The story till now: South San ISD wants to shut down low performing, low enrollment school. Parents protest and attempt to get a court injunction which is denied. The school district retaliates by suing the parents for court costs. The parents’ lawyer, David Van Os, has a press conference and reads a blog posting supposedly by the school district’s attorney.
The blog posting — littered with grammatical and spelling errors — read:
“Save West Campus has cause alot of inconvience for the community … ,so when the district files a lawsuit against the parents of Save West Campus,each of them individualy,that’s the only way to recover the legal fee’s the taxpayers had to pay,so if they claim they have no money,we will file to seize their property,assets & have thier wages garnish,when we win the lawsuit. And hope this will put all this to and end.”
Now is anyone actually surprised that the school district’s attorney said that he did not write the post or have anything to do with it? So what are the possibilities here?
Someone, presumably on the parent side, planted the post. Does the person really think lawyers write like and is that a reflection of the education quality provided by South San Antonio?
David Van Os actually writes like that which is why he thought it was the real thing? If true, that would explain why they lost their injunction.
The school district planted the post knowing that David Van Os would jump on it before verifying it’s authenticity. What does that say about Van Os’ reputation? What does that say about the administration’s respect for the parents?
It’s a sorry situation when the district sues the parents who were pursuing their right to be heard in court. It’s a sorry situation when the parents go to court to solve their problems when there was a school board election that occurred at the same time. It’s a sorry situation when you can’t figure out who to feel sorry for.