Opinion : Lawsuit threatened over the use of "Retire" vs. "Resign" in an "Agreement"

Tuesday's Supervisor meeting saw a fireworks show over two words: "resignation" and "retirement."

The debate centered on John Lindaman's "Settlement Agreement and General Release," which repeatedly states that he resigned. Lindaman now wants that changed to "retired." It would appear that the "agreement" was more of a "suggestion."

You can read more background on the whole "resig-tirement" here: Benton County Settles Lawsuit for $125,000 with Former Deputy.

I'm guessing that it's related to getting more benefits for Lindaman post resig-tirement. The discussion for the change in wording cited "possible litigation" if the change wasn't made. 

The ironic moment came when Supervisor Tracy Seeman said, "I just don't want no more litigation."  It's notable given that Seeman caused the county's largest settlement in recent history. At least now, fiscal restraint seems to be the priority.

The Lindaman "agreement" was signed by Lindaman, his lawyer and a supervisor on December 15, 2025. In it, under "No Claims or Litigation," it states that Lindaman "covenants and agrees never to institute any...charge, complaint, proceeding grievance or action of any kind...in any court...asserting claims arising before the date of this agreement...Lindaman hereby acknowledges the sufficiency of the consideration in this agreement in full, complete and final, release of any and all claims whether known or unknown."

Yet supervisors were told the wording must be changed to avoid another lawsuit. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems like that breaks the agreement by threatening legal action. I looked to see if someone had signed it "Just Joking," but I don't see that anywhere. 

When Sheriff David Upah asked Lindaman why he wanted the change, there was no answer. The county attorney's office reiterated that the change was meant to prevent litigation.

Both Sheriff Upah and second in command Josh Karsten strongly opposed the change, but that was ignored.

Adding to the optics, Supervisor Tippett supported Lindaman's request. Remember that Lindaman had previously served as Tippett's second in command at the sheriff's office, and the current Sheriff Upah, also served under Tippett and took his place as Sheriff at the last election.

Tippett chose to make the motion supporting Lindaman.

Something like this was bound to come up. At the very least, it's a conflict of interest for Tippett as the former boss of all the men in conflict, the proper thing would be to not make a motion. Even worse was to vote against the sitting Sheriff. Perhaps most concerning is the message it sends.

So back to the signed "agreement." If an "agreement" signed by a lawyer, the former employee and supervisor can be revisited, renegotiated, and the language changed..I'm not a lawyer or anything but it begs the question if this agreement or any future agreement is really final.

When words don't mean what they say, and are changed under the threat of a lawsuit, it says a lot about the one wanting them changed and the ones agreeing to it.

But hey, at least we avoided another lawsuit...resulting from this lawsuit...er agreement or whatever it is. 

The county needs a poster like the ones posted to motivate workers, "Accident-free for 159 Days." The county will can restart the clock. "No New Lawsuits or threat of them in 3 days."