Dear Dawg: I’m concerned about our trustees attendance at the TASA/TASB Convention this fall. In the past, we have had trustees party more than they should. You know there are plenty of receptions and free lunches and dinners to be had. I understand that there is a new law that authorizes a judge to remove a school board member from office if the trustee is intoxicated “on or off duty.” So if I understand this correctly, even if a trustee attends all sessions at the convention, he or she can be removed from office for having a few too many at a reception after hours. Am I reading this right? NEW SUPERINTENDENT, WANTING TO AVOID EMBARRASSMENT FOR OUR TRUSTEES.

DEAR NEW SUPE: Yes, you are reading it right. But perhaps you did not read the entire law. There is a loophole! Section 87.012 of the Local Government Code does indeed add school board members to the list of officials who might be removed from office for a variety of offenses. And yes, intoxication “on or off duty” is one such reason. But subsection (b) of the law provides a loophole: it says that the trustee cannot be removed “if the intoxication was caused by drinking an alcoholic beverage ON THE DIRECTION AND PRESCRIPTION OF A LICENSED PHYSICIAN PRACTICING IN THIS STATE.” So how bout that! You just need a doctor’s prescription and then you can get as snockered as you’d like. No problem!

We happen to know that the Walsh Gallegos law firm hosts a reception during the convention at which alcohol is dispensed. Being a “full service” firm, Walsh Gallegos always has a team of physicians on hand, ready to write ‘scripts as necessary!

We also noticed that removal of the trustee can occur only if the trustee got intoxicated on “an alcoholic beverage.” Thus there is no problem with getting high smoking pot, snorting cocaine, ingesting huge quantities of mouthwash, sniffing glue or getting “high on life.” It appears that the trustee could save his seat on the board by acknowledging that “Yes, Your Honor, I was blotto that night, but it was the pot—not the booze.”

This is a good time for us to remind you that much of what appears in The Daily Dawg is not to be taken too seriously. The Dawg does not endorse any of these nefarious activities, and we are kidding about the law firm providing compliant doctors. We are just trying to provide accurate information about the law…and that is what the law says.

DAWG BONE: WHERE DO YOU FIND DOCTORS LIKE THAT, ANYWAY?

Dear Dawg: I’m a junior in high school. It has always been the tradition that the kids running for King and Queen of Homecoming hand out candy to the kids who are about to vote. It’s no big deal. It’s been going on for years. So this year my boyfriend and I decided to run for King and Queen. We are both way cute and POPULAR to the MAX! And we decided that we would not hand out candy, which causes tooth decay and contributes to obesity. We would hand out a product that promotes safety, health and responsible population growth. Condoms! We even got corporate sponsorship for this campaign since our school is known as the Home of the Fighting Trojans!

Well. You would have thought the world was coming to an end. The PTA called a special meeting to discuss “the decline in morality among our young people.” The school board lowered the superintendent’s evaluation rating, noting his lack of oversight. The leader of the local Tea Party said that “this kind of shameful behavior is a direct result of Obamacare.”

But the worst thing was that the principal told us we could not be Trojan King and Queen! He told us we had violated school rules. Dawg, we won the election in a landslide! And I think the condoms had a lot to do with that. What’s the deal? I know that what they did is not fair. But is it legal? There is nothing in our Code of Conduct that says you cannot distribute prophylactic devices. Just doesn’t say that at all!! WANTED TO BE HELEN OF TROY. ALAS.

DEAR WANTED TO BE: We give you points for creativity, but as far as legalities, we think the principal did the right thing. Schools in Texas are prohibited by law from distributing condoms “In connection with instruction relating to human sexuality.” T.E.C. 28.004(f). We think your principal was wise to prohibit the distribution outside of the classroom as well. Principals have a great deal of discretion in dealing with honorary offices like Homecoming King and Queen. We are sorry that your hopes have been dashed, but if you read about your role model, Helen of Troy, you will see that she overcame many obstacles before her face launched a single ship. Best of luck!

DAWG BONE: FIGHT ON, TROJANS!

DEAR DAWG: One of our assistant principals is going through therapy to deal with some personal issues. We would not normally know about such a thing, but it came up after our opening in-service. The A.P. was supposed to inform the rest of the staff of changes in the student handbook. Well, he was totally unprepared and acknowledged it. When the principal confronted him, he told her that his therapist had instructed him to “let down someone important to you. Experience failure in an important area of your life.”

Later, the A.P. showed up at a school board meeting wearing torn cut-off jeans and a dirty t-shirt promoting a ZZ Top tour in 1982. It looked like the shirt had not seen the spin cycle since then. We learned that his therapeutic assignment that week was to “flout the norms of your subculture. Experience unconventionality.”

Last week in a student assembly the man was supposed to present the principal with a birthday greeting and cake from the entire staff. Instead, he gave her a little statute of the hindquarters of a horse with the inscription: “Remind you of someone?” He announced that the statue reminded him of the principal. Our man claims he is simply following the therapist’s directives. This week’s assignment was to “defy someone in a position of authority. Experience rebellion.”

Dawg, the man may be scaling the heights of transcendent perfection, but we earthbound slugs are a little tired of this act. What can we do? THERAPEUTICALLY FRUSTRATED.
DEAR T.F.: Perhaps you should let him “feel unemployment. Experience poverty and anxiety.” Therapeutic advice is no excuse for a failure to perform as required by the employer.

DAWG BONE: YOU HAVE TO DO THE JOB, EVEN WHILE IN THERAPY

DEAR DAWG: Our school superintendent returned from his summer vacation tanned, healthy and fit as a fiddle.  We got the year off to a great start and all seemed to be well until last week. That’s when the local paper broke the story: SUPE WINS GRAND PRIZE AT NUDIST CAMP.  Seems the old boy spent a week at a “health resort” where clothing is optional.  Somehow he was tagged with the nickname, “Grand Prize.”  I don’t know what that means, but I don’t like the sound of it, Dawg.  The man has not responded to the newspaper story. He’s just holed up in his office, staring out the window, occasionally muttering things like “small towns breed small minds.”  He’s become the laughing stock of the town!  Can we fire him? Or can he claim a right of privacy for his nature romp? JUST CALL ME EM-BARE-ASSED.

DEAR JUST CALL ME: What the supe does on his vacation is his own business unless it creates such a stink that it causes him to lose effectiveness in the job.  Sounds like the man has been stripped of power.  Laid bare to the public.  You’ll need to look at his contract and board policy to determine what constitutes good cause for contract termination.  But whatever you do, don’t take away his Grand Prize.

DAWG BONE: NO ESCAPE FOR THE SUPERINTENDENT

DEAR DAWG: Snort, here. Rip Snort.  Intrepid Reporter.  Friend of the Truth. Dawg, here in Peaceful Falls, a quiet, quintessentially Texan community we are embroiled in a simmering controversy. Hard hitting investigative reporting has revealed that the school district provides jock straps for the boys in the athletic program, but no sports bras for the girls.  The Peaceful Falls Ladies Sewing Circle and Terrorist Society has organized a march on the school administration building.  Ladies are being encouraged to brandish a brassiere as a symbol of the cause.  There is an equally strong counter movement headquartered at the local domino parlor where an ad hoc group has formed The Society for the Preservation of Male Genitalia. This group claims that this latest quest for “equality” is yet another thinly veiled attack on masculinity.  The district claims that no district funds are involved—that all the money for the jocks comes from the Athletic Supporters organization, which does seem appropriate, when you think about it.  What to do, Dawg?  SNORT.

DEAR SNORT: You may have a Title IX problem here, Snort.  But you definitely have the makings of a made for TV movie.  We can see Jane Fonda leading the charge for the ladies, with Russell Crowe defending male genitalia.  Other than that, we’ve got nothing to say about this one.

DAWG BONE: THE DAWG FAVORS EQUAL PROTECTION OF ALL SENSITIVE BODY PARTS

TOMORROW: SUPERINTENDENT WINS GRAND PRIZE!

DEAR DAWG: Things sometimes get a little rowdy at our board meetings, so our superintendent has come up with a great idea.  She has figured out that our board room seats 50 people.  She has hand-picked 50 members of our community and designated them The Ruly Crowd.  The purpose of The Ruly Crowd is to fill up the seats before anyone else gets there.  That way the local press will not be able to report that “the board was greeted by an unruly crowd.”  The Ruly Crowd is doing a great job. They smile.  During public comment they say things like “I just want to say what a great job y’all are doing.  Thanks for letting me exercise my constitutional rights tonight.”  One of them even genuflects as he approaches the mike.  Things have gone smoothly ever since we employed The Ruly Crowd. Just want to mention it as a Best Practice for other districts to think about.  LIKES THINGS TO RUN SMOOTHLY.

DEAR LIKES THINGS:  Yet another great management technique! Of course such an open scheme to prevent certain members of the public from participating in your meetings might be challenged in court. But all you will have to do them is make sure you have a Ruly Jury and a Ruly Judge.  No problem!

DAWG BONE: ACTUALLY, THIS IDEA COMES FROM THE LATE, GREAT RICHARD J. DALEY, MAYOR OF CHICAGO.

TOMORROW: JOCKS v. BRAS

DEAR DAWG: What’s all this I hear about intimate domain?!  Our local school district is threatening to take my property.  I told them I wouldn’t sell.  They said they would just take it, they would.  They said they could do it because of “intimate domain.”  Now I don’t know much about the law, Dawg, but I say it’s a sad day in America when a school can take away a woman’s home because she…well…you know. Sure I was intimate here.  IT’S MY HOME!  Where do they expect me to be intimate with my husband, Mr. Litella.  It’s not like I did anything wrong.  Can they just come and take my home like this?  Tell them it ain’t so, Dawg!  EMILY LITELLA.

DEAR MS. LITELLA: We think you misunderstood.  It’s eminent domain. Not intimate.  Eminent.

DAWG BONE: WE FONDLY REMEMBER EMILY LITELLA

TOMORROW: THE RULY CROWD.

DEAR DAWG: Snort, here. Rip Snort. Intrepid Reporter. Friend of the Truth. Dawg, there has been a serious and tragic student injury in these parts. A lunch tray was accidentally overturned in the cafeteria and the mashed potatoes landed on Susie, a third grader. The sweet young thing suffered second degree burns. The school district refuses to own up to this, as usual. Hiding behind “no comment” and vague references to “immunity” the district officials reveal themselves as a bungling bunch of bureaucratic excess. But with Snort on the case there is hope for Justice. Can you provide some help, Dawg? Tell these people about the law! SNORT.
DEAR SNORT: Forget about the law, Snort, let’s talk mashed potatoes. Never in the history of Texas has a school cafeteria served mashed potatoes at a temperature hot enough to melt butter. We think this “injury” is highly suspect. Beyond that, there is a governmental immunity that will protect the district from any liability. Schools are immune from liability for torts unless they are caused by the negligent use or operation of a motor vehicle by a school officer or employee acting within the scope of employment. In short, Snort, this is a tort. Be a sport. Don’t’ go to court.

DAWG BONE: YOU WANT HOT MASHED POTATOES? GO TO CRACKER BARREL

TOMORROW: EMILY LITELLA WEIGHS IN ON “INTIMATE DOMAIN”

It’s hot as hell here in Texas and so I’m headed out for awhile. The Dawg and Missus Dawg will be in Canada for most of the next two weeks. But not to worry! Rather than taking a break, we have decided to offer some CLASSIC LAW DAWG from the original print publication. So the next two weeks will be light on the law, but we hope to induce a chuckle or two. We start today.

DEAR DAWG: Snort, here. Rip Snort. Intrepid Reporter. Friend of the Truth. Dawg, you won’t believe the repression and blue-nosed censorship I’ve uncovered out here. Our so called educational leaders are planning to dump one of our most creative and popular teachers, the youthful and exuberant Ms. Downyshanks. It seems that ‘Shanks, as the boys call her, had the audacity to show a film in her high school English class that is unacceptable to the power structure. Faceless bureaucrats, hiding behind the excuse that the film was not on “the approved list” are planning to bid Ms. Downyshanks adieu at the end of the year. The people cry out for freedom, but are met with an iron fist. The people cry out for artistic liberty, but find only “an approved list.” The people, Dawg, seek your guidance in these troubled times. SNORT.

DEAR SNORT: Your crack team of investigators left out a few key facts. “Gidget Jump Starts Her Social Life” will never be confused with Othello. The flick got a bad rating on Rotten Tomatoes. It is rated R due to extensive vulgar language and what are discretely referred to as “sexual situations.” Ms. Downyshanks failed to seek parental approval for the film, as the school generally requires for an R-rated movie. Moreover, the denouement of this drama, in which Gidget finds security and happiness by obtaining her very own supply of prophylactic devices, leaves many in the community concerned over what message this is sending the young people. While it is true that other teachers have also showed movies not on the “approved list” none has shown such colossal poor judgment. This looks to us like the situation in Krizek v. Cicero-Stickney Township High School, 713 F.Supp. 1131 (N.D. Ill. 1989). In that case, the court upheld the nonrenewal of a teacher for showing the film “About Last Night.” Keep looking for that big case, Snort. We are sure that it will come.

DAWG BONE: TEACHERS NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE “APPROVED LIST” IF YOU HAVE ONE.