Thursday, May 8, 2008

[LCSD] An argument in support of Jim Robinson suing his own district

I've wondered what goes through Jim Robinson's head when he's thinking about filing lawsuits against his own district (I am, of course, assuming he does think about - and he'd be a fool not to). That must be a terrible feeling, and not just because he ends up costing his down district money. It's clear that Robinson wants the district to succeed (your definition of success and/or preferred method of getting there may vary, possibly significantly), and the decision regarding whether or not he's going to take legal action can't be an easy one.

Note: My money is on lawsuit, for the record.

That said, given the latest shenanigans, and Josh's apparent inclination to try and marginalize the district superintendent while he's still under contract, I think there's a strong argument to be made in favor of Robinson filing a lawsuit for breach of contract:


Specifically, the idea that the school board can simply ignore parts of the superintendent's contract they don't like.

Remember, renegotiating the contract is one thing - clearly defining the job responsibilities of each party before anyone signs is certainly acceptable, and if the school board wants to take a more active role in hiring, they should make that clear to future employees and in future contracts.

Ignoring a signed contract that's still in effect is a bad idea.

What superintendent in their right mind would want to work in a district where the school board feels free to ignore the contract they signed?

For that matter, what other contracts the school board has approved does Josh feel like he can ignore? Maybe someone should ask him in the public comments section of the next meeting...

In any case, as I was wondering the frigid chilly streets of Corvallis with my pistachio-and-mint-chocolate gelato earlier this evening, I realized that one could argue that Robinson is practically, if not literally, obligated to sue his down district if for no other reason than to maintain the strength of the position for future superintendents.

Well? What say you, audience that only reads when I post about the LCSD? Am I on to something, or was that gelato laced with more than yummy flavors?


Anonymous said...

Not only could he sue the individual board members but also the people behind the scenes convincing them to breach his contract. The district wouldn't be paying their expenses.

Intentional interference with contractual relations is a common law tort that applies to an activity or activities that causes a damage to contractual relations between parties. It may include acts that prevent parties from contracting or it may cause the parties who have already entered into a contract to fail to perform or otherwise complete their contractual relations.

Tortious interference with contract rights can occur where the tortfeasor convinces a party to breach the contract against the plaintiff, or where the tortfeasor disrupts the ability of one party to perform his obligations under the contract, thereby preventing the plaintiff from receiving the performance promised.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.