The San Diego Union-Tribune

March 25, 2004
There was a better way to resolve this case

I am puzzled by the March 13 article "Ex-district employee's judgment overturned" by Chris Moran. It tells about the appeals court reversal of a jury's $678,000 judgment against Sweetwater School District in the Mary Anne Weegar case.

When yes-men and yes-women are the only people allowed to be administrators, are not children, voters and taxpayers hurt? Did the appeals court protect the school district, or did it actually only protect the power of a few individuals?

District lawyer Daniel Shinoff says the court wants to protect school districts from lawsuits. Is Shinoff saying that only money is important to schools? Is he saying that public entities have no obligation to obey the law because if the courts were to hold them responsible for illegal actions, then public entities would have to pay money, and that mustn't be allowed, no matter how corrupt a public entity becomes?

It's more important to have honest people who respect the rule of law and the value of democracy in charge of education and other public endeavors, than to give virtual immunity from liability to those who have acquired control of school districts, water districts, etc. Wouldn't it have saved money to simply have left Weegar in her position and consider some of her criticisms of how money was spent? Why are creative thinking and dissent forbidden when they should be encouraged? And exactly how much did the district pay to Daniel Shinoff's law firm?

MAURA LARKINS
El Cajon


Top

HOME