Federal Judge ‘Troubled’ by Indiana Teacher Union Lawyers’ ‘Incorrect Characterization’ of the Facts Upon Which They Rely
Mike Antonucci of the Education Intelligence Agency offers an excellent report (see the link below) on the latest news regarding the state of Indiana’s lawsuit against the National Education Association teacher union-affiliated Indiana State Teachers Association (ISTA) for “unlawful sale of securities and fraudulent misrepresentation” in connection with the 2009 collapse of the ISTA insurance trust. Indiana alleges the NEA hierarchy is also liable “because of its oversight” of its UniServ operatives in the Hoosier State.
U.S. District Court Judge Sarah Evans Barker ruled on Tuesday that the state’s $24 million suit against both the ISTA and the NEA union brass can proceed. Antonucci quotes from a portion of the ruling in which the judge sharply chided teacher union lawyers for “their characterization of some of the evidence”:
Ultimately, the most troubling aspect of the ISTA’s chief argument (to wit, that the Trust arrangement was in no way an “investment”) is the incorrect characterization of the facts upon which it relies. Our review of the record indicates that a number of facts—many of them material—cannot properly be considered “undisputed.” The fact that this case involves group health plans for a number of school districts hinders our ability to reach broad conclusions as to expectations of profit or benefit. Several evidentiary items actually sharply undercut the ISTA’s argument that the school districts did not anticipate some sort of economic benefit to result from their participation in the Trust.