by Michelle Millet
We learned this week that Julie Crawford, who has coached both the boys’ and girls’ volleyball teams at Davis High School since 2011, would not be offered the position of head coach of the boys’ team this spring.
As I’ve read public comment in both the Vanguard and the Davis Enterprise, it is clear that there is a lot of confusion about the role the school board played in this controversial decision, as well as in other decisions that have been made over the past year regarding Crawford’s employment status as the coach of both the boys’ and girls’ high school volley ball teams.
The confusion is understandable, given the way coaches in the district are hired.
Coaches positions are not tenured, so while Crawford is a full time PE teacher at the high school, she must reapply for her position as head coach of both the girls’ and boys’ volleyball teams separately each season. The principal and athletic director recommend coaches for school teams, then submit these recommendations to the school board for approval. The school board approves what is called a variable service agreement (VSA) for the length of the season. VSAs typically come up for renewal around 30 days before the start of the season. It appears to be standard procedure for all VSA recommendations to be put on the school board’s consent calendar where they are typically approved as group.
At the heart of the controversy are the actions of School Board Member Nancy Peterson, whose daughter played on Crawford’s team for the last 3 seasons, but who was cut from the team this fall. While it is true that Peterson attempted to block the renewal of Crawford’s VSA to coach the boys’ team last February, and the girls’ team last June, what is not so clear, and what there seems to be a lot of public confusion over, is the role the rest of school board members played in this matter.
Some of this confusion was made clear to me in the following factually incorrect comment made by an anonymous blogger on the Vanguard yesterday.
“In Spring of 2013 she {Nancy Peterson} presented a one-sided complaint to the other 4 board members who took her at her word and they in turn inappropriately decided to not renew Crawford’s contract. Only after there was a public outcry and the other 4 board members decided to listen to a broad range of opinions on the matter, they reversed course but still allowed Peterson to vote on the issue.”
In order to help clear up public misconceptions regarding this situation, and better understand the school boards role in it, I put together the following timeline of events starting from last February.
In February 2013, Crawford’s VSA to coach the boys volleyball team was placed on the consent calendar of the school board agenda. Trustee Nancy Peterson requested that Crawford’s VSA be pulled from the consent calendar so that her contract could be discussed and voted on separately. Ultimately, Crawford’s VSA would be renewed by a 3-2 vote, with Board Members Gina Daleiden and Nancy Peterson casting the dissenting votes.
This action provoked a strong letter to the editor by former DHS football coach Dave Whitmire who wrote, “Some members of the Board of Education in Davis are using their power to micro-manage the athletic program at Davis High. Coaches and other district employees are afraid to say anything in support of a coach for fear of losing their jobs. This is a blatant abuse of power.”
On June 27 2013 a press release was sent out by the district office announcing that Crawford would not be returning as head coach of the girl’s volleyball team that fall. Davis High Athletic Director Dennis Foster reported to the Enterprise that he and Davis Schools Personnel Chief Matt Best made the decision not to submit Crawford’s VSA to the school board for approval. He did not comment on a reason, citing that it was “a confidential personnel matter.”
Crawford, according to an Enterprise article, got a call from Foster the previous Monday informing her that her fall variable services agreement would not be submitted to the school board for renewal.
“At this point I have no idea why I am not being asked back as varsity volleyball coach,” the DHS physical education teacher told the Enterprise. “I was completely unaware that I was not going to be asked back,” she said. “I have had two very successful seasons in a row as head coach and, most recently, was selected as coach of the year.
In addition, Crawford pointed out that she had received positive post-season evaluations from Foster, including one that lauded her for “developing a culture in the girls volleyball program where the young ladies feel connected to one another and their community.”
On July 17 2013, after a two-hour closed discussion, the school board voted, in open session, to reverse the earlier administrative decision made by Dennis Foster and Matt Best, and rehire Crawford as the DHS Girls volleyball coach for the upcoming fall season. Trustees Sheila Allen, Gina Daleiden and Susan Lovenburg voted in favor and Nancy Peterson dissented. Trustee Tim Taylor participated in the discussion via conference call, but was not on the line the when the vote occurred.
In her dissent Peterson cited a passage from the school district’s handbook for coaches regarding “integrity,” and added, “My vote reflects nothing more than my continued pursuit of ideals centered on children. I cannot in good conscience vote to approve Ms. Crawford as a coach for young adults.”
On Feb 11 2014 the Davis Enterprise reported that Crawford was told last Wednesday by Davis High Principal Will Brown, that she would not be coaching boys’ volleyball this season. She claims she was told that, while Will Brown and Dennis Foster signed her VSA “it was pulled at the district level prior to the (Jan. 23) board meeting.”
Davis School Board President Gina Daleiden confirmed that “the board has not been briefed on this matter. We expect to receive information from the superintendent at the Feb. 20th meeting. At this point, this is all coming from the administration.”
Mr. Roberson referred questions from the Vanguard to Matt Best, Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources & Secondary Programs at Davis Joint Unified School District.
“I know that that you both have received many inquiries regarding DSHS Mens’ Volleyball. Please feel free to reference the District’s statement below regarding this matter,” the statement read. “We understand the angst that the players and parents in the Boys’ Volleyball program may feel this week. We value our Boys’ Volleyball team, and expect to have a coach in place to work with the team as it prepares to start the season.”
The statement continued, “We have been asked several times this week ‘what is going on with the coach?’”
“It is DJUSD’s legal and ethical practice to strictly maintain employee privacy and confidentiality in personnel matters,” the statement continued. “As a result we are unable to comment on those matters. As a public entity, we also have various personnel and administrative procedures to follow, even with ‘at-will’ coaching positions. Those procedures are in place to protect all parties and to give people an opportunity to respond.”
They concluded, ”Sometimes adherence to these procedures causes delay and unintended interruptions with respect to the District’s day-to-day workings and hiring timelines. We will continue to do everything in our power to ameliorate those effects.”
On Feb 13 2014 the Enterprise reported that they obtained a letter summarizing a investigative report that was triggered by a complaint filed by Rob Peterson, Nancy Peterson’s husband, on Sept 3, after their daughter was cut from the girls’ volleyball team this fall. Their daughter had played for Crawford for the last 3 seasons and reportedly was the only returning player not to make the team.
The report concluded that ”more likely than not, Coach Crawford’s decision to cut Peterson’s daughter from the varsity volleyball team was influenced, at least in part, by Coach Crawford’s feelings about Nancy Peterson.”
“That retaliation was in violation of board policy, the investigator said, and it may be at the root of the district’s decision not to rehire Crawford as boys volleyball coach for the spring season.”
Also on occurring on Feb 13 2014, after a nearly three-hour closed session meeting, Sheila Allen, Gina Daleiden, Susan Lovenburg, and Tim Taylor voted in favor of hearing an appeal from Julie Crawford. According School Board President Gina Daleiden, “Nancy Peterson was absent because she recused herself from public comment, closed session and voting on this matter.”
Reading from a statement after the meeting, Daleiden also announced “The Board will continue, at public Board meetings, to address the overarching issues under the Athletic Policies and Regulations.”
The statement continued, “The District and Davis High School will continue their efforts to identify and secure an interim coach for Boys Volleyball as soon as possible.”
Daleiden also stated that the board hopes to set a hearing on the appeal on or before the regularly scheduled March 6 school board meeting and, “In the meantime, the Board encourages the parties to come together to find a reasonable resolution that is in the best interest of the students and the School District.”
What this timeline makes clear is that every official decision to not rehire Crawford has always come from the district level. While Nancy Peterson, acting as a school board trustee, twice tried to block the renewal of Crawford’s VSA, the School Board has never voted to fire Julie Crawford or remove her as head coach of either the boys’ or girls’ volleyball teams. In fact, every vote the School Board has made so far on this matter had been in Crawford’s favor.
Hopefully, clarification of the facts regarding this confusing sequence of events will help move the public discourse on this issue in a more productive direction then it is currently taking. I also hope that that the school board and school administrators can work together in finding ways to avoid a similar situation occurring in the future for while it may never be clear to the public who is most at fault here, it’s unfortunate to see our student athletes pay the price for adults in their life, whoever they may be, acting badly.
“What this time line makes clear is that every official decision to not rehire Crawford has always come from the district level.”
About as clear as mud. If the district (administrative officials) were of the mind NOT to retain Crawford, she would not have received laudatory performance appraisals. Nor would these same administrators signed off on the proposed contract for her continued retention as volleyball coach.
And as far as the term, “official decision” is concerned in the above quote, that wording suggests that the Board–as a body–is less accountable for this fiasco. In the process, Peterson is being tossed under the proverbial Davis School District bus. I’ll defend Peterson only from the perspective she does bear further scruitny, but so does the rest of the Board.
True enough, School Board member Peterson made numerous family-interest “official decisions,” pulling the contract from the consent calender, voting against Crawford’s continued employment, and publicly questioning Crawford’s integrity. The Board’s response: At one juncture, the Board voting showed some measure of support for Peterson’s attempts to get rid of Crawford. Then there was a shift in voting results after a public outcry. In a related episode, another Board member conveniently made himself absent following discussion and before a final vote was called. This was hardly the Board’s finest hour.
Did any other Board member ever say during this protracted episode, “Nancy, chill, you’re embarrassing us all.”? Apparently not, and for which every board member must now be publicly accountable. It wasn’t just Nancy at fault here.
There’s only one way to resolve this latest school board soap opera. Ms. Crawford should publish a full waiver of her rights to personnel confidentally, followed by a public plea for the release of ALL written information regarding her performance, including the investigation report (not just the ambiguous findings). Mr. Peterson saw fit to improperly publicize the summation of the Crawford investigation because it appeared to serve his family’s interests. Let’s all see the entire investigation and allow Crawford’s representative to cross-examine the investigator.
No longer having the convenience of “can’t talk about that,” thanks to Crawford’s signed waiver, each Board member can now step forth and speak freely to the media on their individual roles and responsibility in this saga.
Agree with Phil’s comments completely. The Board has a role in this, not the least of which is based on prior episodes of coachs’ difficulties with the hiring/firing process, the Board should have provided direction to the administration on improving the process, etc. Michele, with all due respect, I think you are giving the Board an unwarranted pass on this, especially the Board leadership at the time. The role of the Board is NOT to micromanage, but is to provide oversight, ‘supervise’ ethical handling of policy issues, and if policy needs changing, to be proactive.
J.B.: In addition, this whole situation gives us a window into what kind of Council member Sheila Allen is likely to be. Where is the oversight? Where is the ethical guidance? where is the proactivity?
It takes three votes to make something happen on the school board.
This Thursday there is a school board agenda item on the issue: Link
A good opportunity to make your views known in public comment or by e-mail if it’s an issue that is important to you.
“About as clear as mud. If the district (administrative officials) were of the mind NOT to retain Crawford, she would not have received laudatory performance appraisals. Nor would these same administrators signed off on the proposed contract for her continued retention as volleyball coach.”
Whatever “laudatory performance appraisals” from the athletic director and/or principal might be in the coaches files, it appears that the decision not to offer another contract is based on the specific actions and ethics issues covered by the investigation. The “district level” being described is the superintendent’s office, I think, not the high school level.
I don’t think your idea of full disclosure waiver by the coach will serve a useful purpose. You probably know better, but I’d question whether the government body could accept such a waiver.
Even if an employee waiver could require the district to give up confidential employee records, such disclosure would just provide grist for more arguments. David observed earlier that there likely could be some gray areas involved.
Assessing definitive guilt and innocence of the various players likely is an impossible task even is every piece of documentation is produced and all parties get questioned under oath. And, in the end, what value will there be?
No one involved comes across in a very positive light. We’ve got a family and an employee fighting for their rights, an institution that can’t get its act together with management that can’t come to agreement and an elected body that can’t seem to provide oversight.
Nothing can fix the damage that has been done. The worst thing for everyone involved would be to keep this episode dragging on to assess more blame. The best we can hope is that lessons learned bring changes that keep this kind of mess from happening again.
One Step is to find out who funded this supposedly “independent” investigation. Lawyers for this type of case probably charge $300-500 per hour. Who paid for this “investigation”? And was Coach Crawford and her selection team (the team that selected the volleyball team) interviewed? It sounds like Coach Crawford was trying to be above board, while Nancy Peterson went for the jugular for the third time. If a government body paid for this “investigation”, a Freedom of Information Act” request (FOIA) should provide some information. And WHO provided the lawyer? I know that the lawyer named has done work for the UC Davis Medical System, and I know that Nancy Peterson’s husband is a doctor.
I think Dr Peterson is affiliated with Sutter and North bay hospital, not UCDMC
I totally agree with Phil Coleman’s assessment.
Does anyone know who found and hired the investigator? This might be of some interest. It’s also my understanding that the Peterson child only played for two years with Crawford as coach as she was cut this year.
Great question. Alexander M. Sperry is the lawyer hired (Van Dermyden Maddux Law Corporation, Sacramento). He has done work for the UC Davis Health System, according to his own website. Is it possible that he was referred by Dr. Peterson and his wife?
There is NO QUESTION that Nancy Peterson is driving this train.
Interesting, that’s one of the firm’s UCD uses to quash investigations…
Old Vanguard Article
OMG! Time to roll out the conspiracy theories to discredit an investigation report that we haven’t seen and most likely never will. That’s helpful.
Don’t knock it, I already have a couple of new leads.
Won’t Coach Crawford be privy to the “investigation”?
She’s not talking right now
I can barely wait for new, verifiable facts. Seriously.
I hope you can find something definitive about whether Dr. Peterson violated the law if he shared his letter.
Reviewed your past criticism of the investigators who get called in to quash investigations.
Ironic that your old research actually adds to the credibility of the supposed findings of the complaint investigation of Coach Crawford’s actions.
Rather that clear the school district and its personnel, the Sacramento firm found in favor of the complainant. Nothing swept under the rug here.
I’m searching for answers, so there is no irony. I still think the investigation was pretty watered down in their findings.
Interesting that lawyer Alexander Sperry is not a licensed private investigator. But he works for one.
Why not hire the licensed PI to do the investigation? And does Mr. Sperry have any familiarity with athletics?
My understanding of what I read, was that she played for Crawford for 3 seasons, starting her Freshman year, and was cut this year, I’m assuming this is her senior year.
What I tried to do in this piece is clarify what “officially” the school board was responsible for doing. I realize that many unofficial things could have been happening, but I wanted to make a clear distinction between the two.
Excellent job, Michelle, summarizing the history involved here. It’s helpful to have this in one place, unfiltered by all the hard feelings that understandably pop up.
I wonder about one thing. Your description of the process shows the principal and athletic director submitting their recommendations for coach VSAs to the school board for approval. Doesn’t this leave out a critical step?
I would think that the superintendent would be involved–first, in deciding on the recommendations and, second, in submitting those he approves to the board for final, usually routine, okay.
The superintendent’s role seems to be implied by Coach Crawford’s claim in The Enterprise that Principal Brown told her that his recommendation was “pulled at the district level.”
Winfred Roberson or Matt Best, the assistant Superintendent in charge of HR.
Meaning that the superintendent makes the decisions about whether to accept personnel recommendations from principals, right?
What I’m unclear on is whether Roberson or Best is the one making these calls.
I would think in this instance, Roberson would have wanted to be involved since so tricky. If he didn’t then think he should have.
Agree, SODA. Either way, the superintendent is responsible for the personnel decisions. And, for handling the job in a way that protects students and teachers and minimizes public drama.
” Either way, the superintendent is responsible for the personnel decisions.”
That’s the way it SHOULD be, but it’s not. Otherwise, the Superintendent would hire, manage, and fire athletic coaches with input from his subordinate staff. The Board should never have the authority to be the final say in hiring or firing of anybody except the Superintendent.
Very interesting. Sounds like someone speaking from experience with an organization that operates the right way, say, a city council, for instance.
How much of this could have been avoided if all parties saw the superintendent as the person with the authority and responsibility?
Instead, he sort of makes the decisions and everyone views the school board as the real authority. So, will the board overrule him in this case?
Who is in charge of hiring and firing the Superintendent?
The board. Superintent is analogous to City Manager. Both have to count to three at any given meeting.
So it we go up the chain of command, we have the athletic director, the school principal, the personal director, the superintendent, then the school board?
If I was a real reporter, (needless to say, and what is probably quickly apparent, I am not one), I would have called the district and figured out the exact hiring procedures, I have some questions about the process as well.
This piece was put together quickly based solely on information I was able to get from local media coverage, because I thought it would be useful, like you said to have all the fact in one place. There are many holes that I’m sure could be filled with people more knowledge about how the process works.
I hope at some point that Ms. Crawford can tell her story because so far we’ve only heard leaked info from the other side. In all fairness she should be able to publicly defend herself.
I’m not sure, but I believe Crawford is allowed to tell her story.
If I was her I might choose not to though. There is a lot of mud slinging going on, even if she is clean, she would get mud on her just by entering the public forum.
I hope Crawford receives a fair decision by the school board when they hear here appeal.
I will add, if she has been unjustly targeted I regret that she has been put through any of this, much less be forced to defend her action through an appeal.
Correct. Given a certain board members past behavior, there could be pressure to not only her coach duties, but also her very employment.
Correct. Coach Crawford has the right to tell her story and already has chosen to do it by appealing the superintendent’s decision and by talking with The Enterprise reporter. She decided not to continue when she turned down an interview with The Vanguard.
You worry too much, hpierce. She must have tenure*.
________
*See rabble-rousing article on this topic in today’s Vanguard.
don’t bet on how much tenure counts if someone is ‘fixated’, and to be able to vote for the resources to pursue a termination.
“In her dissent Peterson cited a passage from the school district’s handbook for coaches regarding “integrity,” and added, “My vote reflects nothing more than my continued pursuit of ideals centered on children. I cannot in good conscience vote to approve Ms. Crawford as a coach for young adult.”
So if this how Nancy Peterson feels why did she let her daughter try out for the next year’s team?
It sounds like she likes the drama. And maybe she wanted another bite at the apple.
There may also be the possibility of a lawsuit here, which may include causes of action including intentional interference with prospective economic relations (her job as volleyball coach), and defamation.
On top of that, I think the school district, human resources, or such, should find out who leaked this confidential “investigative” memo to The Enterprise. Unnamed sources have claimed that Dr. Peterson leaked it to the media; if so, where did he get it from? Did he pay for the lawyer?
I know if I was Ms. Crawford I’d be talking to a lawyer right now.
How does she land a new job as a volleyball coach with these comments about her “integrity” as a coach?
and her son
Yes Leigh, if you really felt that way about a coach would you let your children play for that coach? I wouldn’t.
nope. I just think that it is left out that BOTH of the peterson children play or have played volleyball at DHS.
Leigh I basically was trying to compile a timeline of facts that I gathered from the Enterprise and Vanguard. I didn’t want to put anything in that I wasn’t able to confirm, so my guess it that many other details are missing.
your guess is correct with regard to missing details.
Again I’m sure there are a lot of missing details. My intention was to compile factual information that has been publicly reported on in multiple pieces into one piece.
I hope that the holes in this piece can be filled by those who know more details and are willing to share them.
I’m not sure how many of the VG readers have for profit, non-profit, or governmental board experience, but if the account and timeline in the article are correct, flawed governance underlies the entire scandal. The very first step in February 2013 is a major foul.
How the heck can Peterson vote on the consent calendar item, let alone PULL THE ITEM? Peterson should not even be in the room. And how can the rest of the Board members, individually and collectively, sit idly by as she was doing it? All of the Board members should have been calling a point of order. Were none of the Board members aware that Peterson’s child played or had played on the team? From there, the Board and Peterson repeated the foul over and over again.
Imagine this were happening on the City Council where a CC member was repeatedly pulling consent items and voting on them wherein he/she had a vested interest? I’m quite sure the VG would be going ballistic.
PS: If the account and timeline are inaccurate, I pull my comment.
-Michael Bisch
The actions of the Board Member in February 2013 was a clear (moral) conflict of interest and a blatant abuse of power. It was incumbent upon the rest of the Board, particularly the Board President, to stop the abuse and prevent it from reoccurring. They did not do so.
Where was the appropriate standard of governance from this Board?
The fact that this has been allowed to continue for more than a year, with no sign that any Member of the Board recognizes their complicity, suggests that none of these Board Members understands their responsibility to the community. Now that one of them wants to be on the City Council, we need to ask if this is the standard of governance we want for the City?
“It was incumbent upon the rest of the Board, particularly the Board President, to stop the abuse and prevent it from reoccurring. They did not do so.”
Actually, it is not reoccurring. The board member is not a participant this time around. Not that any of them should be given a lot of credit for adapting in the face of overwhelming public pressure.
Peterson was allowed to vote 2 times on the status of Crawford’s employment as coach.
I share your sentiment, and I am little baffled about how this event in particular played out, and troubled by it. IMO if a board member has a complaint against a coach that their child plays for they should follow the same procedure as any other parent would follow. Once the complaint was filed she should have recused herself anytime a decision on Crawford’s employment as a coach was being made. Not sure why this didn’t happen and why no one else on the school board objected when it didn’t.
I should also point out that the inclusion of the statement prefaced by ”more likely than not” is very troubling. It’s conjecture, which means it might be true or it might not be. Had there been evidence to support the claim, there would be no need to preface the comment with ”more likely than not”. Can you imagine a governing body making decision after decision based on consultant reports starting with ”more likely than not”? I.e. “We don’t have any evidence to support policy or project, but it kind of feels right.”
One can only hope that there is some solid underlying evidence in the report upon which the district and the board is acting upon.
-Michael Bisch
I’m told this is legal mumbo jumbo, or a bar, used in civil litigation.
Having competed and coached at a competitive level for decades, having a parent at odds with a coach is a nightmare for the coach, the players, the other parents, team supporters and anyone else involved. I can’t even imagine what it would be like to have a parent at odds with the coach who is also higher up the chain of command.
For all I know, the parent in this instance has a legitimate complaint, but then it’s incumbent upon her to set priorities. Which is more important? Being a board member or being a parent of an athlete? You cannot act on both as the roles are clearly in conflict. It is incumbent upon the parent/board member to make a choice. And splitting duties with a spouse doesn’t fly either.
-Michael Bisch
“It is incumbent upon the parent/board member to make a choice.”
Agree and as we both have said above, if the parent won’t the Board certainly should. Yes, any of us who have been on boards have been shown that perceived conflicts of interest are real and must be dealt with. With most boards this does not come up often, but with a school board, as David has pointed out in the tenure article, if the board member has a relative who is a student or a teacher, this can come up frequently. Disappointed in Board and District.
Just to be clear, “conflict of interest” can mean multiple things… under CA law, the only “conflict” that is sanctioned is a FINANCIAL conflict of interest… that being said, outside the law, there are moral/ethical conflicts that electeds should avoid for THOSE situations,.