It seems that the Robinson loyalists scream "illegal" any time the board takes a vote that doesn't go their way...suspending Robinson was "illegal" they say, and Josh's amendments to the PIE contract were "illegal."
Yet one never hears that screech when votes support their opinions.
Let's remember that the only decisions that have to date been found "illegal" by a judicial body were those Robinson pushed -- the contracting out of custodial staff and the discipline of Kim Fandino.
It's also interesting that the head of CARES is an attorney employed by Tom McHill, who was one of three board members included in this town's LAST recall effort not so long ago. Bet he's making big points with his boss for all this CARES work.
It seems that if the board does anything against Robinson's wishes, the cry of "illegal" drifts over this community. If they wanted a potty break during a board meeting, and Robinson objected, bet they'd say we need a legal opinion to decide on that...and that taking a break without one was "illegal" (I'm only half kidding.)
Again...which side has the history of being shown "illegal"? Let's stick to the facts.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
I'm a little surprised. I always though *I* would be the one to bring excrement into the conversation.
On the other hand, you're technically correct. Suspending Robinson was not found to be illegal - because it was reversed before it got in front of a judicial body but after two separate law firms suggested the suspension was illegal. Voting on the PIE amendments sight unseen? That's probably not illegal, but a legal body has not yet had a chance to consider it, have they? (It is, however, clearly undemocratic and unethical.)
This is just a sloppy post, IE. You should know better than to define "Robinson loyalists" so vaguely and claim that "anything" done against Robinson's wishes gets called illegal (and for that matter, there are different levels of illegal - state law, school district policy, school board policy, etc).
I would appreciate it if you were more specific in citing events and people to whom you think this applies.
I don't remember that the other law firm "suggested" the suspension was illegal. Are you sure on that? And "suggested" is an interesting word. Hard to know what that even means.
Hey..Poop is a pretty polite word in my world.
Both the district's law firm and the firm of Kathy Peck, brought in at the suggestion of Debbie herself agreed the board had acted in a manner that violated Robinson's contract.
The reason Debbie reversed her decision is because the suspension was so far outside the lines that the board members who voted for it would not be protected by the board's liability insurance.
She wasn't willing to put her family's financial future on the line.
And let's get something straight about the high school administrator decision. Like the Robinson suspension it was tied to Debbie's unusual affection for Bo Yates.
When Mark Finch was recommended as head principal all Debbie wanted to know is why Bo Baby didn't get an interview. In fact, I suspect the only reason she ran for the board was because she knew Bo was in trouble at the district.
Getting Bo Yates back in as jock director was why the trio shot down the first interim director recommended by the administration.
I don't know for sure about the law firm - I've never seen any documents. But I have no reason to think that either Kathy Peck or Paul Dakopolos thought suspending Robinson was OK.
I used the word 'suggested' because I'm not sure even an attorney can tell you if something is going to be ruled illegal or not 100% of the time - that's what judges are for.
From Lebanon Express April 09, 2008
The district policy prohibiting communication between board members and district employees was created by the Oregon School Board Association (OSBA) and is used by many other Oregon school districts. The Lebanon school board is scheduled to hear a presentation on the ruling from legal counsel at its May 5 meeting, which OSBA representatives are expected to attend.
Eye in sky: If Debi is so tied to Bo Yates, why did Sprenger and her band so actively support Debi for election? That doesn't make sense to me.
Anonymous 12:02 am -- and your point is?
Eye-in-sky again:"Debbie's unusual affection for Bo Yates."
Just scrolling down to respond to another comment, that line caught my eye. It certainly could be interpreted various ways. Could you clarify, lest any readers interpret that in a way you didn't intend?
I agree, Dennis -- attorney's can't tell for sure what will be determined legal or illegal, that IS what judges are for (vs. some in this community so seem to see themselves as judge and jury..e.g. LT).
However, people pay attorneys for their opinions about the probable legality or illegality of situations. Attorneys often disagree, and like in any profession, some are better than others at their craft.
"Attorneys often disagree, and like in any profession, some are better than others at their craft."
If you're going to say you think both Dakopolos and Peck were wrong, then just say so - and explain why. The insinuation isn't at all helpful.
Post a Comment