There is nothing worse than attempting to cover a personnel dispute where one side cannot talk and only self-serving pieces of information get out to form, at best, a skewed picture. This is the case in the once again controversy over Davis High Volleyball Coach Julie Crawford.
Like most of these disputes, we will probably never know what really happened, but we know enough, I think, to see critical problems here with the way things were handled. The fact that this is happening again only underscores the apparent failure by the school district and school board to fix things last summer.
The message, however, sent by the school board in closed session yesterday begins to send a strong message. Not only did four board members vote in favor of hearing the appeal, but one board member did not vote – the one who should have gotten out of this far sooner.
“Nancy Peterson was absent because she recused herself from public comment, closed session and voting on this matter,” Gina Daleiden, Board President, told the Vanguard in a statement. That is too little too late, but it finally acknowledges the inherent conflict that has existed from the start.
The other strong message was the last line: “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.”
The message suggests to us that the board sees this as a personal dispute between a school board member and a coach.
Last summer, after much controversy, the board voted 3-1 to reinstate the coach, with Nancy Peterson being the dissenting vote. This followed a long string of events in which Ms. Peterson – a board member with a child on the team – took the lead in singling out the coach.
So then, this past summer, allegedly Ms. Crawford would then cut Nancy Peterson’s daughter from the team.
Here is the crux of the problem, because Nancy Peterson meddled in the coaching situation rather than staying out of it and allowing an administrator and potentially her board colleagues to make an impartial determination, so any action by the coach is going to seem retaliatory. But what if she had legitimate reasons for cutting the board member’s daughter?
It is here where we are teased with a little information, but the Davis Enterprise’s article does a tremendous disservice to Ms. Crawford and the community. They focus a lot of heat, based on a very limited finding from the investigator, and they fail to fully scrutinize the report.
The Enterprise reported yesterday that “Julie Crawford retaliated against her leading critic, school board member Nancy Peterson, by cutting Peterson’s daughter — a varsity player since she was a sophomore — from the girls roster last summer, a school district investigation concluded.”
But, strangely, the investigation was concluded in November but it was not until February 5 that Ms. Crawford was told her service agreement would not be renewed. Parents found out about this the day before tryouts were going to begin. So the timing of this decision does not make a lot of sense.
Next, the Enterprise reports, it “has obtained a letter from Best summarizing attorney Alex Sperry’s investigation and which describes the violation of board policy that may have cost Crawford her coaching job.”
The paper reports, “The investigation was triggered by a Sept. 3 complaint filed by longtime Blue Devil volunteer sports doctor Rob Peterson, Nancy’s husband and Ms. Peterson’s father, after Ms. Peterson was cut from the volleyball team.”
The question was posed, well, who leaked the document to the paper? The Vanguard learned on Thursday that the parent who filed the complaint is the one who leaked to the paper. So now you have the husband of a sitting school board member leaking a private personnel document to the newspaper. Again, unseemly.
But adding further fuel to the fire is the conclusion of the investigator that “more likely than not, Coach Crawford’s decision to cut Ms. Peterson from the varsity volleyball team was influenced, at least in part, by Coach Crawford’s feelings about Nancy Peterson.”
That is not exactly a strong finding. “More likely than not” and the fact that he somehow – and we are not informed as to how or in what way, determined that her decision was “influenced” – a weak term to begin with, watered down further by “at least in part.”
Adding to the drama is the fact that Ms. Crawford believed, up until last week, right before tryouts, that she would be the coach.
The bottom line is this: whether Julie Crawford was in the right or the wrong, the fact that the paper would print a leak that emanated from the girl’s father and the husband of a sitting board member, who herself is right in the middle of the controversy now for a second time, is quite appalling.
The paper did not do the community, Ms. Crawford and even Ms. Peterson any favors by printing any of this. It sheds very little light on the situation; the investigator’s findings were appallingly thin.
In my view it is Ms. Crawford who is the victim here still. Last year an anonymous poster suggested that the senior Ms. Peterson was, in fact, the bully in this.
They wrote, “Ms. Crawford has been treated horribly by the board, by the district, and by Ms. Peterson specifically for quite some time now. This was all due to the fact that everyone took Ms. Peterson at her word and never questioned this situation.”
But it is actually worse than that. By inserting herself into the situation, Ms. Peterson made it impossible for Ms. Crawford to do her job. It might be easy enough to determine if the cut was warranted, but what if Ms. Peterson had become a detriment to her team?
Moreover, it would seem awfully dumb to get your job back and then vindictively cut your adversary’s child from the team. She had to know that any decision she made with regard to a cut would have scrutiny and perhaps the full resources of the district brought to bear on her.
But this illustrates exactly why Nancy Peterson should have stayed out of the involvement with the coach at the beginning of all of this. It puts her in a quasi-conflicted position and makes it harder for the coach to do her job without the appearance of retaliation.
Now Ms. Peterson’s teen daughter ends up having her personal life scrutinized in the local media, Ms. Peterson has obviously tacitly acknowledged the problem by finally recusing herself, and the other four members of the school board clearly now see this for it was it is.
My guess is Ms. Crawford will be reinstated and the school board and district need to put a stop to this nonsense. The district had to re-write its conflict of interest policy when a high level Associate Superintendent used the business office to start up his own business using district personnel to assist him.
The district now must set a similar high bar for school board members’ actions involving personnel that work with their kids. It is the only way these ugly incidents will not repeat themselves.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“In my view it is Ms. Crawford who is the victim here still.”
I agree.
One of the many things about this situation that does not make sense.
Thank you David for a great article with a perspective that sheds light on the real issues here. Ms Crawford is the victim. She would have to be certifiable to retaliate in such a way. She did what was best for the team, knowing that Mrs Peterson would in fact retaliate for her daughter being cut. Sadly our Superintendent fears for his job more than he desires to do whats right. He sent a horrible message to all of DHS coaches by his actions. Now our coaches have to worry that every time a child doesn’t make there team, a parent can complain and they could lose their coaching job. I applaud our AD & Principle for supporting Ms Crawford, to bad their boss doesn’t have the same integrity. I hope that Mrs Peterson will do our community the favor and resign, so that we don’t have to go through with the recall process that is swelling. I would ask all of our community to email the board calling for Ms Crawford’s reinstatement immediately, and Mrs Peterson to resign. This way we can put this awful situation behind us, and know our board will actually have the integrity to do what is right.
In the interest of healing, and moving on, I’d advocate for reinstatement of the coach, and Ms Peterson accepting a formal, public censure from the board. However, if Peterson attempts to vote on the resolution motion, unless she votes affirmatively, I’d lean more towards recall. A public apology is in order, in my opinion.
IMO more than just Ms. Crawford should be investigated for possibly being vindictive.
“it would seem awfully dumb to get your job back and then vindictively cut your adversaries child from the team. She had to know that any decision she made with regards to a cut would have scrutiny and perhaps the full resources of the district brought to bear on her.”
Ain’t that the truth! But, apparently that’s what she did. Letting personal feelings about an adversarial board member inappropriately contribute to her decision is understandable, even if wrong. What’s really dumb and totally beyond understanding is that she didn’t bring along “the full resources of the district” if she had good reason to cut the player.
—
“That is not exactly a strong finding. ‘More likely than not’ and the fact that he somehow – and we are not informed as to how or in what way, determined that her decision was ‘influenced’ – a weak term to begin with watered down further by ‘at least in part..”
Strong enough to lose a responsibility coaching children.
—
I supported Coach Crawford when she found herself inappropriately in the crosshairs a board member. But, this time she tossed herself in.
More likely than not, Nancy Peterson’s decision last year to criticize a coach’s job performance was partly influenced by her children’s experiences as team members. This was as wrong as the coach’s decision was this time around. Board members should let the school administration handle such staff matters.
The board member learned from last year’s experience; the coach did not. Ms. Peterson did not complain about her daughter being cut, did not follow up with administrators even when investigation showed the coach mishandled to situation and, as you noted, recused herself from all board discussions and action.
“….’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.’ The message suggests to us that the board sees this as a personal dispute between a school board member and a coach.”
An intriguing little comment, indeed. A “reasonable resolution” would be to give both the student and the coach another chance to be on the team.
iPad guy, you mention that “Ms. Peterson did not complain about her daughter being cut”
We don’t know that, she could have been complaining during every closed session of every school board meeting and we would have no idea. Obviously her husband filed the complaint about their daughter being cut, we don’t know how much she may have been involved in the initial complaint or any follow-up. We don’t know if she had personal discussions with other board members or the superintendent, principal, athletic director, or anyone else.
What we do know is that Peterson acted extremely inappropriately, along with the rest of the school board, during the summer of 2013 and since then has kept her mouth shut about the matter in public, probably because of the huge backlash she received last year.
I base my conclusion on what has been reported and what has been announced. We don’t know what we don’t know. You can keep agonizing that “we don’t know this and we don’t know that,” but what value is that? No one even has alleged that “what we don’t know” has happened, other than your innuendo.
I agree that “since (the summer of 2013, Ms. Peterson) has kept her mouth shut about the matter in public….” Maybe your speculation about her motivation is correct. In any case, it’s a good thing.
Hmmm… isn’t the student agraduating senior, and isn’t the ladies VB season over?
Hmmm, hpierce, you add an interesting set of considerations. So much for the school board’s wishful concept for the parties to come to a “reasonable resolution.” There’s no way to make the student athlete whole: the deed is done.
It’s up to the board to decide whether the deed was dirty enough (along with other performance matters involved) to support the administration’s decision not to renew the coach’s contract.
Bite the bullet, school board, and wrap this up.
J.B.: 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.
I don’t know enough to decide which of the adults in this situation is the victim, or if any of them actually are victims.
With the information available it does not seem Peterson’s actions last year were appropriate. But neither does cutting a student from the team out of spite, if that is indeed what happened.
If Peterson’s daughter was cut unfairly, as the district report found, then she seems the ultimate victim of the adults in her life behaving badly.
As several have pointed out both in this discussion and the last on the same topic, it is not just Nancy Peterson who has failed to act ethically, but the entire school board.
Based on the timeline, Nancy Peterson had an existing conflict with Julie Crawford prior to becoming a member of the school board. In Spring of 2013 she 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. Obviously Peterson should have recused herself of voting at that time, but none of the other 4 made any comment that she should have done so.
If they would have acted ethically in the first place and not given in to a personal vendetta by the newest board member, this on-going saga would be non-existent.
Their previous actions obviously have tainted the current debate and I agree with David (and disagree with iPad Guy) that the presentation of results in the current investigation are not conclusive. “More likely than not” only suggests suspicion and that should not be enough to terminate the VSA given the fact that the Petersons and the school board have muddied the entire issue. At this point, definitive proof should be required and it’s obvious from the wording that none exists.
By the way, I have no personal attachment to anyone involved in this matter.
Well said Yellow.
I’m not sure the information presented by Yellow is an accurate account of what occurred.
Actually Michelle, I think Yellow’s chronology is probably the closest to what was being said last Summer.
school board never voted not to renew Crawfords VSA.
there was however an existing conflict and that is where this all started
“…’More likely than not’ only suggests suspicion….”
By definition, “more likely than not” takes the matter beyond simply suggesting suspicion. Whether it’s enough to justify not renewing her contract is a matter of opinion, however. That the administration and school board repeatedly have messed this up probably is a common belief.
It’s odd that the board announcement encouraged “the parties to come together to find a reasonable resolution.” It suggests the school board would approve something that provides relief to the coach and the student. Is it possible that such a effort was what held up the final administration decision about renewing her contract?
IPAD Guy, would you like it if you lost your job because an investigation had taken place and the outcome was that “IPAD more likely than not” is guilty?
Asked and answered yesterday. It depends on the rules of employment for the position.
Interesting question… if “more likely than not” a school board member acted against an employee who he/she felt violated their child’s interests, AND “more likely than not” gave confidential information to their spouse who then put it out in the public realm, what should be the outcome? Guess it depends on the “job description”? Perhaps we should adjust the Board members job description.
I urge that the coach be reinstated, the board member issue a public AND private apology, and the board member accept a formal, public censure of the member in question.
Absent that, perhaps two people should lose and/or resign their positions for the benefit of the community, and for the sake of ALL the children affected by this debacle.
Hypothetical question, if under no uncertain terms you knew a coach did cut a player based solely on a dispute with the players parent do you think they should be reinstated.
If I knew in “no uncertain terms” that the coach did what you “hyptothesize” (innuendo?), no, should not be reinstated.
If I knew in”no uncertain terms” that a board member passed along a confidential document to a spouse, who then passed the document, regarding their child to the media, I would want that person at least censured.
Am assuming you feel that the coach was treated appropriately, and that the board member should get a “hall pass”. But that may be innuendo as well.
Not at all. It may be they both behaved badly and they both should be censured.
Ones bad behavior does not exude the others, especially when a potentially innocent student paid the price.
I don’t understand this idea that only one of them can be in the wrong.
We know that the School Board Member behaved inappropriately when she failed to recuse herself in 2013 during the appeal of the Coach’s firing. The School Board Member knew that she had been the source of the complaints against the Coach that resulted in termination and that her actions were a clear conflict of interest.
We have no proof that the Coach did anything wrong, just the supposition of a lawyer hired by the district to look into the situation after the fact (without opportunity for rebuttal from the Coach).
I find it quite telling that we have not heard of anyone who was able to confirm or support the claims against the Coach, other than the School Board Member and her Spouse. There has been no due process for the Coach, just her termination over the objections of her immediate supervisors.
The fault here lies with the School Board Member.
My only concern would be *IF* Nancy’s daughter was cut from the team solely because of Nancy’s behavior. If that was the case then I would say the fault also lies with a the coach.
This time your interesting question is a statement that isn’t accurate. No one has even suggested that the board member “gave confidential information to their spouse who then put it out in the public realm.” Not an interesting question, just innuendo.
All the reporting indicates that the board member stayed out of the current matter, so why do you call for her formal censure, resignation and apologies?
So, how did the spouse get the information that was leaked to the media? Guess I was jumping to a conclusion that appeared logical.
And the board member did, by all accounts, participate in a vote from which they should have recused themselves.
I have no dog in this fight.
Logical, hpierce, but inaccurate.
From The Enterprise:
“(Rob Peterson’s) complaint triggered the investigation, which was completed around Thanksgiving, when the findings were sent to the district.
Sperry’s conclusion — which was detailed in a Dec. 17 letter from Best to Rob Peterson — was that ‘more likely than not, Coach Crawford’s decision to cut Emma Peterson from the varsity volleyball team was influenced, at least in part, by Coach Crawford’s feelings about Nancy Peterson’.
He added that Crawford’s action was in violation of Board Policy 1312.1, which ‘prohibits retaliation against a complainant who brings an oral or written complaint against a district employee’.
The findings went on to say that ‘Crawford did not display core ethical values of trustworthiness, respect and responsibility set forth in the Athletic Handbook for Coaches’.”
David reports that Rob Peterson provided a copy of the letter addressed TO HIM to The Enterprise. Also, a logical assumption, but he has secret sources.
Not sure this is the time to keep secrets. Still unclear why such a letter was sent to the parent. Might be missing something
I don’t understand why Mr. Peterson would get a copy of the report? Isn’t it supposed to be confidential.
He did not get a copy of the report. He was sent a letter that contained the information that was cited in The Enterprise.
Was he told more than he should have been? The district might have to justify its action. It has goofed up on this before.
Ok… I get your clarification of letter, vs the report itself. Perhaps my bad on previous assumptions. Still, is the actual report “out there”, and if sl, by whom?
Wouldn’t you guess that it’s triple locked up with a dozen TOP SECRET stamps…to be pulled out only in the presence of the employee and her attorney and/or to be considered by the school board (minus one conflicted out member)?
I question the judgment of the the Peterson’s if they gave this to the Enterprise.
The Enterprise doesn’t say where they got the letter. David claims a second-hand secret source says Dr. Peterson gave it to the paper, which would be his right.
I don’t think I would have agreed to an Enterprise interview. But, it’s hard to put myself in the shoes of a pained father whose suspicions about unfair treatment of my child have been at partly confirmed by a formal investigation.
Unless I am misunderstanding the situation I do not believe this is what occurred. I was under the impression that Crawford’s VSA was pulled by high school administrators before it went before the school board. I don’t not believe the board ever voted against renewing Crawford’s contract. Does anyone have evidence that suggest otherwise?
Good question, that should be clarified.