Please take the time to read the Court Documents! Looks like our Board was bullying people!
One must remember that this is by no means a recounting of any factual evidence. All of this is presented by the plaintiff's attorney to put their case in the best possible light. It is not designed to be a fair and balanced appraisal of the situation, but rather a one sided, best foot forward proposition.<quoted text>
There was a link to the case in the DDN article about the revised lawsuit. I guess Lurker did know of which he/she spoke. I think he/she is owed an apology. And here is the link should you care to read it for yourself.
The conspirators seem to be Mr. Long, the weak kneed and responsibility abrogating Mr. Lolli, Ms. Warner, and Mr Renshaw who both countenanced this charade (if it did indeed occurred the way they presented)
How do professional educators with so called ethical standards behave this way?
If they were lying to Ms. Grigsby then, how do we trust their version today when they are in the crosshairs?
How are we to discern that Ms. Grigsby was the number one candidate in regards to teaching ability?
How are we to discern whether or not she was merely chummy enough to get the job because she was of the correct political persuasion rather than her teaching ability?
Are we to assume that our children are being shortchanged by having Mr. Martin or Ms Lamb in the classroom?
Why did Mr. Lolli not bother to consult with any of the other board members on this issue?
Mr. Lolli was certainly free to speak with any of them at any time why did he not?.
Mr. Lolli most certainly understood that it took but three yes votes to confirm his candidate, why did he not speak to the others for Ms. Grigsby if he felt as solidly as he did for her candidacy?
Mr. Long mentions in Mr. Lolli's affidavit that she was "offered" the job because Mr. Renshaw did not follow proper protocol. How is this Kelly Kohl's fault?
Mr. Long appears to be characterized in all of the correspondence as a mind reader who can tell you what everyone is thinking and attempting to be invaluable in his attempts to placate everyone.
Who ultimately sold Ms. Grigsby down the river?
All those invaluable employees who the district could not do without; Mr. Lolli, Mr Long, Ms Warner, Mr Renshaw.
And where is the good Mr. Malone in this?
Mr. Malone's name is conspicuously absent when everyone who worked above and below him seemed to have a hand in this woman's demise.
No where do I find anything that implicates Mr. Petroni or Mr. Rigano. What we find instead is the innuendo the union is famous for in the utilization of smearing people
The suit also fails to demonstrate whereby the board ever voted upon Ms Grigsby or that her name was ever even brought up for a vote.
Could this be a union driven smoke screen, red herring, bogus issue driven by the OEA in an atavistic attempt to thwart the will of the people in this community using the court system and an all too compliant newspaper?