(This post started as a response to Dennis' question about my last post, and I'm not sure this answers his question but maybe it does.)
Since the majority of the board members distrust Robinson, it follows they will distrust his legal counsel. It seems the district's legal counsel has history of working with and seemingly-for Robinson, vs. for the elected school board which is responsible for governing our district. In addition, the "district" legal counsel's positions are proven wrong time and again in legal arenas. So, they seem to see their client as Robinson and not those governing the district, and they apparently give some bad advice -- some "illegal" advice.
With Robinson gone, and a quality legal firm hired that has no ties whatsoever to board members or to the district administration, I believe Rick, Josh and Debi would be more inclined to listen.
Attorneys work to represent their clients and help them attain their goals within the law: The current legal firm appears to be confused about who the client is -- the client is the district's governing body, not Jim Robinson.
Whenever the district, following this firm's advise, is challenged in court, it seems the district position is found "illegal."
Kim Fandino being told she couldn't communicate directly with board members was ruled "illegal" when challenged through the legal system. On the other hand, it might be the legal firm was not consulted on this matter, and Robinson did this "illegal" action on his own.
But surely they were consulted before the contracting out of custodians several years ago -- judged to be done "illegally" by the legal system.
We need a new administrative staff, and maybe we do need a clean slate of board members before healing can begin, but let's not forget to hire new legal counsel and please...not someone selected by LT and her/his merry band of "legal" experts.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Good post, this is exactly what is going on. Funny how Robinson is so often heralded as the "pro-law" voice of reason within the district.
Thank you for being a voice of reason in this community.
You're welcome. You made my day;>).
IE said:
But surely they were consulted before the contracting out of custodians several years ago -- judged to be done "illegally" by the legal system.
The legal consultant was the OSBA firm. The reason I remember is Rick wanted to sue the Oregon School Board Association for the $300,000 the district had to pay the custodians.
Yes, anonymous, surely they did! Apparently poor advice from this legal firm we taxpayers paid for in more ways than one.
The voice of ignorance is more like it.
Post a Comment