|
According to a letter obtained by the Review-Journal, a Georgia-based attorney acting on behalf of the Clark County School District had an interesting plan to handle controversial aspects of an outside audit of the district's special-education programs.
In the April letter on his law firm stationery, attorney Charles Weatherly instructed auditors Ed Sontag and David Rostetter to turn over evidence of any specific law violations to him, and then to delete all traces of the information from their own computers.
"In this way," the barrister wrote, "I will be the only one in possession of this information and will hold this information as legitimate work product done at my request."
Mr. Weatherly's concern, he now says, was to keep information from the public which might constitute an "invitation for litigation."
"I believe (district administrators) really wanted to address these things in a context that is not public because if you release something alleging violations, you're asking for someone to sue you," Mr. Weatherly said Thursday. "It is amazing ... how distorted it's all become. Now there are suggestions that the district or I tried to conceal information."
Next Column
|
No! Someone has alleged that the district and the trustees, who sat on this potentially embarrassing report for weeks and months, claiming they couldn't release it because they hadn't read it themselves, were trying to "conceal information"?
And then, in an even more absurd and fantastical hallucination, unknown parties are alleging that Mr. Weatherly was trying to "conceal" something when he ordered the outside consultants to send him copies of all their data, whereupon they were to to shred, burn, degauss, delete and otherwise destroy any copies in their possession?
The cads!
In fact, the special education report never became fully public until last week, after the authors started mailing around certified copies.
One more time: The school district and its trustees spend taxpayer dollars. The law and common sense dictate that business funded from that source be conducted in the open, subject to the scrutiny of the taxpayers.
As for attorneys who seek to "hold" information about possible lawbreaking, there was a time when that might have brought a visit from the archetypal Lt. Tragg, reminding the barrister in no uncertain terms that there can be penalties for such high-handedness ... particularly on the part of an "officer of the court."
Agree or disagree?
Write us at letters@lvrj.com
|
