3-1 Vote Would Allow Julie Crawford to Reapply For the Fall – After four and a half hours of closed session in which the Davis Joint Unified School Board heard the appeal from former Davis High Volleyball Coach Julie Crawford and then deliberated, the board emerged to announce they had reached a 3-1 vote to uphold the administrative findings and deny Ms. Crawford’s appeal.
“The board took action on a 3-1 vote in closed session to sustain the administration’s conclusion and direct that Julie Crawford be permitted to apply for any future coaching positions,” Board President Gina Daleiden announced, where Sheila Allen, Susan Lovenburg, and Tim Taylor supported the majority position and Ms. Daleiden was the lone vote in dissent.
Under new district policy, new coaches will apply as soon as the season ends in order to avoid last second appointments. Ms. Crawford would be allowed to apply for the girls’ volleyball coaching position for the fall.
Each of the board members then were granted time to speak to their decision.
Board Member Susan Lovenburg declined to do so, stating that the board’s decision stands for itself: “I think we’ve done the right thing. I’m certain that it’s not going to make everybody happy. But I think we really carefully weighed the factors we were dealing with and made the best decision that we could in the best interest of the community.”
Board Member Sheila Allen then read from about a page and a half of prepared comments.
“Perspective, this is something I hope the district and the community can gain at the closure of the complaint,” she read. “May we take a collective deep breath and take away lessons from this decision.”
She expressed regret for the students, stating, “I’m so very sorry that the district administration and by extension the school board did not have a coach in place – be it temporary or permanent – at each of the last three volleyball seasons so that you could begin your season on time.”
After talking about potential changes to how coaches are hired, she turned to the community, “I’m very concerned about the social media postings that occurred surrounding this issue. I am very supportive of an open dialogue and absolutely support public input and dialogue.”
“But,” she continued. “I’m very concerned about the tone and accusations that have occurred behind the façade of anonymous comments. Let us be the models for our children of civil dialogue and working together to solve our community problems.”
“I hear loud and clear your desires for transparency,” Sheila Allen stated. “It is very hard to say I can’t comment because it’s a personnel issue. I do not make personnel laws… but I’m bound by it. So please understand that your elected officials are doing the very best they can with the information that they have and hopefully that information contains all sides of any issue.”
Board Member Tim Taylor said that he did not have any prepared remarks. He said, “There has been a lot of bleeding in this community over this issue. It’s time for the bleeding to stop. I’m hopeful that will happen and we will move forward in a positive way. It’s not going to be easy for us which is why we had a conversation for several hours on this. It’s not going to be easy for you if you don’t like the decision that has been made.”
“We can’t always find the easy road and even if we could, it’s not always the right road to take,” he added.
Mr. Taylor explained that before the closed session board discussion, they had a formal appeal hearing. This was the first time, he said, that he and the board had a chance to listen and ask questions of Ms. Crawford.
“I was given great comfort by that opportunity,” he said. “What I saw and heard has definitely affected my actions here this evening and my thoughts about this entire process.”
“Our decision here this evening, will allow that pursuit of hers – which she spoke to eloquently earlier – to continue,” Tim Taylor stated. “There were some mistakes made. What we now need to do is learn from those, not repeat those, and move forward.”
Board President Gina Daleiden shared some of her own thoughts. She said that while they may split on votes at times, the people who serve on the board with her really do have the best interest of the district at heart.
“I do believe that our district’s response to complaints and the way that we handle the procedure and the investigations needs to be in proportion,” Gina Daleiden stated. “I do believe in this instance the district went Code 3 on something that maybe didn’t warrant that.”
“I do not find in reading the investigation that is a preponderance of evidence to support the findings and the conclusions,” she said. She added that they “ended up jumping right into the deep end of the pool” and she would have preferred to have seen this resolved “at a much lower level, a whole lot earlier.”
She said that they need to take a hard look at their complaint procedures and look into alternative conflict resolution. “Even if we have a very difficult conflict that has gone on for a while, I think it could be much better than all of the time, energy, money, attorneys that we have put into this process,” she said.
She said that there are times when a complaint calls for an investigation, “but the extent to which that happens and the manner in which that happens is something we need to take a look at.”
Following the brief discussion on a new conflict of interest policy, it was clarified that Ms. Crawford can reapply for the fall term as girls’ volleyball coach. Where this leaves the district and this conflict remains to be seen.
Watch the video of the decision and board comments below:
—David M. Greenwald reporting
David, did you bring the donuts? I’ve got the coffee ready and also have some egg on my face. LOL
So the board upholds a complaint that a coach retaliated against a student because of a parent and she’s allowed to apply for another coaching position next September? Really?
From what I understand a very shall we say “loose” definition of retaliation.
An adult equivalent of a”time out”. No one was sent to Elba or Coventry. Think it’s time to move forward, but also learn from what happened, and resolve not to repeat some “stupids” that occured.
Sounds like a wrist slap to me, if Tim Taylor’s remark about “that pursuit of hers” means that Crawford expressed an intent to continue as volleyball coach in the fall.
All the coach can “intend” is to APPLY for a future coaching gig. It will be up to Admin to select the appropriate person. As it should be.
But where will she be coaching? I once saw a teacher quit over a sleight from a principal in a faculty meeting. After this public scapegoating that weighed as Lovenburg said “Factors” instead of facts it would be surprising if Crawford didn’t consider her options. If she leaves it will be our loss.
Taylor it seemed, realized mid sentence, that he was praising Crawford too much for her passion for her work and being exactly what you want in a role model for young people. He backtracked to “There were some mistakes made.” Perhaps it was a freudian slip as he reflected on the action he had just taken.
Sheila sounded like Rob Peterson whining about social media. Welcome to the 21st century Sheila.
Only Gina got it right calling B.S. with the findings.
Saddest of all is the Petersons will now claim vindication. Prepare to hold your nose.
” So the board upholds a complaint that a coach retaliated against a student because of a parent and she’s allowed to apply for another coaching position next September? Really?”
From my point of view, yes, really.
What is it that we really want from members of our community who have made a mistake ? Do we want to brand them as evil and never allow them to fully recover as contributing members of our community fully utilizing their training and experience ? Or perhaps it might be better for them and our community as a whole if we gave them a second chance ? If Ms. Crawford actions were influenced even slightly by her desire for retaliation against Nancy Peterson, do we honestly think that after this experience, she would be likely to do so again ? What other coach is as likely as Ms. Crawford to avoid any appearance of impropriety in the future ?
It would seem that this branding as evil is what the commenting community chose to do with the Peterson’s.
I largely agree with Sheila Allen when she cites a lack of civility in the anonymous commenting. As a member of the Vanguard Editorial Board, I have heard from a number of people who read the Vanguard, but never post because of the perceived viciousness of some who choose to post anonymously. While I defend the right of all posters to comment in the manner that they see fit within the well established guidelines as currently monitored by Don Shor, I feel that a much richer conversation could be had if all members of the commenting community felt comfortable with the tone of comments on this site. Imagine the conversations that might ensue if all members of the community with their wealth of education, training and experience felt comfortable posting here.
My goal for the Vanguard would be to provide not only timely news as David and his contributors are already doing, but also a platform where all members of the community would feel that their ideas are welcome as part of a full consideration of perspectives within our community and that they will not be personally attacked for those views.
your comment makes me wonder.
“As a member of the Vanguard Editorial Board, I have heard from a number of people who read the Vanguard, but never post because of the perceived viscousness of some who choose to post anonymously.”
i just wonder how accurate that really is. i haven’t seen anything particularly viscious on here with regards to this controversy. i have not seen a clear difference between the viciousness of anonymous posters as opposed to people like rich rifkin who have attacked david greenwald and michelle millet because he disagreed with them. his comments were far worse than anything posted anonymously.
i laugh when i hear people complain about anonymous posts on social media – they clearly don’t know what social media is because social media is not anonymous.
i just think people do not like to get challenged and criticized by anyone and therefore concoct excuses.
DP, I agree with most of what you stated. But I have to disagree with “people like rich rifkin who have attacked david greenwald and michelle millet because he disagreed with them”.
I and others on here saw the Michelle Millet/Rich Rifkin exchange quite differently than you’ve portrayed it.
regardless of the specifics, his response was unnecessarily hostile and it was done under his own name.
If I remember right didn’t Rich Rifkin feel like he was defamed?
DP
I do not disagree with your points. I am conveying what I have heard about individuals self reported reasons for not posting or choosing to write articles for the Vanguard. I clearly do not share their specific concerns since I am choosing to post under my own name.
I do think that it is worth keeping in mind that civility is more important to some than to others. I find that the most useful conversations are those that focus on ideas and not our assumptions about those who convey those ideas. As a long time reader and poster on the Vanguard, I am sure that you are aware that there have been episodes of name calling and belittling with regard to many controversial issues. These may not bother you, but there may be others who do not choose to engage because of the perception of personal attack. I feel that the loss of their perspective in a high price to pay for someone’s anonymous ( or not) rant.
understand your point, but i take exception to the notion that a bunch of anonymous posters are posting a huge amount of scurrilous attacks on here. that might have been true a few years ago, rarely now.
DP
I agree that the number of attack posts has dropped considerably.
However, some may have long and unfavorable memories, and for others, a drop in numbers may not be enough to make them feel comfortable contributing be it because of dislike of personal attack or from concern about adverse effects on their business if they are outed ( as one poster either inadvertently or deliberately tried to do to me during the fluoride controversy obviously unaware that I had already “outed” myself)) or because of fear of retaliation as “Mustang” points out further down this thread. What you and I may see as a decrease in egregious hostility, others may still see as too risky to weigh in.
Tia wrote:
> I wand the Vanguard to be a platform where all members of the
> community would feel that their ideas are welcome as part of a full
> consideration of perspectives within our community and that they
> will not be personally attacked for those views.
> I am conveying what I have heard about individuals self reported reasons
> for not posting or choosing to write articles for the Vanguard.
You can tell them that they post under a different name (I hear “medwoman” is available) and people will be able to attack their “views” not them “personally”.
If we had an anonymous poster to the Vanguard called “Volleyball Mom” who wanted to get a coach that let boys talk to her players fired many (maybe all) Vanguard posters would point out to her that she was overreacting.
Just think if this happened a couple years ago the anonymous poster could have received honest feedback from all the Vanguard posters (not just the people around her that did not want to make her mad by telling her she was overreacting) and might still be on the school board…
Civility is over rated. Its always the most offensive speech that needs protection. Still there has been little nasty speech throughout with exceptional care taken by everyone to shield kids from abuse. Its not the tone of the debate that has offended Rob Peterson and Sheila Allen. No its the public airing of their dirty laundry they find so distasteful.
“people like rich rifkin who have attacked david greenwald and michelle millet because he disagreed with them”
You mean to say where Michelle Millet falsely claimed that I intentionally was misleading and not being truthful? That was my attack on her? Really?
I asked her over and over to give an instance of where I was misleading or was not being truthful. She never gave one. And you say this demonstrates what?
How about your attack yesterday on prevailing wage laws without ever calling them prevailing wage laws.
Oh by the way if there was ever an example of why we need tenure for teachers this case is the poster child.
My attack yesterday on prevailing wage laws without ever calling them prevailing wage laws? I am bewildered by your statement.
“if there was ever an example of why we need tenure for teachers this case is the poster child.”
Why is that?
I don’t think there is a case to be made for teacher tenure at any level of education, including colleges. However, I do think that if a teacher is fired, a good and solid case needs to be made against him, showing either that his performance in the classroom is terribly inadequate (and thus his retention would be injurious to his students) or that his personal conduct makes him unfit–for example, he demeaned a student with racial slurs or he made sexual advances on a minor or he came to class inebriated.
I think the person who needs to make the case against a teacher is the principal, who also should be responsible to investigate claims of misconduct or terrible teaching. Ideally, the case would be heard very quickly, and if it is found that his performance or conduct warranted him being fired, he should be fired, regardless of how long he was in his position. (Note: In most cases of inadequate teaching, it would probably be best to make a review at the end of a term, not mid way through. And in some cases where the teacher is found to be bad, it is more reasonable to help that teacher learn to do his job better than to fire him.)
http://www.davisenterprise.com/forum/opinion-columns/teachers-too-want-to-be-absent-of-fear/
Re-read your comment at 5:40
Toad, I thought you were mentioning something I wrote on the Vanguard. My bad. But more importantly, I think your chastisement is misplaced. Here are my words:
“However, the other unions, like the CSEA, have had their hand in writing our Ed Code. Here is one small example of how corrupt that document is: The Ed Code outlaws a local school district (such as the DJUSD) from outsourcing any services (such as landscaping or janitorial) if the outsourcing results in saving money!!! … it makes it impossible to replace overpaid janitors and lawn mowers and tree trimmers.”
NOTE: What the Ed Code really says is that services cannot be outsourced if the contracted workers make less in wages or benefits.
If the prevailing wage law, which applies to all government agencies, prohibited outsourcing of government services, that would not need to be in the Ed Code, right? It was written by the CSEA for the union’s benefit.
I learned that the Ed Code restrains school districts from outsourcing services the way a city or a county can after Steve Pinkerton fired two DCEA workers. They were tree trimmers and he outsourced their jobs with people whose total compensation (but not wages) is much lower. That saved Davis a great amount of money and it has resulted in better service.
I asked Bruce Colby (the business manager for the DJUSD) why the school district did not do the same thing to save money, and put that money in classrooms? He told me that the District is prohibited from doing so by the Ed Code. The language in question is found here: 45103.1. (a) (2)