The application called for candidates to mark the following item: Yes or No
"5. Have you ever been involved, are you currently involved, or do you anticipate involvement in litigation either as the plaintiff/complainant or defendant/respondent?"
But that doesn't square with information Kentucky School News and Commentary found. Erwin was a name defendant in Schild v. Erwin 2:04-cv-00910. This a motion hearing before Honorable James A Teilborg on 10/04/2004, at the U.S. District Court in Phoenix.
KSN&C posted a description of the proceedings from one of a handful of Arizona Republic articles; a description that didn't sit well with the plaintiff, Christine Schild. Her response is presented below:
Dear Dr. Day,
It’s unfortunate you chose to quote the Scottsdale Republic editorial board’s spin on the validity of my lawsuit. It is not accurate.
I went after Lewis & Roca and got skewered as a result. In May, 2003, I filed a bar complaint against Ms. Simonson that got some press locally and on the AP wire. Then, in April, 2004, I filed the lawsuit against Ms. Simonson & L&R which got a lot of local press and some AP coverage.
I have no beef against the firm per se, but I believe Dr. Erwin used one of their partners and an associate to “protect her” from negative comments that began surfacing about two years before I filed the lawsuit. Members of the public were already making FOIA requests for copies of the District’s legal bills six months or more before I ran for office.
I have attached a series of six .jpg documents that contain the relevant portion of Judge Teilborg’s ruling on the first amendment claims.
Essentially he held that the claims relating to the first amendment were legally, but not factually, sufficient.
He dismissed claims based on section 1985 (the Ku Klux Klan Act) and the section 1983 equal protection clause because the discriminator and the discriminatee cannot be members of the same class (i.e. while black vs. white is actionable, white vs. white is not).
The Judge concluded that one school board member could not violate the section 1985 or the equal protection rights of another school board member, because they are members of the same “protected class.” His ruling basically killed my claim against Karen Beckvar, because my strongest argument against her was “negligent failure to prevent a civil rights violation,” which is found in section 1985.
Although the Scottsdale Republic’s editorial board asserted I could not pony up the facts, my attorney felt fairly confident the amended complaint, which was prepared but never filed, would survive the second motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim against L&R (which was the weaker of the two claims because the attorneys’ involvement was much less than the District defendants).
Why did I dismiss the case instead of filing an amended complaint?
Judge Teilborg gave me an extension until after the November, 2004 general election to file the amended complaint. In my opinion, L&R was tired of the public embarrassment and therefore willing to stipulate to the extension on the idea that “if the election goes a certain way, the lawsuit might go away.”
In fact, the election went my way and the lawsuit went away. I was never in it for the money. It was an extreme measure I hoped would change the Board’s behavior. Dr. Erwin and the other school district defendants declined to sign a release and the cause of action against them was dismissed without prejudice. L&R signed a release and the claim against them was dismissed with prejudice.
In January, 2005, after Molly Holzer and Jennifer Petersen replaced Sandra Zapien-Ferrero and Shari Avianantos, I was elected president of the Board.
I remained the new Superintendent’s "controversial” board member, but that doesn’t change the fact that Dr. Erwin wanted to prevent me from disclosing information in a public forum (i.e. Board meetings) where they might get heard by the parents or reported by the press.
What did I want to talk about? It really didn’t matter as long as I opposed Dr. Erwin. I fed into the “negative chorus” that was singing an increasingly louder tune and I believe she wanted to pull the plug on the amplifier so to speak.
Although I have not researched the issue, I will opine that Dr. Erwin may or may not have improved test scores among non-English speaking students, but the Anglo students in our community all come from pretty respectable households with high expectations for post-college education. My little family unit is typical, with one medical doctor, one lawyer, one recent business school graduate, one University attendee to be, and one still in high school. These are the types of families that live in north Scottsdale. Most of us put a very high premium on education. If our kids don’t get it in public school, they go to tutors or private school.
Why did I dislike Dr. Erwin? That’s a complex answer, but here are some basic reasons:
- The teachers really hated her. We had sick outs, protests, red shirts, high turnover—you name it.
- A survey of district teacher-leaders taken shortly before Dr. Erwin left Scottsdale showed that less than 15% of staff members felt “respected” by the
administration. The opposite number reported that morale was very poor. No doubt her consultants, including Carolyn Warner, were telling her to leave.- The community was against her because she couldn’t pass ballot initiatives, there was too much “negative” press, and the taxpayers didn’t trust her any more.
- Although they would never say so out loud, the administrators hated her. Most of the good ones left in the 2003 buyout.
- The classified staff hated her. From what they told me, they really resented the fact that she exuded the opinion “peon” when she was in their presence.
- In my opinion, she lied constantly.
She has her supporters, even to this day. They are mostly administrators or current and former school board members. A limited number of parents still support her.
As far as Dr. Erwin’s side of the “story,” I have no doubt the blame will be laid at my feet. Perhaps she is right, but I’m still having coffee with my neighbors and she never did.
Best wishes,
Christine Schild
Chair,
Scottsdale Neighborhood Enhancement Commission
LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTINE SCHILD, P.C.
7418 E. Helm Drive
Scottsdale, AZ 85260
Wow.
Now, I won't pretend to know who's right or who's wrong in this case. I won't even pretend to fully understand the case. But it sure sounds like Barbara Erwin knew there was a case. Why did she mark otherwise on her application?
Ray & Associates suggests that "there's a story that goes with that." So what?
The application gives the applicant the opportunity (actually, it requires the applicant) to attach an explanation. So, if there's a story...let's hear it.
In any case, Barbara Erwin was personally a name defendant in Schild v. Erwin and she appears to have knowingly withheld that information from the Kentucky Board of Education.
Like most applications, the one for Commissioner contains a verification statement that warns candidates that "misrepresentation or omission" are a problem. Erwin signed that she understood that doing so "may be cause for my rejection from employment or may result in my subsequent dismissal if I am hired."
But Schild's letter raises the spectre of yet another problem. On that same Background Check and Information form (Item #2) also asked Erwin if she ever resigned under "pressure from your employer or left employment while charges against you or an investigation of your behavior was pending..." Schild v. Erwin was pending in U S District Court when Erwin left Scottsdale.
Well, that sounds like a big YES. But again, Barbara Erwin marked NO.
No comments:
Post a Comment