
Originally Posted by
phillycat
"She" is not the District. To win a civil lawsuit against the district, they would have to demonstrate a deliberate pattern that went on for a significant period of time, with full awareness of the administration, which would no doubt encompass several superintendents, since the city has done such a great job of holding on to them. I'm not sure how (or why) you would lay this whole thing at the feet of one individual.
I'm not so sure a lawsuit has to have ironclad merit to be filed. Often they are filed by advocacy groups trying to draw attention to an issue (or to justify their existence). Hasn't the School Reform Commission been running the district for years? Do they have no responsibility for this series of events? Should they also be fired?
It's not like big city school administrators grown on trees, and good luck find one that isn't mired in some controversy. She could have handled it better, but this will pass. Rendell practically begged the woman on bended knee to take over the PSD, I wouldn't count on her going away anytime soon, unless she chooses to.
True the lawsuit does not have to have merit to be filed.
However, this one does. Ackerman's and the district's problem is that the security guards are alleged to have colluded with the attackers. The security guards are state agents/actors. If these facts are proven, that's a Title 7 and 9 violation. Very very bad for the district.
This is a signficant lawsuit.
I agree she's not going away soon.
"We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of dreams.."
-Ode, Arthur O'Shaughnessy
Bookmarks