Superintendent lost my daughter's art work

[debbie0413]

What is the name of your state? Wisconsin

I just found out yesterday that the superintendent of our suburban district apparently lost my daughter's art work before he even got it to a convention last January. He had asked the art department head in the district to nominate a student (my daughter) to create an original design representing our school district on a 6 by 6 inch piece of cloth. Superintendents from various districts in Wisconsin were to bring their squares to a convention last January to have them sewn together and the quilt photographed.

After he did not answer several inquiries from the art teacher and me about what happened to the square, I finally got the head of our school board to look into the matter about 3 weeks ago. The superintendent claimed that he thought that the squares were to be mailed back to the districts but that he was told that the squares that were left were accidentally thrown out by the convention center.

Well, I did my own research into the matter. I found out that all of the quilt squares that were left behind WERE mailed to the districts. I also had a digital picture of the quilt sent to me, and my daughter's quilt square was NOT on the quilt. I don't know if the superintendent lied to cover up the fact that he lost it or if he was simply grossly negligent in the whole matter.

I am considering asking for a face to face meeting with both the school board president (who is big supporter of art in our district) and the superintendent along with my husband so I can confront the superintendent and get to the bottom of this fiasco. Do we as parents have any kind of legal recourse in a situation like this? My daughter is a junior and is going to her first portfolio day this Saturday, and she can show a letter documenting that she was nominated to create an art piece to represent her school district--but she has no art piece to show for it.

Thank you for any advice you can offer us.

 

[Silverplum]

I think you should give that mean old superintendent a big old noogie.

 

[HappyHusband]

I'm sorry for your loss.

Is it possible for your daughter to recreate the art piece?

 

[You Are Guilty]

I think you should give that mean old superintendent a big old noogie.

How mean spirited of you to downplay the imporantance of this issue. In the seminal case of Monet v. Refrigerator Art, Inc., the Supreme Court quite clearly held that the parent would be entitled to compensation for the precise value of the lost artwork. (In this case, absent a professional appraisal, I'd have to say that based on the size of the piece, amount would fall somewhere between $0.02 and $0.10, but I'm not a licensed art appraiser). Plus court costs.

I believe there was some subsequent Federal legislation in the Sharpie Act of 1999 that called for a damages multiplier to be used when the piece involved utilization of the 64-pack of Crayolas, but since the OP never specified, any further discussion is mere speculation.

 

[Silverplum]

How mean spirited of you to downplay the imporantance of this issue. In the seminal case of Monet v. Refrigerator Art, Inc., the Supreme Court quite clearly held that the parent would be entitled to compensation for the precise value of the lost artwork. (In this case, absent a professional appraisal, I'd have to say that based on the size of the piece, amount would fall somewhere between $0.02 and $0.10, but I'm not a licensed art appraiser). Plus court costs.

I believe there was some subsequent Federal legislation in the Sharpie Act of 1999 that called for a damages multiplier to be used when the piece involved utilization of the 64-pack of Crayolas, but since the OP never specified, any further discussion is mere speculation.

I bow humbly to your Superior Knowledge, and thank you for bestowing it upon my mean-spirited-yet-humbled self.

 

[moburkes]

I bow humbly to your Superior Knowledge, and thank you for bestowing it upon my mean-spirited-yet-humbled self.

From my superior understainding, you've been bowing a lot today!

edit: And my spell-checker has apparently gone on vacation today too!

 

[Silverplum]

From my superior understainding, you've been bowing a lot today!

edit: And my spell-checker has apparently gone on vacation today too!

Yeah, I have. Dammit.

 

[HappyHusband]

How mean spirited of you to downplay the imporantance of this issue. In the seminal case of Monet v. Refrigerator Art, Inc., the Supreme Court quite clearly held that the parent would be entitled to compensation for the precise value of the lost artwork. (In this case, absent a professional appraisal, I'd have to say that based on the size of the piece, amount would fall somewhere between $0.02 and $0.10, but I'm not a licensed art appraiser). Plus court costs.

I believe there was some subsequent Federal legislation in the Sharpie Act of 1999 that called for a damages multiplier to be used when the piece involved utilization of the 64-pack of Crayolas, but since the OP never specified, any further discussion is mere speculation.

This issue was further defined in Warhol v. Campbell's Soup Co. and Wisconsin Board of Education v. Kraft Macaroni & Cheese Inc. where the artwork was held not to be lost if the artwork was eaten by the plaintiff.

 

[You Are Guilty]

This issue was further defined in Warhol v. Campbell's Soup Co. and Wisconsin Board of Education v. Kraft Macaroni & Cheese Inc. where the artwork was held not to be lost if the artwork was eaten by the plaintiff.

Very astute of you to mention that, but I imagine you are unaware of the court's recent holding in Elmers v. Regents of the University of California in which the consumption of the work was not the only issue to consider? It set down a four-prong balancing test: amount consumed; adverse heath effects of consumption; amount recovered in excretion; and time elapsed from consumption to excretion.

It's a very rapidly developing area of law, and quite fascinating, IMO.

 

[moburkes]

Very astute of you to mention that, but I imagine you are unaware of the court's recent holding in Elmers v. Regents of the University of California in which the consumption of the work was not the only issue to consider? It set down a four-prong balancing test: amount consumed; adverse heath effects of consumption; amount recovered in excretion; and time elapsed from consumption to excretion.

It's a very rapidly developing area of law, and quite fascinating, IMO.

The person next to me at work keeps saying that I have the most beautiful laugh! How do you respond to that one?...He keeps hearing it all day long as I peruse this great forum!

 

[Silverplum]

The person next to me at work keeps saying that I have the most beautiful laugh! How do you respond to that one?...He keeps hearing it all day long as I peruse this great forum!

Is he single?
Is he cute?
Is he friendly?
Is he nice?
Do you want to nibble on his ears?

the answers to those questions will help us answer your q bolded above.

 

[HappyHusband]

The person next to me at work keeps saying that I have the most beautiful laugh! How do you respond to that one?...He keeps hearing it all day long as I peruse this great forum!

You need to change your signature. It's offensive. Do you need some ideas?

 

[moburkes]

Is he single?
Is he cute? Nope. Married. Older than dirt.
Is he friendly?Yeah, but kind of annoying.
Is he nice?Sure
Do you want to nibble on his ears?Absolutely not. They might have hairs in them.

the answers to those questions will help us answer your q bolded above.

With a name like yours-What tough exterior???

 

[Silverplum]

With a name like yours-What tough exterior???

I know. It's just sad, isn't it?

And if your office mate isn't gonna put out, then just keep laughing and enjoying!

 

[moburkes]

I DO need ideas. Mary was very nice, but sometimes people don't know what a signature line is and can't distinguish it from actual "advice" and get offended by an anonymous stranger on the internet.