SAD 63 COURT PROCEDING OCT. 5

There was a brief court appearance in the Penobscot County Superior Court in Bangor Monday between counsel representing the two opposing parties. The Plaintiff was not in attendance although there were the standard two (2) attorneys representing her and the standard one (1) attorney representing SAD63. Mr. Varnum, Chairman of the SAD 63 School Board, and School Board member, Karen Clark, and this writer were also in attendance.

Of the two attorneys in attendance representing the Plaintiff, the second chair was not the same individual who was present at the previous U.S. District Court hearing, but, as in that previous hearing, this attorney was young and did not speak or appear to have any function other than to listen to the individual who has been the primary legal counsel for the Plaintiff from the beginning. (NOTE: One expects the Plaintiff will be charged billing time for both attorneys.)

The purpose of the court appearance seemed to be administrative. Earlier filings (motions) by the parties (Plaintiff and Defendants) set time frames for various legal procedures, such as depositions, discovery, etc. The one set time frame was April 2010 when all procedures needed to be completed by both parties and a Jury Trial date could be set.

NOTE: This writer was able to ascertain on Monday that U.S. District Court Judge Kravchuk did not order the Plaintiff to take the majority of her issues to the State Commissioner of Education but, rather, determined those issues were not civil rights issues and therefore they had to be heard either by the State court level (Penobscot County Superior Court) OR by the State Commissioner of Education. It appears the Plaintiff still wants to go the State Court route and to avoid the Commissioner of Education route. (One wonders why.) And the Commissioner apparently wants to avoid doing what school law says that office should be doing as well. (One wonders why.)

Two issues were discussed between the judge and the legal counsel for the parties:

The first issue is that that neither party appears to need the remaining eight months allotted to gather additional statements (depositions) or documents (discovery) and therefore the question remains as to whether or not the April 2010 date for a potential Jury Trial is needed.

NOTE: This did not appear to mean that there would not be a Jury Trial - which could be a trial before the judge alone, instead of before a panel of people. On the other hand, the Plaintiff's attorney may feel it might make a better "show" to play out the case before a panel of citizens. The Plaintiff has added so many issues, and has tried to make the whole case sound so convoluted, it could be easy to confuse a group of people. That might work to the Plaintiff's benefit. Bottom Line, and let us be clear, - a Trial takes time and time costs more money, especially when the Plaintiff always needs to have a minimum of two attorneys at the table representing her.

Counsel for the Plaintiff pointed out they have filed a Motion for the two additional charges they have added to her case - Being a "Whistleblower" and then "Retaliation". In order to avoid having to rewrite all of the previously filed charges (heard in U.S. District Court), it was agreed by all parties and the judge, that the Plaintiff's attorney will simply list Charges 1-? and note "Reserved" to indicate their existence.

NOTE: This would seem to indicate that the Plaintiff's attorney plans to have every one of those charges heard before the Penobscot County Superior Court judge at the to-be-determined trial, in addition to these last two (new) charges.

The second issue related to an ADR. (This writer was not familiar with that acronym and had to ask another attorney in the elevator what it was. It obviously related to civil cases since it was also used in the case following the SAD 63 case in the same courtroom.) ADR stands for Alternative Dispute Resolution...meaning Negotiated Settlement.

The two parties' legal counsel were asking the judge to determine a date for ADR - whether it should be before the Jury Trial or after. (At least that's what this writer believes the discussion was about.) The judge appeared to indicate that he would get back to both sides regarding this decision.

This Writer's Thoughts... The first issue seemed pretty cut and dried. Neither side appeared to need more time to gather information. The fact that U.S. District Court Judge Krachuk didn't require the Plaintiff to go through the administrative process via the Commissioner of Education is disappointing - not to mention the avoidance of said Commissioner to do what this writer believes to be her job.

The clear indication that the Plaintiff's attorney plans to drag this matter out for as long as possible (meaning for as many billable hours - times two or more attorneys) for a matter that was pretty elementary at the beginning is the kind of stuff that causes people to lose respect for both the legal system in particular and for lawyers in general.

But what this writer finds disgusting is the thought of "negotiating" any kind of financial settlement with the Plaintiff, because the settlement will not be with the Plaintiff. Any "settlement" will have nothing to do with any merits of the Plaintiff's case. Anyone who knows or has followed the facts of the case knows there are no merits to the case, and there haven't been since the beginning. It has always been about money. It has always been about how one superintendent was going to lose her position if SAD 63 consolidated with Brewer and so she went beyond her authorized bounds to try to find other potential partners and was called on her actions. Then she tried to lie and intimidate staff and School Board members because of those actions as well.

And yet, when the School Board did what they are legally required to do and held a District employee accountable for her actions, that employee felt she could hold the Board and the District's taxpayers up for ransom. In the "real world" such employees are terminated. It's known as Just Cause. They may or may not be given any Severance Pay. If the Board even offered to pay a lump sum equal to the remainder of her contract (June 30, 2010) and benefits it would have been more than generous. Apparently she wanted more.

And here we are, more than two years later with a projected trial date six months from now - almost three years after the fact. Look at the legal costs that have incurred to both the Plaintiff and the Defendants since that initial meeting when a possible mediated settlement was offered. Think about how many more costs will be incurred over the next six months. And now there is talk of an ADR!? Any idea of how much $$$ the Plaintiff will be talking about this time???

I know all too well how people will argue that it is better to settle than to run the risk of court or jury ordered "damages" (translated = $$$). It is also the philosophy that "something" has to be awarded to pay for all the time and charges incurred by the losing party's legal counsel. But what if those charges were because of the actions of the legal counsel?

This is going to be the TAXPAYERS money! Yours and mine. And I, for one, am offended to think that I should have to pay one cent to the likes of the Plaintiff or the standards of her legal counsel. (NOTE: I have no problem with paying the fees of SAD 63's legal counsel. Having watched this gentleman - and isn't it amazing that one individual can do the job of representing the entire Board while it seems to require no less than two attorneys to represent the Plaintiff - I believe whatever SAD 63's attorney's bill will be, it will be justified...and less than the Plaintiff's attorney's bill!) But, any ADR will only result in paying the inflated legal costs the Plaintiff's attorney has generated.

This writer wonders what would happen if the SAD 63 taxpayers refused to pay the bill. We've been told we will have to vote to approve any loan needed to be taken out to pay the costs of this legal case. What if we voted "NO"? Could the court force us to change our vote? I wonder.

It just seems to me that to reward the Plaintiff anything in this matter is to set a precedent for other employees and leaves the Board and us vulnerable in future similar situations. Is this the way we raise our children? Is this the way we believe civil service should operate? A superintendent of schools is an employee, no more than a teacher or a public service worker or a professional or a child. We who have the authority (parent, supervisor, voter/taxpayer, employer) have the RESPONSIBILITY to not only set the standards of behavior and performance, we have the responsibility to hold those accountable to us to those standards. To provide any kind of reward for unacceptable performance should not be justified. Call it Tough Love, if you will. Maybe we should call it a Taxpayer Bill of Rights. I call it accountability.