Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

1 Bump

$95k of tax money wasted

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2013/10/05/picture-of-jesus-costs-95000.html

 

There was no chance this wasn't going to happen this way.  From the second the picture was put up in the school, they should have known.  When schools fight adamantly to break the law and lose, should there be penalties beyond the court ordered payments for damages and attorney fees?  (keeping in mind 80k of that was attorney fees).  Perhaps a school policy that if you intentionally approve something this stupid you will be fired, regardless of union contract, and responsible for the damages yourself?

Answer Question
 
NotPanicking

Asked by NotPanicking at 9:30 AM on Oct. 6, 2013 in Religious Debate

Level 50 (417,601 Credits)
Answers (7)
  • Well, it's nice to know the tax payers are not footing the bill!

    Reading that NP, it states it's been hanging in the school since 1947.
    In Feb 3 parents got their panties in a bunch and sued because the painting wasn't removed.
    What am I missing here...It's early
    KTElite

    Answer by KTElite at 10:09 AM on Oct. 6, 2013

  • I believe this link will help in understanding the plaintiff's positions regarding the display.
    I am interested in know why, after the image was taken down and placed in the storage closet, more motions were filed.
    According to this, because the initial agreement wasn't finalized, the information doesn't seem to be available.

    feralxat

    Answer by feralxat at 10:31 AM on Oct. 6, 2013

  • The insurance is paying it is misleading - there will still be a hefty deductible, the rates the school pays for the insurance will go up, and there's no guarantee the insurance will cover it. Coverage is generally for "non-willful acts", which ties into the other issue - they intentionally kept dragging that picture out and using it, as well as moving it, but not stopping displaying it. In the beginning they addressed it by taking it down and hanging it up in a different building, got their hand slapped for that, then it went to the art room where it wasn't prominent, but was still displayed, then the front lawn for a prayer vigil, then back on display in the art room. In all this time it was never actually taken down, they just kept moving it around and calling it good enough.
    NotPanicking

    Comment by NotPanicking (original poster) at 10:40 AM on Oct. 6, 2013

  • The insurance is paying it is misleading

    I'll say.
    In my second link (above) it states the district attempted to reach an agreement because the company wouldn't pay if they lost. But looking here it says they will.



    feralxat

    Answer by feralxat at 10:54 AM on Oct. 6, 2013

  • It's that same superintendent that keeps saying insurance will pay. He's also the same guy who says they didn't do anything wrong, including lying about getting rid of the painting when they really just put it up in a different room.

    I have a feeling insurance is going to tell the school district to get bent 8 ways.
    NotPanicking

    Comment by NotPanicking (original poster) at 11:57 AM on Oct. 6, 2013

  • I think they should be fired. It's not their own school to do as they wish.
    sahmamax2

    Answer by sahmamax2 at 12:17 PM on Oct. 6, 2013

  • This takes me back to the recent discussion about Muslim children being release from school on Fridays and the suggestion that prayer services be held for them in school where any person can come upon them and be offended. If one is not allowed then neither is any other.

    That stirred another round of legal filings and caused more delays, James Hardiman, legal director for the ACLU of Ohio, said yesterday.

    “This case could have ended before it began if the school had simply acknowledged that it is not the government’s place to endorse one specific religion in a public school that children are legally required to attend,” he said. “This is a basic constitutional principle backed up by decades of case law.”

    It also stated that the painting was removed in April BUT stored in an art closet where it COULD be seen.
    Dardenella

    Answer by Dardenella at 2:34 PM on Oct. 6, 2013

Join CafeMom now to contribute your answer and become part of our community. It's free and takes just a minute.