J Simes
Unregistered
|
The new school board should have avoided any <b>appearance</b> of collusion with the Dover plaintiffs and the plaintiffs` legal representatives, and the new school board did not do that. For that, the new school board members have no one to blame but themselves.
(1) At the Dec. 5 meeting, the new board members should have kept their campaign promises to repeal the ID policy and then offered to make an out-of-court settlement with the plaintiffs. Even if the new board members believed that it was probably too late for such actions to do any good, these actions would have at least been a symbolic gesture showing that the new board sincerely wanted to keep the campaign promises to repeal the ID policy and save the taxpayers money. They knew that this meeting was the last chance to ask for an out-of-court settlement and that they were <b>lucky</b> to get the chance. Question -- what possible harmful consequences could have resulted from taking the above actions?
(2) The plaintiffs might have been more willing to consider making an out-of-court settlement if Judge Jones had not assured them in advance that the board election would have no effect on his decision ( -- from http://www.ydr.com/doverbiology/ci_3223198 ). The new board`s decision to not repeal the ID policy at the Dec. 5 meeting supported and reinforced Jones` decision to ignore the effect of the election . I think I smell a conspiracy here.
(3) New board members have blamed the former board members for the expense of the lawsuit but to my knowledge have not condemned the assignment of an excessive number of plaintiffs' attorneys, 9-10, which drove up the attorney fee award. At least <b>five</b> plaintiffs` attorneys were in the courtroom on each day of the 6-week trial (-- from http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/13928874.htm ). Those 9-10 attorneys were not mostly just names on a distribution list.
(4) Some new board members said that they did not want to do anything about the ID policy until after the release of the Dover decision ( --from http://www.ydr.com/doverbiology/ci_3223198 ). This wait-and-see policy could be justified only if (i) the new board members believed that the defendants had some chance of winning the case and (ii) the new board members would have been willing to defend the ID policy in an appeal, something that would have been completely contrary to their campaign promises to repeal the ID policy.
(5) After the board voted to approve the $1 million settlement, the new board president said of Pepper Hamilton, which together with the ACLU and the AU represented the plaintiffs, "I think that Pepper Hamilton was very gracious.`` -- from http://www.yorkdispatch.com/features/idesign/ci_3535139 Of course, since the settlement had already been approved, there was no longer any need for her to say anything nice about the plaintiffs` legal representatives, who alone were to blame for driving up the legal costs by assigning an excessive number of attorneys.
(6) By not taking any action at the Dec. 5 meeting, the new board was risking not just the $1 million of the final settlement, but was risking the $2+ million that the plaintiffs initially asked for.
The board showed that it was perfectly happy to have the Kitzmiller v. Dover case be a big fundraiser for the ACLU and the AU -- at the expense of Dover taxpayers.
The new board will never be able to prove that it was not in cahoots with the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs` attorneys.
|
|
|