Mr. Christian, who spoke first, suggested that he had no idea as to why he was fired. He believed that the administration, school board, superintendent and athletic director all made serious mistakes and failed to seek out the facts from all parties.
According to published accounts in the Davis Enterprise, the impetus for this firing was a contentious team meeting in which the coach announced the removal of two players – twins – for conduct he determined detrimental to the team.
On the other hand, their mother claimed that they removed themselves due to an unsafe situation.
According to Superintendent Winfred Roberson, basketball coach Jeff Christian did not follow proper procedure in dismissing the players.
“Typically, we have a process whenever students are released from the team. That processed was not followed,” Superintendent Roberson said.
According to KCRA, “In December, another student was released from the team after allegations surfaced of drug use at a party in October. Both Maliak and Khaliya said they did not do any drugs at the party.”
The school board on Thursday night could not say much. They did say or implied that they believed that the right thing had been done in this case, and that unfortunately they cannot reveal much more than that. They said they wish they could say more, but they could not. However, they were adamant that the right thing was done.
In fact, they cited both the Brown Act, which they claimed precluded them from discussing the matter (which is not completely accurate – the Brown Act only prevents the board from taking action on an item not agendized, it does not prevent them from talking about things that are not agendized) and personnel confidentiality laws.
Superintendent Roberson, who was subjected to some rather pointed comments, told the Enterprise, “I assure the community that we are not engaged in any cover-up. Rather, district officials and board members have respectfully avoided making public comments that might be perceived as harmful to staff or students.”
“Many rumors and inaccuracies have circulated in the community. Please remember there is always more than one side to a story. Litigation has been threatened and the district is consulting with legal counsel. The district will take appropriate corrective measures if there have been any errors,” he continued.
But herein lies the problem and our point of entry into this dispute. I have no idea what happened. The district has made a decision based on a set of facts that they have at their disposal, but they are not talking.
Lawyers will tell the school district to say as little as possible to limit their exposure to potential lawsuits. There are also some personnel laws and student privacy laws at play here that preclude the district from releasing certain information.
That makes it difficult for the district to say anything at all about the matter. But the problem is that these laws and legal guidelines often do not mesh well with public relations and addressing an angry public. The less public officials say about a matter, the more the public – particularly those angry and opposed to the original decision – are going to smell cover-up.
So, in the process of insulating themselves from potential legal consequences, they are exposing themselves to an angry public.
So while the district may well believe it is attempting to avoid making public comments that might be perceived as harmful to staff or students, they are at the same time creating the impression that they have something to hide.
Community members are not going to patiently allow the district to resolve this matter, because they believe that Mr. Christian has been wronged here and they do not trust the district to act in his best interest.
They claim that they are pleased to meet with Mr. Christian, but it has been over two weeks since his release, and he is claiming they have not done so.
Complicating the matter is the fact that Mr. Christian is not covered under the normal collective bargaining rules. He is basically an at-will employee, he is not a member of the district’s bargaining unit, and therefore to some extent not subject to the rules in place that would allow other employees to appeal when a disagreement arises about the facts in the case.
It is in the district’s best interest at this time to find a somewhat amicable parting. They face what could be a contentious parcel tax vote in May and if that measures fails, the district would be facing no less than $6 million in revenue shortfalls. That is a huge hurdle to climb and requiring a two-thirds vote, they cannot afford to anger a sizable portion of the public.
The level of anger in the room was tremendous, but there were also levels of frustration and sorrow.
So what actually happened? We may never know. But the district should not attempt to hide behind confidentiality laws. People are not simply going to trust in a process that resulted in an outcome they do not like.
You can never blunt all criticism, but transparency is a good thing. Within the law, certainly there is a lot more that the district can say and at the very least, that might help to soothe over hurt feelings.
I have seen districts try to make these things go away. They rarely are successful. It is best to face your problems head-on.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
An employee is released from employment. The employee “goes public” with a protest and claims various legal and procedural wrongs, or claims total ignorance, as in this case. The employer is silent or guarded in responding, thereby only increasing the suspicion that the employee was dealt with illegally or unfairly.
Sound familiar? It should. This scenario has been played out many times in the past.
I have a simple solution. Whenever a terminated employee appeals to “the court of public opinion,” all personnel confidentiality constraints against the employer are waived. The employer can respond in the public arena, the battlefield chosen by the accuser. No liability is assessed to the employer for disclosing the other side of the story.
We would have fewer of these “one-side-only” public revelations by former employees. Right now, it’s not a fair fight.
[quote]The school board on Thursday night could not say much.[/quote]
Nor should they. Whatever the underlying facts of this case may be, it would be inappropriate for the Board to comment on any specifics of a personnel action with anyone other than the employee involved. If there was an improper personnel action, my sense of the current School Board is that they would be far more likely to correct the mistake rather than try to “cover it up.”
This situation will have no effect on the parcel tax vote. Voters are smart enough to separate these issues.
I told DSHS and DJUSD over a year ago about the problems inherent in their basketball program; one that is run by intramural AAU coaches in violation of CIF rules. At that time, Roberson (principal at DSHS then)refused to even discuss the matter with me. So they have chosen to allow the “coaches” at Davis Hoops to run their high school program, anyway. They have NO intention of changing the system themselves, as it’s completely self-serving. And if they accidentally hire a coach who doesn’t subscribe to their management style (who bucks the Hoops “system”), they get that coach out. Someone needs to bring these infractions to the attention of the CIF, or the basketball program at DSHS will continue to be run by an establishment of unqualified wanna-be coaches with no real-world basketball experience. Players and their parents go along because they have to, not because they want to. DJUSD has known about the issue for years, and they’ve chosen to just go along with it. I, for one, am glad they are finally getting the publicity they so richly deserve.
dmg: “Lawyers will tell the school district to say as little as possible to limit their exposure to potential lawsuits. There are also some personnel laws and student privacy laws at play here that preclude the district from releasing certain information.
That makes it difficult for the district to say anything at all about the matter. But the problem is that these laws and legal guidelines often do not mesh well with public relations and addressing an angry public. The less public officials say about a matter, the more the public – particularly those angry and opposed to the original decision – are going to smell cover-up.
So, in the process of insulating themselves from potential legal consequences, they are exposing themselves to an angry public.
So while the district may well believe it is attempting to avoid making public comments that might be perceived as harmful to staff or students, they are at the same time creating the impression that they have something to hide.”
If the school district started to explain what happened, they would be revealing personnel matters (illegal), as well as revealing accusations against the two students involved (illegal). The fired coach would then feel free to dispute whatever the school board said, which would be extremely detrimental to the two students in particular. The entire matter would become a pitched battle in the press w all sorts of accusations flying around. The school district has a fiduciary duty to keep its mouth shut, no matter how ugly the public decides to become. It is unfortunate, but that is the reality the school district faces.
Just to get my point across, on why it is absolutely necessary for the school board to remain silent at all costs, reflect on the following allegations that appeared in the Davis Enterprise: 1) the parent in question was alleged to have bypassed normal procedures and went straight to the Supt, and the Supt is the one allegedly to have fired the coach; 2) the two girls were alleged to have been removed from the team for “conduct detrimental to the team”; 3) accusations by some in the public of a “cover-up” by the Supt. And other items that have circulated elsewhere: 3) the two girls were alleged to have been swearing at the coach and other team members; 4) the two girls were African American, as is the Supt, but the coach is Caucasion, implying race may have been an issue; and on and on it goes.
For the school district to say anything will only fan the flames; be against district policy; could open them up to liability for saying the wrong thing. The Supt. was hired to handle this sort of difficult situation, and he has done the right thing by remaining silent, no matter how difficult it is, no matter the repercussions in so far as the school parcel tax is concerned (I don’t think this controversy will have anything to do w whether the parcel tax passes or not); no matter how dissatisfied some of the public become; no matter what the coach or his lawyer does or says.
The coach has lawyered up, as is his right. It is now in the hands of the coach’s lawyer and school district to settle this matter behind closed doors as a personnel matter. The public should just wait and see what comes out of that process. Proper statements (that do not denigrate the two students or the school distict) in support of the coach/school district are perfectly appropriate. Either the school district did not follow proper procedure or the coach did not, or a littel bit of both. Because that is really the issue here. Either this matter will settle between the parties involved or end up in court. But the issues at hand are not the public’s business at the moment.
So, the uppity basketball team stars, who just happen to be black, get bounced from the team for their bad attitude by their coach, who just happens to be white, and apparently failed to use the proper procedure. As a result the coach gets bounced from his coaching position by the district Superintendent, who just happens to be black, also apparently not using the proper procedure.
Me thinks we may not be quite as color blind here in Davis as we would like to think. Let’s hope I am wrong!
a high school basketball coach is a tough position – very little pay, expected to win all of the games and expected to let all of the players play all of the time. There are always at least 30 people (half of the players and all of the parents) who constantly remind the coach that they know more than the coach. Players never get enough playing time according to the parents and of course the parents never think the players are used properly. Just too many egos and only five players can be on the court at any one time. I imagine the issue in this case has more to do with a parent/coach issue than anything else. Also it sounds like the Superintendent made some sort of politically correct decision rather than a correct one. He should have gathered the parties together and forced everyone to find more common ground.
ERM said
“That makes it difficult for the district to say anything at all about the matter. But the problem is that these laws and legal guidelines often do not mesh well with public relations and addressing an angry public.”
I agree with that comment, but remember a basketball coach position is a very public/visible position – many people have seen what has been going on. I assume practices are attended by adults and many people see player/coach/parent interactions during games. It is very likely that many people know more about what is going on (from direct observation) than the Superintendent. It is difficult to make this a private matter when everything has been out in the open.
To Alphonso:
ERM said
“That makes it difficult for the district to say anything at all about the matter. But the problem is that these laws and legal guidelines often do not mesh well with public relations and addressing an angry public.”
I did not say this – dmg is the one who made the above statement…
It comes across to me, when the District says it cannot speak publicly about a personnel matter, as somewhat cowardly. “We fired this guy who is in a public position, but we are too afraid let the public know why.”
Yet at the very least, they seem to have some kind of legal or fiduciary responsibility to not open up the district to a possible lawsuit for revealing “confidential” personnel information.
What I don’t understand is why Jeff Christian, if he is truly innocent, won’t publicly discuss what actions or words or combination of the two motivated him to kick off two of his best players from the team and why he (apparently) did not follow the same procedures in kicking those two off of his team as were (apparently) followed when he had earlier kicked off another girl.
If Mr. Christian would explain in full his side of the story, I think it would be easier for everyone else to see him in a more positive light. But his silence, like that of the district, just leaves everyone in the dark and does not help his public case if he was in fact wronged.
I should add that when someone in a very public position is fired for some sort of alleged wrongdoing, the law should not protect privacy. Hiding behind confidentiality does not serve the public interest in such a public case.
“I should add that when someone in a very public position is fired for some sort of alleged wrongdoing, the law should not protect privacy. Hiding behind confidentiality does not serve the public interest in such a public case.”
And that’s really my point that I’m trying to make as well. Open stuff up, it serves the public interest to have more transparency not less.
I often feel that while these confidentiality laws are supposed to protect workers, and employees and juveniles, often they are used to protect the authorities and I don’t think it was supposed to be that way.
Roger said “So, the basketball team stars, who just happen to be black, get bounced from the team for their bad attitude by their coach, who just happens to be white, and apparently failed to use the proper procedure. As a result the coach gets bounced from his coaching position by the district Superintendent, who just happens to be black, also apparently not using the proper procedure.
Me thinks we may not be quite as color blind here in Davis as we would like to think. Let’s hope I am wrong!”
Rather than wish you are wrong you may have been better served not to have brought it up in the first place. Seems to me that whenever there is a dispute involving different races there are those that will inject racism as a motive.
Me thinks we may not be quite as “intelligent” here in Davis as we would like to think…..
[i]”Me thinks we may not be quite as color blind here in Davis as we would like to think. Let’s hope I am wrong!” Rather than wish you are wrong you may have been better served not to have brought it up in the first place.”[/i]
I could not disagree more vehemently with Skip Harrison, here. Roger never charged anyone with racial bias. He simply brought up what is one of the salient points about the players in this drama.
I think this case is facinatingly interesting because, from the little people involved have been willing to say about what went on, racism or racial bias or any other aspects of race seem to have had [u]no part in the dispute[/u]. I find that very refreshing when you do have a white coach (and a crowd of white supporters behind him) on one side and on the other a black Superintendent, a black AD and two black players and everyone seems to agree that race has nothing to do with this particular disagreement.
It shows me that people are people, and people will have disputes with others, and just because they are of different hues, charges of racism don’t have to be a part of the dispute. If you won’t allow anyone to note this, then you end up thinking that every time there is a dispute between a black resident in Davis and a white or an Asian cop and a Muslim girl, racial discrimination must be a part of that problem. But obviously this seems to be a good example of where that is not true.
David Greenwald and I have exchanged a number of emails on this. David sees Davis as this bastion of racism, what he calls a “dark underbelly.” He continually looks for cases of race bias, finds that people who share his views will come to him to broadcast their complaints, and then concludes based on these self-selected cases that Davis is a dark, terrible place.
I see Davis as a place where there is almost no racism at all, compared to the many other places I have lived and travelled. (I told David an anecdote about the murder of a family in India when I was there which was the result of a proposed marriage between people of different “races,” even though those “races” looked the same to me.) Davis is one of the few places I have been where racism is not the norm. If you want to see some ugly racism not far from here, go to Mexico. There are places in every major city in Mexico which will not allow dark-skinned people to enter.
“David Greenwald and I have exchanged a number of emails on this. David sees Davis as this bastion of racism, what he calls a “dark underbelly.””
In actuality, the term bastion was never used by me.
I said, “In terms of racism, I think there is a lot of it in Davis.”
When he asked about that, I continued, “Compared to what people believe about Davis. My whole shtick about Davis is that it isn’t the pristine liberal/ progressive community that people believe, there is a dark underbelly.”
I added, “a lot of minorities prefer LA and the south to Davis. I’m not sure if things are worse here or if at least people are more honest about where they are coming from there.”
I don’t think Davis is some dark and dangerous place, I do think that people in this town treat minorities less well than they think they do and less well than they should.
When he asked about that, I continued, “Compared to what people believe about Davis. My whole shtick about Davis is that it isn’t the pristine liberal/ progressive community that people believe, there is a dark underbelly.”
Particularly interesting to me is the way in which poverty can go unnoticed by many in Davis. There were more than 1,400 kids on free and reduced lunch out of 8,500 kids in 2008-09, and that number has likely only risen since then.
“Particularly interesting to me is the way in which poverty can go unnoticed by many in Davis. There were more than 1,400 kids on free and reduced lunch out of 8,500 kids in 2008-09, and that number has likely only risen since then.”
I’ve heard stories of how those programs get pushed by the schools with no real accountability of the application process.
My kids have been recipients of the program, I don’t recall it being pushed. It’s helpful in that it’s one of the few things we get for helping to raise other people’s kids. It’s helpful to poor families who have trouble making ends meet and helpful for poor kids who often don’t get the proper nutrition. My one complaint is the high amount of sugar in some of that food, much to my chagrin. Hopefully the district is dealing with that issue.
[i]”There were more than 1,400 kids on free and reduced lunch out of 8,500 kids in 2008-09, and that number has likely only risen since then.”[/i]
That is a shockingly high number. I wonder how many of these children have parents who are UCD students?
One thing I learned–through a charity I give to–is that all foster children get the free lunch. I don’t know how many foster children we have in Davis, but they must be some percentage of that number.
I would imagine that, beyond foster children and the kids of students, most getting a free lunch are being raised by young mothers who (in part due to having young kids) cannot make much of an income. It’s kind of a vicious circle, then: if they have kids (without a husband to support them), they need to spend time raising their kids and cannot make a good living so the kids grow up in poverty. If they put off having kids and develop their own job skills and they wait a long time to start a family after they are married, they won’t have many kids to counterbalance those who did not wait to have kids.
Rifkin said “I could not disagree more vehemently with Skip Harrison, here. Roger never charged anyone with racial bias”
I never charged Roger with racial bias. Never met the man as far as I know and wouldn’t take one statement a person made and come up with that conclusion. I don’t think race is pertinent in this dispute. I have no proof one way or the other. That is why I don’t know why it was brought up by Roger to begin with unless he knows more about the situation than I do which is very little.
My position is that pointing out the races of the players, the coach, the AD, and Supt serves no purpose other than to draw lines of dispute where there are none. And to add that Davis is not as color blind as we would like compounds that. I am perfectly willing to discuss racial matters when they matter but this is not one of those cases, in my opinion.
I’ve known Jeff for some time and if that were his motive I would be very surprised and disappointed. I don’t know the other adults involved here personally but I would be surprised and disappointed with them as well.
STANFORD – In a time of penny pinching inspired by tight state and local education budgets, investigative reporter David Bass warns that taxpayers are picking up the tab for a large number of ineligible students who participate in the federal school-lunch program because the process for verifying eligibility for the program is fundamentally broken. Even more problematic may be the effect on school funding formulas, on research, and on accountability measures of misidentifying these students as poor. Bass’s findings appear in “Fraud in the Lunchroom,” in the forthcoming issue of Education Next, which is now available at http://www.EducationNext.org.
The federal government’s National School Lunch Program (NSLP) serves 31 million American children each day a free- or reduced-price lunch, at an annual cost of $8 billion. Parents who apply for school lunch benefits report their yearly income on the application, and no proof of income is required, but school districts are required to try each year to verify the incomes of 3 percent of participants considered “error prone,” meaning households whose reported incomes are very close to the income eligibility limitation.
According to Bass, verification summaries obtained from 10 of the nation’s largest school districts show a high percentage of those asked to provide proof of income could not or would not comply.
RICH: [i]”I could not disagree more vehemently with Skip Harrison, here. [u]Roger never charged[/u] anyone with racial bias.”[/i]
SKIP [i]”I never charged Roger with racial bias.”[/i]
No one said you did.
[i]”My position is that pointing out the races of the players, the coach, the AD, and Supt serves no purpose other than to draw lines of dispute where there are none.”[/i]
That’s a perfectly legitimate position. I just don’t share it (and explained above why it does serve a purpose).
Too bad the coach didn’t have tenure.
The real morale of the story:
If you sacrifice your time and energy to help the schools for nominal pay, expect to get stabbed in the back,
Bob Dunning discusses this issue in today’s column:
[url]http://search.davisenterprise.com/display.php?id=73333[/url]
Fundamentally, he agrees with Greenwald’s position — that the district demonstrate fairness in how Mr. Christian was treated.
[i]”Fundamentally, he agrees with Greenwald’s position — that the district demonstrate fairness in how Mr. Christian was treated.”[/i]
To clarify, Dunning says the district DID NOT demonstrate fairness, because the Superintendent fired him without having spoken with him, without hearing his side of the story, and the Board backed the Superintendent also without ever having heard from Coach Christian or knowing his side of the story.
Rifkin: “What I don’t understand is why Jeff Christian, if he is truly innocent, won’t publicly discuss what actions or words or combination of the two motivated him to kick off two of his best players from the team and why he (apparently) did not follow the same procedures in kicking those two off of his team as were (apparently) followed when he had earlier kicked off another girl.”
Because as a coach Christian has a duty to protect the reputations of all his players, including former players he may have disciplined and eliminated from the team. These students are juveniles, and have a right to their privacy. Further, if Christian’s actions are deemed later in court to be unwarranted, it could open him up to further liability if he accused these girls of any untoward behavior.
dmg: “And that’s really my point that I’m trying to make as well. Open stuff up, it serves the public interest to have more transparency not less.”
Let me ask you this: Would you want your employer to be able to state in public why you as an employee were fired? Would you want the school district or teacher to be able to state why your child was disciplined in school? All for the sake of public transparency? There are times when privacy issues must trump the public’s right to know, and this is one of them…
In regard to Dunning’s column:
“I’ll confess right off the top that I honestly don’t know if Jeff Christian deserved to be fired from his position as head coach for the Davis High School girls varsity basketball team.”
Exactly – Dunning does not know all the facts, but chooses to shoot from the hip anyway. Both the school district and Christian have an obligation to protect the privacy of the students involved, Dunning’s demand for an “open session” notwithstanding.
“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.”
But are the students willing to waive their right to privacy? Or should they even be allowed to do so, bc of the possible repercussions of such a foolish decision? Is the school district willing to waive its right to protect student and employee privacy, which could open the school district up to possible liability for violating law?
“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.”
Mr. Christian has the right to a fair hearing, which is what his lawyer has demanded and is currently being worked out between the school district and Mr. Christian as we speak. In the fair hearing will be taken up the issue of whether Mr. Christian should have been given a fair hearing prior to his firing. It depends on what the district policy was at the time of his termination. My understanding is that there is some confusion in his case – bc he is not a full time employee, is not a member of a union, and is terminable-at-will (can be fired at any time for any reason).
“Would you want your employer to be able to state in public why you as an employee were fired?”
Depends on what my job is. If I am in the spotlight anyway, then probably. At least I can dispute it. If I’m a low level employee, no.
dmg: “Depends on what my job is. If I am in the spotlight anyway, then probably. At least I can dispute it. If I’m a low level employee, no.”
1) What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. If you wouldn’t want tranparency, then you shouldn’t wish it for others.
2) And how do you carve out a “spotlight exception”? Who is defined to be “in the spotlight”?
I don’t agree with your first point, there are differences inherent to leadership and upper management positions along with those position that entire public scrutiny such as athletics coaches. I think you would need to carve out an exception on a case-by-case basis, but short of that, I would err on the side of transparency.
dmg: “I don’t agree with your first point, there are differences inherent to leadership and upper management positions along with those position that entire public scrutiny such as athletics coaches. I think you would need to carve out an exception on a case-by-case basis, but short of that, I would err on the side of transparency.”
But you didn’t say how you would carve out a “athletic coach” exception that would pass constitutional muster…