When I first sat and watched supporters of Jeff Christian at the DJUSD School Board meeting in early January, I was impressed with the passion and dedication that these community members had for their coach.
I immediately pressed for the district to give a more full disclosure on their decision to dismiss the coach. It seemed like the right thing to do.
Jeff Hudson of the Davis Enterprise is reporting this morning, “The January firing of Davis High girls’ basketball coach Jeff Christian continued to reverberate during Thursday night’s meeting of the Davis school board.”
He writes, “And the controversy took on an added dimension, with some of Christian’s supporters warning the school board that if it doesn’t reinstate Christian as coach, they would vote against the emergency parcel tax (Measure A) in the May special election.”
Everything works together neatly because at the same meeting, the school board approved layoff notices for 60 teacher positions and 11 custodians, secretaries and other classified employees.
Mr. Hudson reports, “Miriam Cantor said ‘the conduct of this board has created a rift.’ The voters of Davis, she said, ‘have consistently supported a standard of excellence’ by approving school parcel tax measures as state funding has ebbed.”
“‘But why should we put money in the hands of the very same people’ who had made decisions like the Christian dismissal ‘in an arbitrary and capricious manner?’ ” she asked.
Mr. Hudson also reports, “Linda Casillas warned that Christian’s supporters ‘will have a hard time’ voting yes on the May parcel tax measure because they ‘currently don’t feel (the district’s funds) are in capable, responsible hands.’ “
Superintendent Winfred Roberson told the Enterprise, “It would be sad to use the parcel tax as leverage, because in the end our students will suffer. I have full trust that the Davis community is going to step beyond this and do what is right for our students. We recognize that these are tough times economically, but we’re going to be fiscally responsible with every dollar and continue to do what’s best to serve our kids.”
And with that the supporters of Jeff Christian have officially lost me. In fact, I have to question their values.
It appalling to me that someone would vote against funding the school district, a failure which would lead to the layoff of sixty teachers, because of a coach.
Some of these people, and I should stress some, have their values way out of line. These people would really put their children’s educational future in jeopardy because they are angry that a coach has been fired?
For once I completely agree with Supervisor Don Saylor. He told the Enterprise, “I think it’s inappropriate to hold the students of the district hostage to a single personnel decision. … This board has for the past six years made a series of challenging and difficult decisions’ as the state budget crisis has grown.”
“They have shown excellent stewardship and compassion,” Supervisor Saylor continued. “The modest proposal before voters (Measure A) is critically important for every student in Davis and the well-being of our community. I strongly urge all interested parties, regardless of their perspective, to focus on the central mission of the school district.”
Supervisor Saylor, himself a former board member, added, “The issues around this parcel tax are far more important than any individual board member, or the board’s actions. We have to look at the interest of the whole, not any single decision.”
I do not often agree with Don Saylor, but he was 100% correct. It is not only inappropriate, it is appalling.
People have the right to be upset. It is clearly an issue that means a lot to a lot of people. But I am going to be frank here, the education of every child in the school district is far more important than the treatment of a coach, even if you feel he was 100% in the right and the district is 100% in the wrong.
Hopefully, these individuals are a minority of supporters of Jeff Christian. Hopefully, Mr. Christian himself has the fortitude to come out publicly and disavow himself from that message. If he does, I may change my view on this.
But right now, at least for me, this approach has backfired. You cannot threaten the education of my children and the future of my children because of a basketball coach. You just can’t.
I agree with Richard Reed, a parent volunteer and member of the Measure A steering committee, who told the Enterprise that “mature adults are able to separate unrelated issues. Parents or anyone who has a concern, issue or disagreement with the school board, or administration, should never hold support for students hostage. It is selfish and counterproductive. This includes consideration of support for Measure A.”
It may havve sounded like a good idea, I am sure, to make a threat and try to leverage the board, but I guarantee you that it just hardened the board’s resolve here and it has turned off a lot of people who were on the fence about this issue.
I am on the fence no more. Time for Mr. Christian and his supporters to fade into the background.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I’m thinking that the issue of the process to dismiss the coach will not be a factor. The possibility that the two athletes were reinstated (?) might be. What is most likely to defeat the measure is that the teaching staff has not “come to bat”. They made a small concession this year, which they have sought to undo. What are they bringing forward for the next/succeeding years to reduce impacts on taxpayers or the junior teachers faced with layoffs? Lack of action on their part may very well lead to defeat of the measure, from folks I’ve talked with who have lost 10-25% of family income in the last couple of years…
[i]For once I completely agree with Supervisor Don Saylor. He told the Enterprise, “I think it’s inappropriate [b]to hold the students of the district hostage[/b] to a single personnel decision. … This board has for the past six years made a series of challenging and difficult decisions’ as the state budget crisis has grown.”[/i]
Speaking of holding hostages, is it not equally as correct to say that they School Board is holding hostage those 60 teachers: either you voters pass this much higher tax or we will summarily fire all of these good people?
Never mind that no one has to be fired if the tax fails. The decision to fire is a policy choice. The School Board could just as well keep every teacher and every non-certified employee fully employed without the tax, just at a slightly lower rate of compensation.
So if the hyperbole is going to fly about the “hostage taking” of Mr. Christian’s supporters, it certainly should be pointed right back at this school board.
P.S. Like you, I am agnostic on Mr. Christian himself. I have no idea if he deserved to be fired. I don’t think his public comments suggest he deserves exoneration; nor do I think any public revelations about his mistakes suggest he should have been fired. I just don’t know enough, and I tend to think a lot of people who have taken one side or the other probably don’t know enough to choose a side with real conviction.
As stated in previous comments, I am a strong supporter of both the public schools and proposed parcel tax. I think what we are seeing is both sides of the Jeff Christian issue allowing their emotions to get the better of them. The use of the term “hostage taking” by either side is clearly hyperbole meant to elicit a knee jerk emotional response rather that a reasoned consideration of what is best for the students, district employees, the school board and community at large. It does not seem to me from the comments quoted that the supporters of the coach are saying that they would withhold their votes based on the single issue, but rather, they are concerned about the “capricious”, irresponsible, arbitrary and secretive manner in which the decision was made. These are legitimate concerns and deserve a thorough hearing. I would however suggest to his supports that voting out board members of whose actions you disapprove at the next election might be a more appropriate response than withholding financial support from a vital community resource.
I support the thoughtful comments of medwoman and David. Punishing the kids for the actions of the board in regards to an employee is stupid. Personally, given the fact that the vote to dismiss Christian was unanimous makes me suspect that there is more to the action than has been revealed. Given that, I do support the view of Bob Dunning regarding the hostility this board has displayed to the citizens they represent. Giving concerned parents 30 seconds to speak at a meeting is French for “I don’t give a damn what you think.” We elect them because we trust and respect them, but respect is a two way street, and this board clearly does not respect the public it serves.
I’d guess the “general public”–including almost all folks with children and grandchildren in our schools–have withdrawn support from Jeff Christian because of his (and his lawyer’s) tactics since he was let go.
Those of us who read David and Dunning got worked up on general “open government” principles for the first week. But, then, questions quickly came up about why the coach was going so public so early about private student matters and private personnel matters. His attempts to gin up public anger, resentment and action against school officials worked only as long as the school district attempted to keep these private (by law) proceedings private.
Once the district started their responses, it was obvious that one of the two parties was lying. Now that the coach consistently has refused to respond to very specific points that support the school’s actions, it became very obvious which party is doing the lying.
And instead of offering any evidence that the school’s limited claims weren’t accurate, Coach Christian and his attorney simply raised their volume and increased their threats to prevail in expensive civil suits.
Along with David, my mind has changed about this matter. I’ve had adequate transparency about how Coach Christian behaved in dealing with our children–and about the actions taken by school officials and the district in response to his failure to keep his public trust. I’m hoping those who still feel the district should have handled this differently will quit seeking revenge by threatening that worse things befall our schools.
Based [u]only[/u] on how the two parties have chosen to handle the unfortunate events, I say:[quote]”Good-bye Coach, good riddance, good luck and don’t let the door hit you on the way out!”[/quote]
[i]I’d guess the “general public”–including almost all folks with children and grandchildren in our schools–have withdrawn support from Jeff Christian because of his (and his lawyer’s) tactics since he was let go. [/i]
I know of no basis for this claim that Christian has lost support. The letters to The Enterprise are running overwhelmingly in his favor. Most of these folks who are standing up for Mr. Christian were either his former players or the parents of his former players. They have come to the school board to say that they believe Christian should be the girls bb coach; and they have testified in ernest that their personal experiences with him as a coach were positive and enriching.
I can believe that not every player had that experience. However, it seems like no one who has had actual experience with this coach prior to his dismissing the two sisters this season is willing to come forward publicly and say their personal experience was not good. They are merely attacking him with sordid innuendo, mostly without the courage of using their own names. And they have also failed to explain why such large numbers of others with personal experience with coach Christian have been defending him so vigorously if he is or was such a bad guy.
Until someone steps forward in a public forum and not hiding behind a fake name and explains what their experience with Christian was and why it was so bad, I will have to doubt the authenticity of any attacks against him.
Threats threats and more threats. Christian and his supporters have threatened to sue and now take down the district by voting against the bailout with their 2 to 1 leverage of a no vote. Instead of making additional threats it would be better for them to file suit as has been their first threat before making their second threat.
“….the fact that the vote to dismiss Christian was unanimous makes me suspect that there is more to the action than has been revealed.”
I would not make too much of this “unanimous vote”. In these situations, Board members often decide to present a united public front that reflects the majority, not necessarily a unanimous, position of individual Board members.
…”questions quickly came up about why the coach was going so public so early about private student matters and private personnel matters”
I suspect that we can all agree that matters as regards the students are private based on their age. However, I disagree that the firing of a coach is a private matter since it involves many members of the school community. If Mr. Christian had chosen to keep this a private matter, I think he would have had the right to do so. However,school board members acting in their official capacity are representatives of the public and thus their actions should be open to public scrutiny. And with regard to “so early” I doubt if if any of us, having lost our job would consider it “early” to solicit support for our cause.
“…Most of these folks who are standing up for Mr. Christian were either his former players or the parents of his former players. They have come to the school board to say that they believe Christian should be the girls bb coach; and they have testified in ernest that their personal experiences with him as a coach were positive and enriching.”
I was not at the last Board Meeting, but from the Jan. 20th minutes, 21 people spoke on Jeff’s behalf. Of those, two were former DHS players (from 4-5 years ago), one was a current player, and two were parents of former DHS players. So only 25% of those who spoke have personally experienced Jeff as a basketball coach at Davis High, which is the position he was fired from.
In the past six years, over 80 girls have played for Jeff at Davis High. Add the parents and you have over 200 people. Why aren’t more of them and their parents protesting Jeff’s firing?
I support the Board in making this difficult personnel decision. It was in the best interest of the current and future DHS girls’ basketball players.
I also support the upcoming parcel tax, and feel that “Team Jeff” should reconsider their new tactic to further their cause.
[quote]Commentary: Threats Against District Over Coach Firing Will Backfire
[/quote]
That is exactly the thought I had when I read the story in the Enterprise.
Like DMG, I don’t know the coach or the circumstances that brought about his firing. Clearly, he is well-liked by many people. However, I have said before and still believe that our current School Board would correct an erroneous or wrongful firing (if one occurred) rather than cover it up. They have correctly declined to discuss specifics of a confidential personnel action, as explained by Sheila Allen in today’s Enterprise story.
Perhaps Mr. Christian was unaware that his supporters were planning to make this threat. I hope he will take the high road by immediately and publicly disavowing the threats made by some of his supporters to vote against the school tax measure. If he does not do so, and do it quickly, I believe the tide of public sentiment will turn quickly and sharply against him. Whether his firing was right or wrong, this tactic will hurt his public image and will eliminate the possibility of any reconciliation or reinstatement by the current School Board.
P.S. Like you, I am agnostic on Mr. Christian himself. I have no idea if he deserved to be fired. I don’t think his public comments suggest he deserves exoneration; nor do I think any public revelations about his mistakes suggest he should have been fired. I just don’t know enough, and I tend to think a lot of people who have taken one side or the other probably don’t know enough to choose a side with real conviction.
You have all the facts out there that you need to know.
Consider this (hypothetically):
If your kid were sent to the principal for discipline issues (suspension or expulsion at worst), and then the principal went out and told an Enterprise reporter how he/she punished the kid, possibly before even contacting you (the parent), I think you would feel like your kid’s privacy and reputation were being unreasonably and unfairly harmed. That’s what happened here. It’s one thing for Phil Jackson to announce publicly that one of his players has been suspended, but that is in a professional adult context. Jeff Christian is working in behalf of the school district and under ed code with underage students.
You don’t shame kids in public like Jeff Christian did in publicly revealing their suspension; he needs to learn how to use the phrase, “no comment.” What’s worse is that he and his attorney claim that he was dismissed/fired for no cause. It means that he doesn’t get it. No reflection, no remorse. The longer that he carries on like this, then the less likely I want him re-instated by the district.
If you observe school board agendas, then you will know that the school board handles student discipline and personnel matters in closed session. Most newspapers don’t reveal the names of criminal suspects under the age of 18. I can appreciate all that; it is generally assumed that they are not necessarily mature enough to take public responsibility for their misbehavior. Maybe Jeff Christian wants an open hearing on the personnel part of the issue, but it is directly tied to a student discipline issue. Why drag the connected student discipline issue in public for his benefit or the public’s prurient curiosity? The school board and administration have acted appropriately on this issue by not offering any more public attention.
It is the sign of an outsized ego and frenzied senseless argument to threaten opposition to Measure A based on this. A measure that would directly benefit the kids of many of the parents who spoke publicly last Thursday.
The longer Mr. Christian continues with his public campaign, then the longer he draws inappriopriate publicity suspension that he issued. If you think Mr. Christian has been unfairly treated, then explain why you think it would be okay for a principal to publicly announce what punishment he/she just gave to your kid. If your reason is sound, then you have a basis for reinstating Mr. Christian. But I cannot think of a sound reason.
I felt initial sympathy for Mr. Christian when he initially made his case, but now I’m through with him. And those parents who spoke with hostility should be ashamed. Poor role models.
There will be no lawsuit. If there was a lawsuit in the works, this sort of thing would not be happening.
And if Mr. Christian really entertained the possibility that the school board might reconsider the Superintendent’s decision, that possibility is now gone. The moment parents supporting a teacher attempt to strong-arm a school board into doing something, that thing, whatever it is, no matter how reasonable will not be done because it cannot be done. To do so would essentially cede administrative and policy decision making authority to the mob, and no board of trustees will ever let that happen.
So for all you parents who thought you were doing the right thing to support Mr. Christian, the decision to make threats ended the discussion. I know you probably felt you had no choice, but you did have a choice and you made a short sighted one. I wish it weren’t true, but it is. I’ve seen this sort of thing play out hundreds of times over the last 20 years in school districts up and down the state of California, and the result was always the same. It’s over.
I am sure that Davis citizens are not going to connect a needed parcel tax with a specific personnel decision. But I do wonder why the Enterprise gave so much ink to a certain county supervisor who, according to the article, offered his opinion the following day.
[i]”You don’t shame kids in public like Jeff Christian did in publicly revealing their suspension; he needs to learn how to use the phrase, “no comment.” What’s worse is that he and his attorney claim that he was dismissed/fired for no cause. It means that he doesn’t get it. No reflection, no remorse. The longer that he carries on like this, then the less likely I want him re-instated by the district.”[/i]
So you are saying that he was fired because he answered a reporter’s question? And that his answer was (as far as you know) forthright?
I would actually have no problem if that was the cause and the heart of the matter. But reading a lot of the attacks on Jeff Christian by anonymous posters here and on Dunning’s column, no one but you has pointed to that as the reason. No one. Not even anyone from the administration who has spoken about this has pointed to that as the cause.
Rather, the anonymous attackers of Christian are saying that he has some long record of abuse, even though the district has subsequently said it had no record at all. (Maybe the district is lying?)
The first reports said that Christian was fired because he did not go through the proper channels when removing the two sisters from his team. I held that against him in reading the stories. However, subsequently it came out that other coaches at DHS had never heard of this official procedure; and famed soccer coach Ashley Yudin said without reservation that he has kicked players off of his teams in the past without knowing about or following this supposed procedure, and no one in the administration discussed firing him or otherwise punishing him for not following this supposed procedure. So that excuse seems very fishy.
I remain agnostic in this case. I concede it’s entirely possible that the anonymous attackers know something I don’t about some history of abuse. However, until they step forward in public and use their real names, I don’t give them any credibility, especially in light of the fact that ALL of Mr. Christian’s defenders are giving their opinions in public, using their own names and saying that their experiences with him as the coach have been very good.
I agree with this article. I think Jeff Christian’s position would have been stronger if he and his supporters had stayed home last Thursday.
[i]”If your kid were sent to the principal for discipline issues (suspension or expulsion at worst), and then the principal … punished the kid, possibly before even contacting you (the parent), I think you would feel like your kid’s privacy and reputation were being unreasonably and unfairly harmed. That’s what happened here.”[/i]
Taking out The Enterprise bit, this is almost exactly what did happen to me as a student at Davis High School. It had been alleged that some friends of mine and I were drinking beer on the premises of the campus–specifically in the newspaper room where we were working late after school. After all of us were dragged into the Vice Principal’s office, where the charges were read, we were told to wait, that the administrators would discuss the issue with out parents. (One of the boys, deadly scared of his dad, requested that only his mother be told.) But the admins, notably principal David Murhphy, broke their word. They decided to suspend us for a week immediately; and then they just called each of our parents to let them know what happened from their point of view.
As it happened, none of us drank one sip of beer. Due to the wise intervention of Vice Principal Katie Goetzinger, a sweet woman, the suspensions were reduced to having to write some crapola about how bad underaged drinking was. None of us, of course, ever wrote one such word. And the whole matter just faded away.
My lasting memory of that event is getting taken out of my first period US History class. I had some old fart with cauliflower ears and a busted up drunkard’s nose who hated me, hated most of his students and hated his job. All he seemed to like was seeing people getting screwed over. So when the Vice Principal and head Yard Duty came in and said, “Can we speak with Richard Rifkin?” My teacher had a classic reply. He pointed his decrepit fingers at me and churled loudly, “Busted!” Everyone, including me, laughed at my unfortunate circumstance.
“So you are saying that he was fired because he answered a reporter’s question? And that his answer was (as far as you know) forthright?”
The correct answer in this situation is “no comment”.
“However, subsequently it came out that other coaches at DHS had never heard of this official procedure; and famed soccer coach Ashley Yudin said without reservation that he has kicked players off of his teams in the past without knowing about or following this supposed procedure, and no one in the administration discussed firing him or otherwise punishing him for not following this supposed procedure. So that excuse seems very fishy.”
Did Mr. Yudin announce whom he suspended to a newspaper reporter?
Even if he did, it was unethical. Do you think it’s appropriate for the school board to announce the names of students who have been expelled? Personally, I think not.
“But reading a lot of the attacks on Jeff Christian by anonymous posters here and on Dunning’s column, no one but you has pointed to that as the reason. No one.”
You don’t need to know my name. The argument speaks for itself. And the facts are known.
Do you think the girls are obligated to talk in public about the issue for Mr. Christian’s sake or to satisfy your curiosity? Personally I don’t think so. Again, these are ed code rules in a situation that involve under-age students. This isn’t a college or professional sports situation.
I am sure that Davis citizens are not going to connect a needed parcel tax with a specific personnel decision. But I do wonder why the Enterprise gave so much ink to a certain county supervisor who, according to the article, offered his opinion the following day.
Sue, good to know that you’ve focused on the two most important aspects of this case. I’m also reminded that obsession never loses its focus.
[i]”Do you think the girls are obligated to talk in public about the issue for Mr. Christian’s sake or to satisfy your curiosity?”[/i]
FWIW, the girls have given TV interviews along with their mother. I have no problem with them presenting their side of the story to the press, as they have.
I also am bewildered by your notion that Mr. Christian merely saying he kicked them off the team (but actually has never said why) is a terrible offense. Of all the tough things kids have to deal with, that strikes me as a whole lot of nothing. If they did nothing wrong, which appears to be the view of the school board, then their innocence is broadcast. If they are guilty of some offense (which, because nothing has been said wrong that they did, I presume they are innocent), then there is nothing to worry about if this is known.
[quote]But the admins, [u]notably principal David Murhphy, broke their word.[/u][/quote]Duh…
[quote]”But reading a lot of the attacks on Jeff Christian by anonymous posters here…Rather, the anonymous attackers of Christian are saying that he has some long record of abuse….”[/quote] I guess I’ve missed any abundance of such claims by the other anonymous posters, Rich. My own change of heart was: [quote]”Based only on how the two parties have chosen to handle the unfortunate events (since the story was first fed to the [u]Enterprise[/u])….”[/quote] I wouldn’t have thought anyone could support the actions of the ex-coach and his attorney in these recent weeks, but I live and learn.
If we add up all of the Christian supporters, I’m just suggesting the numbers are tiny compared to the rest of us who are concerned about what goes on at DHS. Granted the noise is loud, and the supporters are a faithful lot.
Yet, at least some of us who initially thought the school/district was on the wrong side of this reconsidered after seeing how they’re handling the issue vs. how the ex-coach/lawyer are. The strategy they selected of quickly moving private matters to the pages of the [u]Enterprise[/u] instead of dealing with the district directly was a bad one–for Christian, our schools and our town.[quote]”So you are saying that he was fired because he answered a reporter’s question? And that his answer was (as far as you know) forthright?”[/quote] I don’t think we know (or ever will) know why he was fired–the district has made it clear they won’t violate confidentiality rules the way Christian has done.
If this was the reason, then you and I agree that we’d have no problem with the firing. I’m also thinking that his “forthrightness” has confirmed the wisdom of the decision, regardless of the true reason.
However, no one can excuse him for blaming his misfortune on two students, forthrightly or not, when he knew he was bound by confidentiality with respect to students. I can understand an initial, inappropriate reaction to such a traumatic and personal event–even though he had to know it was wrong.
Christian has continued to expose ethical lapses and unwise decisions during this battle that suggest he’s now not really fit to be working as part of our school system. At every stage, he made inappropriate choices that made it unlikely the district would reconsider. [quote]”However, I disagree that the firing of a coach is a private matter since it involves many members of the school community.”[/quote] I think, medwoman, you’re just plain wrong (as a matter of fact and of law) about California school district personnel matters. Please correct me if I not right.
[quote]”I also am bewildered by your notion that Mr. Christian merely saying he kicked them off the team (but actually has never said why) is a terrible offense.”[/quote] And, I’m bewildered by YOUR notion that it’s fine for Mr. Christian (a long-time educator) to publicly and purposely shame his students. I think he actually did say why; didn’t the [u]Enterprise[/u] quote him: “actions detrimental to the team” or somesuch? Do you really think it would be right to do what he did if they were guilty (as the coach publicly stated they were)? And, where do they go to get their good name back if they’re innocent?
P.S.–I’m glad to hear Katie was there to intervene (and you still remember the incident as though it happened yesterday!). What if Yard Duty or Old Fart had reported to the [u]Enterprise[/u] that you had done some “actions detrimental to DHS school grounds”? Within days, the open speculation all over town would have identified Bud can or Olympia bottle as the suspected offenders. Katie would have gotten both of them fired, don’t you agree?
Come to think of it, that’s pretty much what happened with the sisters as I remember the published rumors/questions. The parallels to your own DHS history are fascinating, except that you got to decide when to tell us about your humorous, humiliating experience. They don’t get that chance.
Doesn’t it seem just a little strange and more than stupid that Coach kicked off two star players without talking it over with Katie’s replacement? Or anyone? Unintended consequences here?
DHS Girls Basketball team undefeated since coach fired. Seems as if the coach was an impediment to the teams success Now can you imagine a team anywhere reinstating a coach under such condition. Yes girls win one more for the Gipper.
[quote]”However, I disagree that the firing of a coach is a private matter since it involves many members of the school community.”[/quote]
This is an example of one of the very strange ironies local agencies, including school districts, face. I am currently dealing with a case where an employee was put on administrative leave without loss of pay or benefits. This employee went to a local newspaper and the newspaper made a public records request for her personnel file and all documents pertaining to her administrative leave.
This places my client in the unpleasant position of being forced to deny the public records to protect the employee’s privacy, and thereby risk a lawsuit by the newspaper to enforce the California Public Record Act – even though the employee is making her admin leave a public issue.
Our school board faces a similar situation: the facts surrounding Mr. Christian’s discipline are confidential, and remain that way until he expressly waives his right to keep those details confidential. He, on the other hand, has the right to speak out at public meeting on virtually anything he wants – but by doing so, he only waives those selected facts he discusses, leaving the school district responsible for being silent on those details he himself will not disclose.
It seems strange and unfair, but that is the way it is: Mr. Christian and his supporters can yell and scream all they want about the unfairness of what happened, and our board members cannot defend the action by revealing the details of what really happened. The only solace I can provide is to point out that this exact same thing happens all the time.
“I also am bewildered by your notion that Mr. Christian merely saying he kicked them off the team (but actually has never said why) is a terrible offense.”
Again, the school board never says which student(s) it has approved for expulsion in discipline proceedings. In these times, the correct answer for Mr. Christian was/is “no comment”. If pressed further, he can refer questions to the athletic director or another administrator and let them decide.
[i]”Again, the school board never says which student(s) it has approved for expulsion in discipline proceedings.”[/i]
Expulsion? No one was expelled. Mr. Christian, however, was fired.
I do not know the exact wording of the regulations regarding privacy in district personnel actions, so there certainly is the possibility that I am in error about the legal aspects. Do you, “just saying” or anyone else have access to the exact wording of the regulation regarding privacy ? The comments of Paul Nicolas Boylan would suggest that he has some special knowledge or expertise in this matter. Can you clarify ?
“Expulsion? No one was expelled. Mr. Christian, however, was fired.”
I am using an example of discipline actions in both cases. My expulsion example is one that comes up regularly before the school board. For purposes of agendizing discipline votes at school board meetings, students are given numbers. No names are used. I am unaware of principals these days talking about specific discipline cases in public.
Mr. Christian kicked two students off his team for discipline reasons and talked about it in public.
A coach working for a school district has to understand that it is not like working as a coach in other contexts.
[quote]The comments of Paul Nicolas Boylan would suggest that he has some special knowledge or expertise in this matter. Can you clarify ? [/quote]
Gladly. I am an attorney who, for the last 15 years has been deeply involved in education and labor law. Before that my experience centered on litigation, writs and appeals. Over the years I’ve represented dozens of school districts as both general and special counsel. I currently represent a unified school district and a county office of education as their general legal counsel. That doesn’t make me an expert, and I will not presume or so much as attempt to second guess the advice DJUSD has received, but it does provide me with some insight into these issues.
http://WWW.ED-DATA.ORG
Get the facts and then decide.
Do your own research.
2000:
$6,127 / student (ADA) (equals $7660 2008 CPI adjusted)
2008:
$8,506 / student
After CPI adjustment to 2008 dollars, that’s an increase of >10% more per student!
It’s not about the coach that was fired, it’s about how the district is managed.
EdUser: If you use your 2008 CPI adjusted figure, then it actually calculates to
Sorry, problem with comment function:
EdUser: If you use your 2008 CPI adjusted figure, then it actually calculates to
Okay. I figured out the problem:
EdUser: If you use your 2008 CPI adjusted figure, then it actually calculates to less than 10% per student increase.
What specific point are you making here about how DJUSD is managed specifically that sets it apart from other school districts? Because if you sample equivalent info from most other school districts around the state, you will find an equivalent rise. Revenue from the state to districts rose faster than CPI during those years.
wdf1, I think his point is clear: the revenues of 2008 were not a problem. However, since 2008 they might be, given the cutbacks of the last few years.
As I have noted elsewhere, our funding stream to the schools on a per capita basis would be much steadier if, instead of granting them 39% or 40% of whatever the revenues are*, we should (as a matter of state policy) cap the year to year increase the state spends on K-12 per capita at 3% or 3.2% (whatever is sustainable for the long run). Any money over the cap should be set aside by the state in a “good times” reserve fund. Then when we have a recession, the state could dip into that to bring the year over year funding up to a level which meets the increase in the CPI.
Under that sort of funding management program, we would avoid these bottoming out cycles where school funds (and UC funding, for that matter) have to be slashed and teachers’ jobs have to be put on the chopping block every Spring.
I would have rathered since 2000 that the DJUSD had instead of spending every bit it could capped its labor force increases so that it was really in position to handle a recession. However, on one of these blogs, someone (maybe you?) who seemed to know the state law better than I know it said that would not be legal to hold that kind of a reserve. So if that is the case, then we ought to change state law (in this case Prop 98).
*Plus the large amount of local property taxes and federal revenues and local parcel taxes and private fundraisers)
One more thing: I think the position of the DJUSD unions is ridiculous. Their view seems to be, when the revenues are rolling in fast, as they were from 2003-2008, the teachers and the other employees should get large increases in pay in order to eat up all the newly available money. (I don’t have a problem with that half of the equation.) But then, when the recession comes, their position (at least the DTA position) is we cannot reduce salaries in order to save jobs. We either have to pass new tax increases or lay off 5% or 10% or 15% of the youngest teachers in order to preserve in place the large increases in pay that the senior teachers got during the bubble. That position is ridiculous; and unfortunately it is also the position of the people we have elected to the school board.
Any money over the cap should be set aside by the state in a “good times” reserve fund. Then when we have a recession, the state could dip into that to bring the year over year funding up to a level which meets the increase in the CPI.
I suppose that would be nice in practice, but I can’t imagine it happening at a state level. Either one political faction will want to spend that money on something else or another faction will use it as an excuse to cut taxes. Either tactic creates unstable funding. I happen to think school districts budget more responsibly than does the state.
School districts can and do build reserve funds. DJUSD has had a reasonable reserve fund, but not enough for this economic downturn.
Rifkin: We either have to pass new tax increases or lay off 5% or 10% or 15% of the youngest teachers in order to preserve in place the large increases in pay that the senior teachers got during the bubble. That position is ridiculous; and unfortunately it is also the position of the people we have elected to the school board.
The teachers are taking furlough days this year for a salary cut. In fact, this week is a furlough week.
The district cannot unilaterally reduce teachers’ compensation. It has to go through the collective bargaining process.
Layoffs are the only thing the board can do at this time to stay fiscally
solvent.
Imposing a pay reduction is a long drawn out process that creates a morale issue that will hang on for years.
It is similar in other school districts.
Something that’s circulating around Facebook these days:
[quote]Are you sick of highly paid teachers?
Teachers’ hefty salaries are driving up taxes, and they only work 9 or 10 months a year! It’s time we put things in perspective and pay them for what they do – babysit!
We can get that for less than minimum wage.
That’s right. Let’s give them $3.00 an hour and only the hours they worked; not any of that silly planning time, or any time they spend before or after school. That would be $19.50 a day (7:45 to 3:00 PM with 45 min. off for lunch and plan– that equals 6 1/2 hours).
Each parent should pay $19.50 a day for these teachers to baby-sit their children. Now how many students do they teach in a day…maybe 30? So that’s $19.50 x 30 = $585.00 a day.
However, remember they only work 180 days a year!!! I am not going to pay them for any vacations.
LET’S SEE….
That’s $585 X 180= $105,300 per year. (Hold on! My calculator needs new batteries).
What about those special education teachers and the ones with Master’s degrees? Well, we could pay them minimum wage ($7.75), and just to be fair, round it off to $8.00 an hour. That would be $8 X 6 1/2 hours X 30 children X 180 days = $280,800 per year.
Wait a minute — there’s something wrong here! There sure is!
The average teacher’s salary (nation wide) is $50,000. $50,000/180 days = $277.77/per day/30 students=$9.25/6.5 hours = $1.42 per hour per student–a very inexpensive baby-sitter and they even EDUCATE your kids!) WHAT A DEAL!!!![/quote]
[quote]”Do you, ‘just saying’ or anyone else have access to the exact wording of the regulation regarding privacy?”[/quote] I sure don’t, “medwoman.” I was as sure about my view as you were about yours, but I can’t quote anything from law or policy. I depend on Elaine (who researches law as though it’s fun to do) and Rich (who pretty much knows everything about everything and where to find a citation to prove every utterance) for correction and enlightenment on legal matters. But, Elaine has been AWOL on this report, surprisingly unconcerned about our poor coach getting fired. And, unfortunately, Rich has moved on to esoteric budget matters without clarifying California’s personnel matter confidentiality requirements.
So, let’s appeal to Paul Nicolas Boylan to see which of us is correct. Or, maybe, it’s more complicated than we think.
If you state the question again, I’ll do my best to answer it.
JS: “I depend on Elaine (who researches law as though it’s fun to do)…”
LOL I’m an attorney, and try and always do my homework before deciding on issues…
JS: ” But, Elaine has been AWOL on this report, surprisingly unconcerned about our poor coach getting fired.”
Actually, I made my views known on this subject several times in previous posts in previous articles, and decided it was wiser not to repeat myself…
[quote]”If you state the question again, I’ll do my best to answer it.”[/quote] An important part of this discussion is whether the school district is disrespecting the public by refusing to tell us why the coach was let go and justifying its action for us to judge. The coach and his attorney have no trouble pointing out that the district and its athletic leaders have acted unfairly and contrary to their own procedures.
It’s argued that the public has a right to know the details because the school system is a public body. This district refuses to get involved in the public back and forth and doesn’t give each of the coach’s supporters much time to talk at open meetings.
Another part of our debate centers on whether the coach was correct in answering reporter questions “forthrightly” in talking about why he kicked students of the DHS girls’ basketball team.
So, the question relates to laws, regulations and policies that deal with student privacy and personnel privacy. Without commenting on the DHS situation: [quote]”What requirements are there relating to school employees revealing information about actions taken against students, and what requirements are there relating to school officials and boards about personnel actions taken against employees?”[/quote]
[quote]”Another part of our debate centers on whether the coach was correct in answering reporter questions ‘forthrightly’ in talking about why he kicked students of the DHS girls’ basketball team.”[/quote] Actually, no one is claiming Coach kicked any student. He said he kicked them OFF of the team for conduct detrimental to the team. Sorry.
[quote]An important part of this discussion is whether the school district is disrespecting the public by refusing to tell us why the coach was let go and justifying its action for us to judge. The coach and his attorney have no trouble pointing out that the district and its athletic leaders have acted unfairly and contrary to their own procedures. [/quote]
The School District has an affirmative duty to keep certain information confidential, such as personnel/disciplinary information. The coach and his attorney can talk about whatever they wish. They are the ones with the right to disclose or not disclose that information. And they have disclosed some information. But please note that they haven’t disclosed all of the information the public wants to know – such as the details of why exactly the disciplinary event happened. Until the coach waives his expectation of confidentiality in those details, the School District can’t reveal or discuss those details.
Additionally, the coach has manifested a litigation threat. He has let people believe he might actually sue the District over his termination (which, incidentally, he isn’t going to do). When confronted by that sort of threat, the wisest approach is to refrain from commenting on anything related to the issues in dispute because doing so might lead to liability or even make people witnesses in any possible trial, which is a real pain.
[quote]It’s argued that the public has a right to know the details because the school system is a public body.[/quote]
Nope. Simply untrue. Governmental agencies are entitled by law to keep certain kinds of information completely away from public scrutiny. School Districts’ responsibilities to keep student and employee information confidential supersede the public’s right to know. The California Public Records Act itself recognizes situations where the public’s interests in keeping information secret outweighs the public’s interests in knowing that information.
[quote]Another part of our debate centers on whether the coach was correct in answering reporter questions “forthrightly” in talking about why he kicked students of the DHS girls’ basketball team. [/quote]
Correctness has nothing to do with it. The Coach had the absolute right to do it. To me, the real question is whether it was within the Coach’s interests to do so. It wasn’t.
[quote]So, the question relates to laws, regulations and policies that deal with student privacy and personnel privacy.[/quote]
There are numerous statues and appellate opinions that support what I just said. It would take hours to list them all and describe how they inter-relate. I’m not prepared to do that here purely because I am tired and irritable after the public humiliation I suffered last night – not to mention that someone close to me told me the video replay made me look fat. You are just going to have take it on faith that I know what I am talking about.
But, overall, I am impressed with the discipline the District Board and their employees exercised in the face of the disinformation campaign organized against them. Lesser people would have risen to the bait and shot off their mouths, which would have only made it worse. The best and wisest strategy is what the Board did – i.e., sit back, take the abuse and threats, and move on. This, too, shall pass.
[quote][u]JS[/u]: “It’s argued that the public has a right to know the details because the school system is a public body.”
[u]DNP[/u]: “Nope. Simply untrue.”
* * * * *
[u]Davis Enterprise[/u]: “At the center of Christian’s dismissal was his announcement on Dec. 30 that Blue Devil players Khaliya and Malika Wilkins had been removed from the squad ‘for conduct detrimental to the team’.”
[u]JS[/u]: “Another part of our debate centers on whether the coach was correct in answering reporter questions “forthrightly” in talking about why he kicked students (off) of the DHS girls’ basketball team.”
[u]PNB[/u]: “The Coach had the absolute right to do it.[/quote] I certainly appreciate your forthright replies. Although I agree his actions have been counter-productive for him, I’m overwhelming dismayed that there’s no student privacy right that would prohibit district employees from publicly announcing disciplinary actions they take against THEIR STUDENTS.
Maybe the kids need to start a collective bargaining unit to get some “affirmative duty” privacy rights about their discipline, especially since it’s possible that subsequent school action could overturn the teacher/coach disciplinary acts.[quote]”Until the coach waives his expectation of confidentiality in those details, the School District can’t reveal or discuss those details. Additionally, the coach has manifested a litigation threat.”[/quote] The coach announces that he hasn’t been given the reasons himself, and is joining in the public call for details. It’s difficult.
Thanks again for your trusted info. Finally, everyone now is aware that “the video camera adds 90 pounds,” and we make a subconscious adjustment when viewing television. The person close to you obviously hasn’t watched enough television to have evolved with this nearly-universal. Anyway, you did a nice job dealing with the public grilling.
[quote]PNB: “The Coach had the absolute right to do it.[/quote]
I apologize. I misunderstood the question. I thought you were asking about the coach disclosing facts about himself, not about students. The coach does not have the right to reveal anything for which the student has a reasonable expectation of privacy. If he undoes his discipline, he could be fired solely for doing that.
Sorry I didn’t provide a clear case for you.
My summary: School employees and students’ families are free to say anything (true or not) to anyone about themselves. But school employees and officials are prohibited from disclosing disciplinary and personnel matters for which employees have an expectation of privacy or a specific right to confidentiality. Is that generalization adequate for this kind of issue? I feel so much better; I hope you’re recovering also.
What would an attorney mean by “undoes his discipline”?
That’s more or less accurate – except that there are potential consequences for any employee lies about certain things, even if said during the public comment section of a board meeting. But otherwise, most anything said during a public forum is considered protected speech – which might be part of the Coach’s strategy: if his tactics prompt a negative reaction from the District, he might possibly claim the District is retaliating against him for exercising his free speech rights and then use that litigation threat as a bargaining chip to persuade the District to modify the terms of his termination – which is another reason for the District to keep quite, do nothing, and just let it pass.
“Undoes” is a bad word, and one I think I made p on the fly. What I meant by “undoes his discipline” was “modify the terms of the coach’s termination” – i.e., to “undo” it.