Whatever administrators told the Joplin R-8 Board of Education in closed session to convince them to fire a principal they had already rehired for the following school year will remain a secret, even if what they said did not even resemble the truth.
The Southern District Court of Appeals today denied a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by the lawyer for former Royal Heights Principal Larry Masters in his suit against former Assistant Superintendent Angie Besendorfer. The petition was filed after Judge David Dally ruled in favor of a motion for a protective order filed, not by Besendorfer's attorney, but by John Nicholas, representing the Joplin Board of Education:
John Nicholas, attorney for Joplin School Board and on behalf of the Joplin School Board, requests that he be allowed to participate in the depositions in this matter on behalf of the Joplin School Board and enjoin questioning or disclosure by either party or witnesses of information related to closed session discussions.
Plaintiff's petition alleges allegations including assertions of certain facts and statements that may have been made during closed meetings of the Joplin School Board. As a result, any deposition testimony that may illicit (sic) responses as they relate to discussions or information held in closed meetings of the Joplin School Board or on behalf of the board should be closed to the public.
Nicholas' request for the protective order came after a deposition was scheduled for R-8 Board member Jim Kimbrough.
The Nicholas approach was also followed by Besendorfer's attorney, Karl Blanchard, in her answers to Masters' interrogatories. She refused to answer two of the questions and Blanchard filed objections to those questions.
If you were present at the above meeting, did you make any statements to the Joplin Schools Board of Education concerning Plaintiff Masters? If so, what statement or statements did you make?
The following answer was given:
Defendant objects to interrogatory for the reason that it seeks information relating to a closed meeting which means any discussions were confidential.
The second question to which Besendorfer objected:
If you were present at the closed meeting, did anybody else make any statements to the Joplin Schools Board of Education at that meeting concerning Plaintiff Masters? If yes, identify the person and identify what statement or statements said person made concerning Plaintiff Masters.
Besendorfer's attorney provided the following answer:
Defendant objects to interrogatory for the reason that it seeks privileged and confidential information in that the meeting described above was a closed meeting.
Masters' lawsuit was described in the January 13 Turner Report:
According to the lawsuit, Masters, who had been Royal Heights principal since 2004, had already been offered a contract for the 2010-2011 school year when Ms. Besendorfer stepped in.
"Defendant intentionally interfered in Plaintiff's expectancy by making false representations about Plaintiff to the Joplin Schools Board of Education. Said representations included, but were not limited to, accusations that Plaintiff had violated the regulations governing administration of the MAP test."
Because of those "misrepresentations," the petition says, "The Board of Education voted on or about April 15, 2010, to rescind its motion to offer the contract of employment to the plaintiff."
You sure this isn't going to be appealed to the state's Supreme Court? Yeah, the odds are low they'll take the case (raw odds would seem to be about 1/10th), but this is extremely outrageous in a civil lawsuit, which is supposed to be about finding the truth, and there are mechanisms for keeping "confidential" stuff confidential.
ReplyDeleteCorrupt, very corrupt.
How convenient for Dr. Besendorfer. I wonder what that cost and where the money came from this time. But it won't make any difference. Mr. Kimbrough isn't the only person who knows what a crock this administration is. At least he is one (of maybe two) school board members who knows right from wrong.
ReplyDelete