It does not happen all that often, but when I agree with Davis Enterprise Columnist Bob Dunning, you know it is something to pay attention to. Last night, the venerable columnist called for the fired coach Jeff Christian to get a fair hearing.
Did he deserve to be fired? I do not know. Mr. Dunning writes, “I’ve never met Jeff Christian or the two players on his team who apparently were unhappy with him. And I don’t care who ultimately ‘wins’ this thing. I’m not one of those who automatically assumes the coach is always right and the player is always wrong. In short, I don’t have a dog in this fight.”
“We hope that coaches, players, athletic directors and others will all sit down and work things out,” Mr. Dunning writes. “That clearly did not happen in this case.”
The school district and school board, for their par,t believe they did right here – maybe they did.
But as much as the school board would like to believe that the public will simply trust that their elected officials will do the right thing, that is not how it works. The public, particularly in an educated town like Davis, wants things like transparency and accountability. And when they do not get it, it causes a lot of problems.
Writes Mr. Dunning, “But after watching parents, community members, players, former players and fellow coaches sing the praises of Jeff Christian during ‘public comment’ at Thursday’s school board meeting, it’s apparent he is a man who has touched many folks in this community with his dedication, passion and character. That doesn’t prove his case, but it certainly gives one pause.”
Can good people do things out of character? Of course they can. But the question is whether his transgression – and it appears he does not even know what he did that got him fired – warrants the consequences he received. That becomes a judgment call.
Mr. Dunning adds, “I saw enough on Thursday night to be convinced that it is time for the superintendent and the board to revisit this decision, in open session, and lay all the facts on the table for everyone to see. Jeff is willing to waive all confidentiality on his part. As Boutin says, ‘We have nothing to hide.'”
“It’s only right to give Jeff a chance to defend himself and his coaching career. Maybe he wins. Maybe he loses. But at least we’ll know the reasons why and we’ll all feel certain that everyone involved has been treated fairly,” he continues. “Davis is a town that prides itself on doing the right thing. True leadership sometimes involves admitting when a mistake has been made and being willing to go back over the facts to be certain that justice was served. The mistake here was not giving Jeff a chance to tell his side of the story. He still hasn’t been granted that chance.”
There are complex issues at work here. We have to balance the right of the public to have transparency, and accountability of public officials as they operate with public money, with the rights of students as well as employees to have their records remain confidential.
That being said, I think we have gone too far in the direction of privacy, in particular by failing to distinguish between the right of a janitor, or even a teacher, to have their records kept confidential, with the privacy rights of a Superintendent.
The greater the public disclosure of a given position, the less right to privacy that individual should enjoy. By its nature, prominent student-athletes are more public figures than their classmates. An athletic coach is more of a public figure than a teacher.
Athletic coaches, as at-will employees, have less protection than other employees. That does not entirely deprive them of rights to a fair process, but it hinders it.
The school district as Mr. Dunning suggests, could legally stand behind the fact that he is an at-will employee and rest their case. But is that the right thing to do?
This is definitely a balancing act between the rights of Mr. Christian, an adult, and the rights of the minors. It is a difficult case to handle.
But the problem is that when a governmental body attempts to hide behind these laws, it looks suspicious. Things need to be laid out on the table and this issue needs to be put to rest. There are more pressing issues that the district must face and they cannot allow this to become a distraction or even a controversy.
There is a bit of a racial overtone here. The players were African-American, the coach white, and the Superintendent African-American. But I do not buy the racial component here, it makes little sense.
A coach would not be coaching for long if he kicked his star players off the team, particularly for capricious and frivolous reasons. Does the Superintendent’s race matter? It seems unlikely. Furthermore his view was unanimously backed up by the school board which is largely white.
This comes down to whether Mr. Christian used proper procedure to kick the players off the team and whether the district used the proper procedure to terminate the services of the coach. If someone can find a racial motivation here, I am all ears. But I do not see it.
What I do see is the need for better transparency and for the district to set up the proper process by which an at-will employee can appeal the district’s disciplinary action.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Even though Bob Dunning can at times be overly flip on some issues, I think he put it in a nutshell for me. How do you summarily dismiss a guy who by all accounts did a great job for five years on the basis of a single complaint with no additional inquiry or investigation? My younger son is well past 30 and neither of my kids were in school sports, so I could argue I really couldn’t care less on this.
This can affect school tax votes. It undermines my sense of accountability and judgment by the School Board. Sorry, Board members, you may be vindicated in your action, but you’re in a position of having to prove it. It appears you shot from the hip and aren’t even interested in asking the questions later.
[quote]…the proper process process by which an at-will employee can appeal the district’s disciplinary action…[/quote]As I understand it, these two terms are mutually exclusive… if there is a “process” that an employee is ‘entitled’ to, they are NOT ‘at-will’… that being said, the [u]judgment[/u] to dismiss may be a matter for the board and/or the public to weigh in determining whether the Superintendent (who is an at-will employee) should be retained. Although the coach is not “entitled” to a process, there is no reason why the Superintendent and/or the Board should be afraid of re-evaluating the situation, and either arrive at the same or a different conclusion. That is their CHOICE, but not the employee’s RIGHT. I hope they choose to re-evaluate.
The problem here is what “proper process” means.
1) We do not know what the school district’s policy was for the particular position – whether a part-time coach like Christian was even entitled to a fair hearing.
2) We do not know if this particular coach was “terminable-at-will”, meaning he could be fired at any time for any reason whatsoever.
Another issue is that of privacy.
1) The school district BY LAW is required to protect the privacy of the students and the employee coach.
2) Those of you calling for more transparency have to ask yourself the questions: Would you want your employer to be able to state why you were fired in public? Would you want a school district to be able to state in public why your child was disciplined? If no, would you want to carve out some extraordinary exception for coaches and student athletes, that would somehow pass constitutional muster (which it probably would not)? Just for the sake of “public tranparency”?
At this point and like it or not, the school district had absolutely no choice from a legal perspective other than to remain silent. They are LEGALLY REQUIRED TO DO SO. The coach will get his fair hearing either in court or through some sort of mediation.
One additional note. Terminable-at-will means just that – an employee can be fired at any time for any reason, and there is no requirement for a fair hearing unless the employer has set out some sort of policy that requires a fair hearing before termination.
Did the school district handle this situation properly? We just do not know, bc we do not know what the status of the employee was, or what the school district policy was in regard to a fair hearing for this type of employment termination.
There is also a question of whether the coach himself followed proper procedure in his removal of the students from the team. The school district contends he did not follow proper procedure. So far I believe the coach has been silent on this issue.
From a personal perspective, do I think the school district should have given the coach a chance to explain his side? It would seem the “fair thing to do”. But the employment arena does not necessarily “play fair” as we normally think of it. When you sign an employment contract that is terminable-at-will, it means you can quit at any time for any reason, and the employer can terminate your employment at any time for any reason. You both are agreeing to that type of set-up from the beginning. Only if the employer has a policy in place that gives an employee the right to a fair hearing before termination does the employee have the right to be heard in regard to the termination. This is basic contract law…
[i]” the Superintendent (who is an at-will employee) …”[/i]
For my edification, all that means is that the Board could fire the Superintendent for no cause? It does not mean that his contract would be voided. So if they fired him, they would still owe him his remaining salary (or some lesser amount if there is a buy-out provision). Is that right?
Rifkin: “For my edification, all that means is that the Board could fire the Superintendent for no cause? It does not mean that his contract would be voided. So if they fired him, they would still owe him his remaining salary (or some lesser amount if there is a buy-out provision). Is that right?”
It depends on:
1) The terms of the contract;
2) District policy
All of this discussion about the legalities of “at will” and proper procedure are important, but not central to what appears to have happened. If we assume Steve Boutin, the attorney for the coach, is not making exaggerated claims, the central issue is do you fire someone in their fifth year who has a good record based on a single complaint without an investigation, i.e., interviewing at least one or two other people? That’s the issue. I really don’t see how the School Board can stand behind a “process” that doesn’t require an investigation. If their process is that superficial, it begs the question about how they conduct all other business.
Someone posted this on the Enterprise site today:
[quote]The school district is partially protecting Jeff Christian himself by not speaking to the press. They have six years of outraged complaints from players and parents about the man as a coach in their files. People are entitled to their opinions, but many are weighing in on this who have no real idea of the facts of the situation. And again, that is because the school board and admin. are staying silent, protecting many, including Christian himself. I agree with the board members who want to keep it an internal process. They are not being secretive. I do agree that the school admin. needed to speak with Christian long before they did, about his history of emotionally abusive interactions with his players. The man has two faces. If this goes to litigation, it will not be pretty for anyone. If Christian wins and gets his job back, he will, being unable to change his style, probably be fired again. P.S. The way the team is soaring now, 4 wins since Christian’s gone, and the highest scores in 5 years, is no accident. That coach was a lead weight on most of those young souls–for six years–barring a few favorites players, perhaps.[/quote]
Anyone know anything about this?
David, I suggest that commentary be ignored as unreliable. It was posted anonymously by someone calling himself “considerthis.” No, it should not be considered anything but a cowardly ad hominem attack. Moreover, the comments of the people Dunning quotes in his column contradict everything the anonymous poster says about Mr. Christian.
[b]Player Erica Jahn:[/b] [i](Christian) was “the best when it comes to character. He knows sports is not just about putting a ball through a hoop. It’s about instilling life goals. It’s about creating character and teaching good work ethic. He has been so unjustly accused of something that I know in my heart is false. I hope you can see that it’s OK to admit when you’re wrong.”[/i]
That has weight. This young woman played for Christian and she was willing to put herself in public to defend him.
[b]Player Ali Campos:[/b] [i]”I’ve been playing for Coach Jeff for two years now. Everyone has said it’s important that the district and the community back up our coaches and teachers, but we also have to remember that we as students should also receive that treatment. I’m here to ask you guys why there wasn’t an investigation. Why the opinions of those who deal with Jeff every day weren’t taken into account. Why the people who are actually affected by this didn’t matter in this situation at all. You guys made an executive decision without even considering who would be affected by this. Lots of families were affected. Coach Jeff is an amazing person and he’s an inspiration to all the players on that team. He dedicated so much to this program and we lost a lot when we lost him. I hope you guys realize this. When you made that executive decision, you didn’t think about how it affected the rest of his players.”[/i]
That’s quite powerful testimony and it contradicts what the anonymous person claims.
You stated it yourself when you first mentioned this case: 40 people came out to defend Coach Jeff Christian. I don’t claim to reqally know the facts. But that says quite a lot that so many put themselves out of this man.
I would also add this about anonymous personal attacks: What would you think if some anomymous flame-thrower leveled these sort of attacks on you or someone you cared about? Would you think the person’s anonymity was an important freedom which allows “the facts” about you to be revealed without repercussion? Or would you think it’s just a convenient way for a coward to smear you with baseless charges?
Any time someone makes scandalous attacks on another person, but does so under the cover of a fake name, I rate the charges as fake and not credible until proven otherwise.
“David, I suggest that commentary be ignored as unreliable. It was posted anonymously by someone calling himself “considerthis.” No, it should not be considered anything but a cowardly ad hominem attack. “
I don’t have the visceral reaction to anonymous posts that you do. I think there is some value in it. We’ll see if some of that plays out. It’s a small community, people are often afraid to speak out – especially when you consider the large number of people coming out the other direction, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to be guarded with one’s name.
“One additional note. Terminable-at-will means just that – an employee can be fired at any time for any reason, and there is no requirement for a fair hearing unless the employer has set out some sort of policy that requires a fair hearing before termination.”
This is not an absolute fact. Even at-will employees have the same legal rights in regards to discrimination. The various “isms” and job-related sexual harassment protect all workers, including at-will employees.
If the anonymous posting is even a little true, and the school district has not taken action in 6 years, we have a bigger problem.
“Terminable-at-will” is a legal term that may make it legal to fire someone for any reason without an effort to ascertain the truth. It certainly is not ethical or in any sense fair, which is what we should expect from our civil servants.
davehart: “All of this discussion about the legalities of “at will” and proper procedure are important, but not central to what appears to have happened. If we assume Steve Boutin, the attorney for the coach, is not making exaggerated claims, the central issue is do you fire someone in their fifth year who has a good record based on a single complaint without an investigation, i.e., interviewing at least one or two other people? That’s the issue. I really don’t see how the School Board can stand behind a “process” that doesn’t require an investigation. If their process is that superficial, it begs the question about how they conduct all other business.”
PC: “This is not an absolute fact. Even at-will employees have the same legal rights in regards to discrimination. The various “isms” and job-related sexual harassment protect all workers, including at-will employees.”
Observer: “”Terminable-at-will” is a legal term that may make it legal to fire someone for any reason without an effort to ascertain the truth. It certainly is not ethical or in any sense fair, which is what we should expect from our civil servants.”
Let me flesh out the “terminable-at-will contract a bit more. Terminable-at-will employment contracts are entered into by both sides, such that each side understands that either side can end the employment relationship at any time for any reason. Generally, no fair hearing is required, bc both sides are equally free to end the employment “at will” (at any time for any reason). There are a few exceptions to this arrangement:
1) If the employer has a policy which requires a fair hearing, or some set of procedures must be followed before termination, then the employer must follow any procedures set out.
2) An employee may not be fired on the basis of: sexual harassment; refusal to engage in criminal behavior; discrimination based on age, sex, race, sexual orientation.
If the school district had a policy in place that required a fair hearing, and they did not give the coach in question his due process (fair hearing), then the school district would be in the wrong.
But it is not clear whether that was the case – we don’t know what the district policy is in situations involving employees like this coach, who are not full time or part time teachers, are not part of a union, and may be terminable-at-will.
Many people are outraged at a termination when someone who is fired is not given a fair hearing. If offends the public’s sense of fairness that the person fired doesn’t get a chance to “tell their side” or “be heard”. But remember, employees have the right to walk off the job at any time, leaving the business or entity in the lurch. That is the bargain that is struck – each side can walk away from the employment contract at any time and for any reason. A fair hearing is only required in terminable-at-will contracts if there is a previous policy in place by the employer that requires one. The question in this case is was such a policy in place for the school district, that required a fair hearing. Since the school district felt justified in letting the coach go w/o a fair hearing, I’m guessing there was no requirement for one…
In addition, there is another issue, which the school district has alluded to, that the coach in this case did not follow proper procedure in removing the girls from the team. In so far as I am aware, the coach never addressed this issue…
The biggest potential losers in this matter are-
The Superintendent
The School Board
The School District
All three are in the position of needing all of the community support they can get.
A decision to simply hide behind the law will certainly lead to a loss. The Community expectation is the way to go – which means a thoughtful, reasonable and fair process. The matter is all about trust in leadership and very little about the law.
Dunning has gone three straight days writing on this issue. Here’s his response in today’s column to the anonymous e-mail:
[quote]IF THE FACTS DON’T FIT, MAKE THEM UP … an anonymous comment about Jeff Christian appeared on The Enterprise website, claiming that the district has “Six years of outraged complaints from players and parents about the man as a coach in their files.” … explosive charges, to be sure … also completely false …
Let me quote from an e-mail from the district’s own attorney, Scot Yarnell, to a request for those very files … writes Yarnell: “The District does not have any documents responsive to your requests for ‘evaluations’ or ‘any other writing.’ The District does not formally evaluate persons who provide at-will seasonal services pursuant to a Variable Services Agreement.” …
Put simply, the files don’t exist … that’s why the person making the charges chose to remain anonymous …
[url]http://search.davisenterprise.com/display.php?id=73431[/url][/quote]
That puts that part of the issue to rest.
Alphonso: “A decision to simply hide behind the law will certainly lead to a loss. The Community expectation is the way to go – which means a thoughtful, reasonable and fair process. The matter is all about trust in leadership and very little about the law.”
“Hiding behind the law”? You’ve got to be kidding? If the school district did not follow the law in this case, they could be in a whole lot more hot water than they are in now…including additional lawsuits filed against them by the parents of the students involved and the coach. You are advocating the school district break the law, just to satisfy public curiousity? Really?
“You are advocating the school district break the law, just to satisfy public curiousity? Really? “
Are you suggesting there is no way to demonstrate a “thoughtful, reasonable and fair process” without breaking the law?
And again, this goes beyond “public curiostity”. The community is depending on these people to make many important decisions and this incident raises a concern over basic decision making – can they be trusted to make thoughtful decisions?
Jeff Hudson article on the topic, today’s Enterprise:
[quote]Coach, district officials to meet
A private meeting has been scheduled for early next week, bringing together the principal parties in the recent termination of Jeff Christian, who was fired Jan. 3 as the girls varsity basketball coach at Davis High School.
Superintendent Winfred Roberson said Thursday that he, Deputy Superintendent Kevin French and school district attorney J. Scot Yarnell will meet with Christian and his attorney, Stephen Boutin, on Tuesday.
….
Boutin confirmed that a meeting has been scheduled “to discuss the issues and to try to resolve this matter.”
Boutin also gave The Enterprise copies of correspondence exchanged with Yarnell over the past few days. In an e-mail dated Jan. 21, Yarnell said Christian wasn’t fired because of his decision to remove star senior twins Malika and Khaliya Wilkins from the team.
etc.
[url]http://search.davisenterprise.com/display.php?id=73411[/url]
[/quote]
This can affect school tax votes. It undermines my sense of accountability and judgment by the School Board. Sorry, Board members, you may be vindicated in your action, but you’re in a position of having to prove it. It appears you shot from the hip and aren’t even interested in asking the questions later.
If it ends up being a very close vote, then maybe folks will look back to this incident as a contributing cause. However, in the fall of 2008, commentors on this blog were making similar predictions of Measure W failing on account of Valley Oak closing, the rejection of the Valley Oak charter school proposal, and fallout from Superintendent Murphy’s departure, but it didn’t appear to be a factor.
In several ways, the school board scandals of the day seemed to reflect a bit more on the issue of Measure W than I could imagine the Jeff Christian issue influencing this parcel tax.
Bob Dunning’s column today comments on the ongoing discussions between Mr. Christian and the school district:
[url]http://search.davisenterprise.com/display.php?id=73556[/url]
Also in today’s Enterprise is a Jeff Hudson article about what’ coming in budget discussions for Thursday’s school board meeting:
[url]http://search.davisenterprise.com/display.php?id=73542[/url]