As I said on your site, Issac, I believe that the Oregonian article made it clear today that Mr. Goldschmidt is probably culpable of insubordination.

The question is, in my opinion, does the act of insubordination equate to the "dereliction of duty" provision that Mr. Goldschmidt's contract with the district requires before he is terminated for cause.

I do think it is reasonable to define dereliction of duty to include acts of insubordination. For an example, if the Superintendent directed Mr. Goldschmidt to initiate certain labor/management techniques at the district and Mr. Goldschmidt refused, it could be argued, I believe, that Mr. Goldschmidt was derelict in performing his duties as directed.

I believe an impartial arbiter who read Mr. Goldschmidt's contract would agree that dereliction of duty is an inherent characteristic of insubordination.

Hypotheticals will not decide this matter. Steve Goldschmidt will pursue his right of binding arbitration. The disposition will depend on the presentations of fact, testimony and reasoning ability of the arbitrator.

I agree with gus's rational answer. However, let us consider the position Mr. Goldschmidt in which he finds himself. Exactly how do think the people (and parents) of Portland will view him if he does pursue arbitration to gain that IMHO obscene amount of money from a district that will likely fall off a financial cliff when the local income tax goes away? And another question I have is does he even care?

I agree strongly with Randy's post. I also know Randy probably has more experience with binding arbitration than most of us based on his years in the fire dept.

That aside, I think Goldschmidt is a disgusting person. At the same time he contracted out school custodians and sought to blame teachers for the the high cost of health care, he was banking an obscene amount of money that was taking out of the system the equivalent of several teachers.

I question the whole Goldschmidt family on their commitment to the public good. It seems to me that they view the public sector as a cash cow to be exploited. Setting aside for a moment Neil's rape of a child, if it's possible to set it aside, he was also making a tremendous amount of money acting as a power broker giving "access" to our elected officials.

The whole damn family should be kicked out of the state.

An objective review of the facts reveals that Superintendent Jim Scherzinger and the PPS board signed off on the contracting out of school custodians and sought to get teachers to share in the escalating cost of their health care benefits.

If the Superintendent instructed Steve to participate in a scheme to act unlawfully, perhaps regarding Oregon labor law or pension law or budget law or campaign law, then Steve should get his money and the Superintendent should instead sit in the hot seat.

This, of course, involves legal advice. I would like to see the entirety of the records of the board's Executive Sessions from August 2004 to today opened up and displayed to the public.

Let's not forget that PAT lost, apparently, in their effort to keep the wages of newer teachers lower. The bottom two rungs of the salary schedule were supposedly lopped off. Is Steve responsible for this increase in pay for the new teachers?

Ron:

Good question on salaries for new Portland teachers. The union had the district on the wrong side of a ruling: http://www.portlandtribune.com/archview.cgi?id=22861

It would be interesting to know how the matter was resolved during contract negotiations in the fall of 2004.

The PPS Board is having a closed Executive Session Wednesday, February 16th, 7 PM.

Can I presume that they must have something to hide? Is there really some "tactical" legal advantage they hope to gain through secrecy? If the Steve G firing really hinges on the legal crap then it seems wholly appropriate to open up this executive session to the public, with TV coverage too.

It has been my contention that the PAT members that have dual membership in the statewide company union for tier-one PERS status public employees no longer have a sufficient “community of interest” with their tier-three PERS recruits, the new lower class of teachers. I have whined to the district and to the OSB that the legal representatives of PAT also have an actual conflict of interest, as it pertains to the pension impact of salary issues, that prohibits them from representing the tier-three PERS membership teachers. I whined so much that they all probably concluded that my bark was worse than my bite, and that I got all tuckered out . . .

The district could, unilaterally, request that the Employment Relations Board clarify whether or not the PAT does or does not continue to have a community of interest with the new teachers. They, the district, could lawfully “invite” a charge of an unfair labor practice by declaring that there is no community of interest between PAT and the new teachers and thus bargain with these new teachers directly, without PAT. If this is the case, that the pension impact is a mandatory term of bargaining (which is not inconsistent with a recent Beaverton case at the Court of Appeals level), then this opens up the whole panoply of PERS related costs and could bring into consideration the PPS PERS bond proceeds (400 million dollars worth) held by the state treasurer. It is a can of worms that will wriggle too furiously to squish back into the can; at least that is my hope.

If the lawyers are setting policy, as though they were an independent branch of government, then they too should at least be required to speak openly to the public. The tactical maneuvering is almost too much to stand . . and the OSB ought to feel a bit queezey about how its' members think they can use their status as lawyers to authorize back room deals.

How has the new teacher matter been resolved during the 2004 negotiations? The final answer is still an open question. The firing of Steve is a part of reaching a conclusion so that the bargained-for agreement from last October can finally be reduced to writing; and then voted upon by the board as required by state labor law. There is anarchy in PPS right now and the district still thinks that it is supposed to be a mere subdivision of the PAT and OEA.

This ain't got squat to do with the level of pay for Steve.