| OCR Text |
Show Editorial Powers Should Be Exercised Carefully Nobody's saying much about the Judd v. Board of Education of the Garfield County School District case these days, not on either side . Its dismissal on June 2 was unknown to us until we received a copy of the first page of a letter sent by the attorney for Garfield School District to Supt. Phil Blais. The copy was mailed anonymously to our office from Panguitch, apparently by someone who wanted to make sure that we knew the case had been dismissed. And we are grateful because we hadn't known about it. The superintendent told us that the only copies of the letters made available went to the three board members directly involved in the lawsuit. Not even the other two board members were privy to its contents, we understand. Letters received anonymously normally end up immediately in our round file, but this case obviously has been an important issue to the county's residents. The letter told the superintendent the case had been settled "entirely in favor of the School District and in favor of the named Defendants" (the three school board members who voted to place Judd on involuntary leave just six weeks short of the conclusion of his contract.) How the case's dismissal could have been construed as "entirely in favor of the school district" escapes our understanding. If "in favor" means the district had to pay no damages and stayed out of any further court appearances, then maybe it could be weaseled that way. But taxpayers need to remember that Judd was reinstated to his job by the court which said the board's action was tantamount to terminating him without cause, in violation of his contract. The events which have followed the May 1989 board decision have been very unfavorable to the district. It seems to us that the case was very costly indeed to the district's reputation and to the taxpayers who paid for the three ' board members' clearly irresponsible actions that landed the district and them in court in the first place. Their actions brought unfavorable publicity to the district and to themselves and made it abundantly clear what can happen when elected officials take actions in their elected offices that are outside the law. Some lessons are painful and costly. This one could have been even more costly, but it could hardly have been more painful to the three men whose actions were out-of-character for the serious responsibility placed upon them by those who elected them. They, and all of us, have learned an important lesson about how elected members should function under certain conditions. The law protects the elected official who in ignorance makes an error but who has acted in good faith. Taxpayers pay for errors and omissions insurance to further protect the innocent official who simply makes a mistake. Neither protect the official who deliberately attempts to twist the law to serve an unlawful purpose. Three years of negative publicity and three years in and out of court only reinforce the importance for the power of any elected office to be carefully exercised within the law. |
