Burnsville school district won't explain $254,814 payment

cantmakeitup wrote:

<quoted text>
I blame the school boards and the corporate boards of directors for being stupid enough to allow contracts that do not allow for firing the incompetent without having to pay them off.

jw in the grove wrote:

10-11 TANIA CHANCE BURNSVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT F $136,273

JTY wrote:

<quoted text>
Under the Minnesota Data Practices Act, the terms of an agreement settling a public employment dispute "must include specific reasons for the agreement if it involves the payment of more than $10,000 in public money."
http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/dat...

Blern wrote:

<quoted text>
You are assuming that its about an employment dispute and not another legal matter. There is no reason the district would publicly break the law unless information was suppressed for a reason. To quote the story:
In exchange for her resignation, Chance agreed to forfeit any claims under the state human rights, equal employment and age discrimination acts as well as any similar state and federal protections, the agreement says.
Both sides agreed not to disparage each other, and the district does not admit to engaging in any wrongdoing.
Its a settlement. Details are sealed.

Judged:

1

1

1

jw in my tail wrote:

I make zero because I am lazy,
I wish I COULD act older than 5 but I CANNOT debate as I am stupid.

Blern wrote:

<quoted text>
You are assuming that its about an employment dispute and not another legal matter. There is no reason the district would publicly break the law unless information was suppressed for a reason. To quote the story:
In exchange for her resignation, Chance agreed to forfeit any claims under the state human rights, equal employment and age discrimination acts as well as any similar state and federal protections, the agreement says.
Both sides agreed not to disparage each other, and the district does not admit to engaging in any wrongdoing.
Its a settlement. Details are sealed.

Judged:

1

1

1

JTY wrote:

<quoted text>
No, if it was a settlement that would be public information even if the terms were not.

Judged:

1

1

1

woodtick57 wrote:

<quoted text>So if it were a buyout of the rest of her contract, because they figured they just couldn't work with her, but she had not violated any terms of her contract...would they have to disclose that? they're just paying the contract they allready agreed to...

Judged:

1

1

1

JTY wrote:

<quoted text>
Under the Minnesota Data Practices Act, the terms of an agreement settling a public employment dispute "must include specific reasons for the agreement if it involves the payment of more than $10,000 in public money."
http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/dat ...

Judged:

1

1

1

woodtick57 wrote:

<quoted text>Even if it is paying out an already agreed upon contract early?

woodtick57 wrote:

<quoted text>Even if it is paying out an already agreed upon contract early?

Judged:

1

1

1

Blern wrote:

<quoted text>
You are assuming that its about an employment dispute and not another legal matter. There is no reason the district would publicly break the law unless information was suppressed for a reason. To quote the story:
In exchange for her resignation, Chance agreed to forfeit any claims under the state human rights, equal employment and age discrimination acts as well as any similar state and federal protections, the agreement says.
Both sides agreed not to disparage each other, and the district does not admit to engaging in any wrongdoing.
Its a settlement. Details are sealed.