Estimated read time: 2-3 minutes
This archived news story is available only for your personal, non-commercial use. Information in the story may be outdated or superseded by additional information. Reading or replaying the story in its archived form does not constitute a republication of the story.
LAFAYETTE, La. (AP) — Former Lafayette Parish Schools Superintendent Pat Cooper isn't giving up on his legal challenge of his termination even after a district judge found last month that the school board had grounds to fire him.
A judge ruled the grounds for firing were based on only one of the four charges the board brought against Cooper.
The Advocate reports (http://bit.ly/1QnBPnR) the former superintendent now wants state District Court Judge Patrick Michot to reconsider the termination based on that one charge, which involved Cooper deviating from the board-approved salary schedule when he decided to pay five principals differently from others.
In the court filings, Cooper's attorney, Lane Roy, asserts that state law gave Cooper the authority to set the principals' pay. Among the provisions in the law, enacted in 2012, was transferring hiring and firing decisions from the hands of school boards to superintendents. Following the enactment of the law, Cooper and the School Board were frequently at odds over personnel and management decisions, which ultimately led to Cooper's termination hearing.
The board upheld four charges brought against Cooper: two related to the employment and payment of Thad Welch, a special assistant to the superintendent, who continued to work for the district after the board removed funding for his position; the principal pay issue; and payment of Roy's legal services in 2013.
During a two-day hearing last month, Michot found the board erred in its interpretation of state law related to Roy's legal bill and the Welch issue, but said it acted within its authority related to its decision to fire Cooper on the principal pay issue.
In a memo to support the motion for a new trial, Roy wrote: "If the court believes that the issue of the hiring of the principals involved was a matter that should have not taken place, it can certainly indicate that. The argument we have is that it is not a grounds for termination of anyone, and we believe that the court should so recognize and indicate."
___
Information from: The Advocate, http://theadvocate.com
Copyright © The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
