for parking and that the total cost is $50,000 to $55,000. You also state that we have grown used to parking for free. The latter statement is correct. There was nothing in your contract with the College which suggested that a specified portion of your payment financed parking or that the College was committing to providing free parking indefinitely.
In light of the estimated cost of nearly a million dollars to construct the proposed Huston lot to accommodate 165 cars, the idea that all student parking on campus costs $50,000 is clearly ludicrous. The College’s decision to recover a portion of these costs through a parking fee is designed to reduce the total cost to the institution by discouraging automobile travel to campus. It is also designed to benefit the environment by internalizing parking costs to those who drive.
You also suggest that the parking fee is excessive which I assume goes to your claim of unconscionability. In fact, the fee does not cover the full cost of providing parking on campus. Even if it did, it would not be unconscionable in light of the cost of parking at other locations in Portland.
Your letter is also quite explicit in stating that you saw small claims court as a last alternative after being unsuccessful in your other efforts to influence the parking fee decision. In my opinion, the courts are not an appropriate alternative to what is essentially a political process (albeit a private one). In politics, as in decision making in private institutions, there are winners and losers. The losers do not, except where their rights have been violated, have a legal claim to what they were unsuccessful in achieving through politics or private decision making processes. I understand that you are unhappy with the parking fee and with the process by which it was imposed, but I do not believe you have a plausible claim of the violation of your legal rights.
Thus, I am undeterred from what I have said to the Pioneer Log reporter, notwithstanding that it may be not be a politically popular point of view. I believe that your suit in small claims court is an abuse of the judicial system and I would urge you and every student at this law school to resist the temptation to use the judicial system for political purposes. If I am proven wrong about the merits of your claim, I will stand corrected. But I predict that the result will be a dismissal by the court and a modest setback in your effort to have some influence on the College’s transportation policies.
Sincerely,
James L. Huffman
Dean and
Professor of Law
February 9, 1999
Dear Dean Huffman,
Thank you for your response to my January 24th letter. I must admit that I will find it difficult to agree with your statements that my actions are: (1) frivolous; (2) worthy only of being thrown out of court with an admonition not to file frivolous claims; (3) an inappropriate and irresponsible use of the legal system; (4) an abuse of the legal system; and (5) (the one that puzzles me the most) a claim founded on a political purpose. I am, however, pleased by your offer to visit with me about the aspects of my claim.
Before being able to have an informed visit with you, I am hoping that you will be of assistance in the following matters:
I am sending you copies of the Lewis and Clark Web pages, which I am presently intending to offer into evidence at court. To avoid any evidentiary problems, I am requesting that you verify these as accurate copies of these Lewis and Clark web pages.
I am also requesting
(1) A copy of my law school application.
(2) Bylaws which govern the setting of tuition and fees.
(3) The yearly funds associated with parking prior to this
academic year.
(4) The Funds Associated [sic] with parking
this fall.
(5) The revenues raised by the new parking fee.
(6) The allocation of the fees generated by parking.
(7) The number of students, faculty, and employees that are
eligible for parking fees.
I truly appreciate your help in this matter and I look forward to meeting with you soon.
Sincerely,
Scott W. Talley