Kellie lost the election in 2009. The BOE could have settled this at any point after that, and Kellie would be just a former Board member that was voted out for being a troublemaker. This whole thing continues on and the costs continue to rise because the BOE has an ax to grind.
Anyone who thinks this is dragging on because of Kellie probably also thinks it's alright for our elected officials to break the law. After all they're just looking out for our best interests, right? Ignorance is a sad thing but arrogance will catch up with you sooner or later.

Jenk makes a good point. If Ms. Patterson were in this for purely altruistic reasons, like she claims, she'd be paying her own legal fees. I think that due to what clearly was a bad relationship between her and the other board members, both sides took actions that were unprofessional and inappropriate. It's too bad that we are still dealing with this bad relationship years later.

Jenk- Did you read what Patterson wrote? She tried what you suggest. The board was interested in reforming. That's why they are still thumbing their noses at the law. Your suggestion that she should volunteer to pay her own legal fees is assinine. The board should have thought about the cost of legal fees before they lost the lawsuit. It sounds like they could have settled this matter for much less with no admission of guilt.

She's not only looking at the current costs. She very plainly pointed that out in her post. Sounds like you are the one who is vengeful and accusatory. When the insurance rate goes up, you'll have only the board to thank for breaking the law. Or did Patterson force them to do that too?

Jenk, did you graduate under this board? That would explain your ignorance and lack of comprehension.

If Ms. Patterson were truly not out for her revenge, she would make the decision to advise the courts that she will pay the legal fees and let the schools pay the court costs, because of the financial status of our district, as long as the district agrees to reform. Ms. Patterson is being petty and vengeful after her own accusatory and argumentative actions alienated the very board she was a part of. Her response below shows that she is willing to argue anything she can, honey goes down a lot better than vinegar. It should not matter if the board is covered by insurance, claims like this make rates go up. Apparently she is perfect and never made a claim on her insurance only to find that her rates went up drastically and they do not go down. This would have long term impact on the district. Ms. Patterson is only looking at the current legal fees and court costs. What about the future financial hardship increased rates would cost. Ms. Gunter is right everyone needs to move on and let these hard feelings go. I do support the board on their decision to appeal.

@SumCoRes Do you really believe the school board is innocent of the numerous violations that occurred? I have followed this case closely and perhaps anyone who is truly interested in this issue should take the time to really read the pleadings filed in this case. It just may make you see things a little differently. Due to the time constraints, Ms. Patterson was told to present only eight violations of the numerous ones in her complaint to the Court. Of the eight that were presented, the Magistrate found, in a strongly worded decision, that the Board had eight violations of the Sunshine Laws! After the filing of objections, Judge Rowlands agreed with the Magistrate's decision. Do you really think the Board is completely innocent and did absolutely nothing wrong? Exactly when is it enough for you?

Since the Judge's ruling, it has been implied that the Board has continued to violate some of the exact same Sunshine Laws they were found to have violated in the court case! I fully expect that this won't be the last lawsuit brought against this Board for the same violations as in the Patterson case. When do the taxpayers finally get fed up enough to demand that these people stop this outrageous behavior and admit that they were wrong?!

"What is not said in the article is the outrageous "legal fees" that Ms. Patterson has accumulated"

What it also failed to mention is that the board has had numerous opportunities to settle this at a much lower cost. The first opportunity being BEFORE I ever hired an attorney. This board COULD have had this AND the mandamus case against them dismissed by me, with no admission of guilt, for a mere $450 and a signature on a pledge to adhere to the tenets of the Sunshine law.

I actually saved the district TONS of money by NOT having an attorney from the get-go. I hired Mr. Worhatch AFTER the first day of trial. And my attorney fees to this point ate nowhere near the salary and benefits of even a first year teacher! After an appeal, I have no idea what they could reach. The paper also hasn't mentioned that an offer was made before trial ended to settle for signing a similar agreement to first offered and current legal fees which were about $4000.00 at the time.

The gamble that the board is taking will start to eat up tax money. A seperate article failed to mention that while currently the board is covered by insurance, there is a cap. If my attorney can eat up a quarter of that money in 9 months, imagine what their atty has used in 2 1/2 years.

You should be upset that they are truly putting your tax dollars at risk, when the magistrate has correctly interpretted the law and ruled in favor of openness.

I knew when I filed the suit I would win because the violations were so blatant and frequent. In fact, I had to pare down my claims so we weren't in court for eons. I assure you this wasn't a quest for revenge. What do I have to be vengeful against these people for? They didn't close Newberry, which seems to be your never ending accusation made of me and my "quest for revenge."

I BELIEVE in openness and accountability. I BELIEVE that this is a country that embraces the concept that our government is "of the people, by the people, for the people," I BELIEVE there was a mechanism put into law allowing me to bring this suit so that elected officials who ignore the law will be held accountable.

What is not said in the article is the outrageous "legal fees" that Ms. Patterson has accumulated in her quest for revenge. I'm sure it is enough to pay for at least one teacher for a year! So, does the board gamble that they can win in a higher court, which they can if they are truly innocent, and dismiss Patterson's complaint and legal fees, or do they lay off another teacher next year. I'm with the board on this one!

How disappointing this decision is. Our school board chooses to fight for closed meetings, spending more of our limited resources so they can meet in the dark. I for one will no longer vote for school issues until the board decides to do OUR business in the light of day.
Please reconsider and move on! Our children's futures are at stake.