The last post leads me to what Knecht had to say about the "lawyer contact" issue. There is at least one closely related question (unasked until now) that remains publicly unanswered: Was the letter Raeder referred to from the attorney (Haws) and, if so, was it, a) public record or , b) attorney-client privilege? I can guess, but have you ever gotten a letter from an attorney that they didn't consider privileged? I seriously doubt it.
That raises a very serious question: If privileged, what violation(s) did Raeder commit by disclosing the contents in a public meeting without a vote of the board (or even a non-voting "consensus") to do so in a lame attempt to slam Murphy? After all, Raeder herself went way out of her way to make the point that only the whole board is represented by counsel and can make legal decisions (or even contact the attorney, apparently). What effect does her unilateral waiving of attorney-client privilege have on PUSD?
It is common sense that Raeder's unethical conduct will scare off more potential legal representatives than the hiring of an additional law firm ever could.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Once again, you can't tell the truth if you tried.
There was no reference to a letter, but to a report that's sent home each week to all members of the Governing Board. Kathy Knecht wanted to know where Debra Raeder got her information, and Raeder told her from the weekly report.
Knecht finally revealed herself for the fool she is. She hadn't even bothered to read it.
Post a Comment