Disqus

Monday, December 06, 2010

Executive Session RE: Complaint and Possible Litigation

The Board has scheduled a meeting in Executive Session (private) for 4:30pm to 5:15pm on Wednesday, December 8 before the regular legislative meeting.

The agenda for the meeting reads:
Executive session to discuss complaints against a public employee and to discuss potential litigation with legal counsel
Does anyone know what this is about?

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

I wonder if it has to do with Garfield staff. I was at a talk with KSB and there was a lot of discussion about the coaches and Secretary (?) being involved with 'legal'.
Central Parent

joanna said...

More specifically the football/athletic staff, right?

The Real Arnold said...

Comments 1 & 2: No.

Charlie,

There is a reason it is in executive session; meaning, it is not something that the public has a right to know - yet.

Read the laws on this.

Melissa Westbrook said...

Gee Arnold, they are just wondering aloud about a meeting right before a public meeting. I don't think there's a law against thinking outloud.

AEIC said...

Charlie,

I bet they are talking about your ethics complaint against the Sup, and any other ethics complaint filed against her, and Mr. Treat's having hired an outside lawyer to defend against (oops, I meant investigate) those complaints. Or hey, maybe he has hired one outside attorney to investigate her, and another to defend her.

Just my thoughts.

Charlie Mas said...

Actually, I don't think the purpose of executive session is to maintain secrecy of the topic but to maintain the confidentiality of the details, the strategy, and the opinions of the participants.

So, for example, it would do no harm to hear that there has been a complaint from a worker charging that a manager broke a work safety law while keeping confidential the names of the persons involved, the District defense plan (including the amounts they are willing to settle for), and the opinions of the Board members and the general counsel.

The Real Arnold said...

@Charlie - I meant to imply confidentiality, not secrecy.

@Melissa: Gee Melissa,I was just providing my insight. I was not saying that he could not think outloud.