It was expected to be a routine meeting of the school board. So much so that the Enterprise reporter was a bit surprised to see me there and told me there would likely be no fireworks. That was literally two seconds before in walked Nancy Peterson.
The truth was that I was there to deliver the message that the community could not “move on” until the district had publicly addressed a large number of issues that arose during this controversy.
But the second Nancy Peterson showed up, the order of the day would change. This was her first public appearance since resigning two weeks ago. She would not disappoint. She delivered what might have been a fire and brimstone sermon in a different venue, many times literally barely restraining herself from screaming at the board.
In our view, it seems that she is setting things up for a lawsuit – whether she has actionable issues at this point is difficult to assess.
A few weeks ago following Ms. Peterson’s ill-conceived op-ed to the Enterprise, we suggested that she was not helping her case and therefore needed to stop talking. A few days later she would resign, but the way in which this matter unfolded makes it quite clear that, had they simply shut their mouths after they filed the complaint against Ms. Crawford and allowed the district to handle things, Nancy Peterson would still be a school board member.
Her resignation may have freed her up to be more outspoken here, but to what purpose? It is clear she is not seen to be objective about the facts on the ground or honest about the findings of the report.
She started by reading from district policy regarding retaliation, that that those engaging in “retaliation shall be subject to disciplinary action up to and including dismissal.”
Indeed, she seems to almost miss that the discipline action is “up to,” not necessarily “including,” dismissal.
She went on to argue that the Superintendent and Board “have been issuing statements lately that speak to harming a student in order to retaliate against the parent as a simple mistake.” She sarcastically stated, “Let’s just forget it happened and move on.”
She made the same error as she did in her initial essay, focusing on the part of the investigator’s report summarized by Matt Best which stated “coach Crawford’s decision to cut (the Petersons’ daughter) from the girls volleyball program was influenced, in part, by her personal feelings about Nancy Peterson.” But she forgets the second, “At the same time [the investigator] does not find that coach Crawford acted with “willful mal-intent” to harm [the Petersons’ daughter].”
Whether you want to categorize that as a simple mistake, it certainly mitigates the nature of the offense.
Nancy Peterson angrily added, “To summarize, just last week the board of education voted to uphold findings of the administration regarding a parent complaint about an employee and within four days the same administration is putting the same employee forward to coach the very team in which the findings occurred. Four days!”
She then quipped, “Is this an example of restorative justice?”
No, it is not. For one thing, as we know Nancy Peterson refused to accept the district’s offer to mediate the complaint. A restorative justice approach would have sat down each of the parties in this case and assessed the harm and damage and then worked on remedies to restore those involved.
It is a powerful process but it takes two to participate and Ms. Peterson steadfastly refused.
Misunderstanding what a restorative justice process would entail, Ms. Peterson nevertheless continued borrowing from that language, “If so, some might be wondering about the student and what Mr. Roberson has done to heal the harm done to the student involved. Nothing, is my answer.”
This is an interesting answer which is not the full story. As we noted yesterday in a comment, Ms. Peterson’s daughter was actually given a tremendous opportunity in the aftermath of getting cut.
The Vanguard has learned and confirmed that, following the daughter being cut, she was given the opportunity to be a student-coach at Harper Jr. High. She was not to be paid for this position. The district utilizes a lot of recent graduates as coaches, but at the time she was one of two who were given that opportunity this year while still in school.
I was told that this was done – the decision – at the site level, not the district level. It is not that I believe that the opportunity exonerates any mistreatment of Ms. Peterson, but it does remunerate some of the harm and it belies Nancy Peterson’s claim that nothing was done to rectify the harm to her daughter.
“Here we all are seven months after the complaint was filed and he has never even spoken to the student. Neither has any other administrator, principal, or athletic director or trustee,” Nancy Peterson continued yesterday. “In fact, the coach never even bothered to speak to her player of three years.”
Given the situation as it developed, it is not surprising that Coach Crawford might have been reluctant to speak to Nancy Peterson’s daughter. Given the ongoing investigation and the need for the district to conduct an independent investigation, it is probably not surprising that administration officials would also want to allow the process to play out.
Ms. Peterson continued: “So President Daleiden, since your biggest issue seems to be why this wasn’t handled before sending a code-3 in motion, here is my answer: that would have required someone from the district or even DHS to speak to the student and that I can assure you, never happened.”
One of the things we do not know in this is what happened between the point that Ms. Peterson was cut from the team and when the family filed the complaint. Certainly, once a complaint was filed and the district launched its $22,000 independent investigation, the opportunity was lost for alternative solutions.
This might have been a good time to go into a mediation, with a restorative justice approach.
Ms. Peterson accused Superintendent Roberson of “appeasing” Ms. Crawford. That’s an interesting take. One of the developments yesterday was the resignation of athletic director Dennis Foster and one of the things we have learned is that Mr. Foster backed Julie Crawford originally, only to be overridden by Matt Best and Winfred Roberson.
Ms. Peterson feels her daughter was never protected, but I think this goes back to one of our initial analyses at the time, which was that Nancy Peterson put her own daughter in harm’s way.
Last July, as we have noted, Nancy Peterson would be the lone dissenting vote in a 3-1 vote, with Tim Taylor not on the phone line when the vote occurred. She then threw fuel on the fire when she stated, “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.”
In our view, Nancy Peterson probably violated personnel laws and created a hostile work environment for Julie Crawford. She then compounded that decision by sending her daughter back to the team to play for the coach, the coach she had a few weeks earlier stated she could not “in good conscience vote to approve Ms. Crawford as a coach for young adults.”
Nancy Peterson was attempting to wear two hats – mom and school board member. The moment she decided to vote against returning the coach and make the strongly-worded statement, she should have been making the decision that she needed to be a school board member first. That meant not putting everyone in a tough spot by putting her daughter back on the team. She should have sent her daughter to a club team in Sacramento for her senior year. By trying to be both a school board member and a mom at the same time, she created a huge conflict of interest and, in both cases, put personal needs over the good of the school district.
More importantly, she did just as she accused the district of doing – she failed to protect her daughter.
Nancy Peterson then digresses into a strange attack on the DTA.
She cited the firing of Coach Jeff Christian from a few years ago and argued, “He removed two players from his team and was fired for that. The technicality cited was failure to notify the players before announcing it. I wonder if he knew that technicality or was it a simple oversight through no fault of his own?”
“Perhaps the real difference is that Coach Christian wasn’t a teacher and therefore the DTA wasn’t backing him with all their political power and the board didn’t have to worry about the impact of alienating them,” she stated. “Students and the school community should be the priorities and not the political prowess of a union out to preserve members regardless of their activities.”
It is a strange comment, given the recent history between the district and the DTA, where the district had opposed the DTA on several key issues including the need for DTA to take concessions and contract status.
The same school board and district had no problem bucking the DTA back then.
This simply illustrates that Nancy Peterson is attempting to throw everyone under the bus – Gina Daleiden, Winfred Roberson, the DTA, and she referenced the DHS Principal and Athletic Director by title, but not name.
I still have yet to hear a single acknowledgement of what Nancy Peterson did wrong. I won’t hold my breath.
A few weeks ago I was told that supporters of Nancy Peterson during her 2012 election warned her that, once she was elected, she should stay away from volleyball. Alas, she could not. She was barely in office for two months when she instigated this incident by pulling the VSA.
This would become her undoing. In essence she became Captain Ahab and she was destroyed by her obsession with revenge.
“He piled upon the whale’s white hump the sum of all the general rage and hate felt by his whole race from Adam down; and then, as if his chest had been a mortar, he burst his hot heart’s shell upon it.”
Ultimately, Captain Ahab was killed by his own harpoon, a victim of his own twisted obsession and desire for revenge. He would not be alone in this tragedy, for his whole crew is eventually destroyed by the whale and the Pequod is sunk.
Nancy Peterson has failed to learn the lessons from Moby Dick and what will be interesting to see is what collateral damage she ends up doing to herself, her family, her former colleagues on the school board, and the school district.
Watch the video of Nancy Peterson’s public comment:
—David M. Greenwald reporting
When Peterson ran for school board, she seemed to run on a platform of improving accessibility for all students, which appealed to me. The Vanguard ran a piece on this at the time, mostly about accessibility to Title I students. Greenwald ran another article on this a few days ago.
What was missing from that essay is that she would have had a very good case to use this platform to increase opportunities and accessibility in the district athletic program by modifying policy objectives. As it is, the current outgoing Athletic Director has appropriately noted that about 300 more students are participating in school athletics since he started, but I think there is still room for improvement. Likely it would not have helped her child in the short term, but could have benefited many others in the long term. But we’re not focused on those policy discussions now. Instead we’re focused on a specific case and specific personalities.
wdf1: but I think there is still room for improvement
Specifically, the focus of school athletics is about providing a pathway for students to a top selective competitive varsity team. There is no opportunity for upper class students (juniors and seniors) to participate at a more recreational level against teams from other schools. On the other hand, the high school has a range of audition and non-audition music groups that serve all levels of students. In some cases, a student gains a more satisfying experience by being a leader in the non-audition group than in sitting in the back of the section of the audition group. I have noted before that Jesuit HS seems to have multiple varsity teams for rugby, seemingly the top select team and then other secondary varsity teams that juniors and seniors can play on.
Wdf1..with all do respect. I am pretty sure rugby is not as CIF sanctioned sport. Meaning it is considered a club sport/intramural sport. This would enable juniors and seniors to play on any of the teams being offered by any given school. No bylaws so to speak.
I couldn’t confirm but it states that a Jesuit Rugby player needs to pay $35.00 dollars to USA Rugby, plus multiple other costs. Including very strict uniform standards that must be bought through the team. I do not believe a CIF sanctioned sport requires this. I could be wrong, but sounds like a club sport. Which enables juniors and seniors to play at a recreational level, if they choose to.
It is but one example. Somehow school districts across the state that are committed to a robust music program find ways for students of all grade levels and abilities to participate meaningfully in audition or non-audition groups. Why can’t this discussion about athletics?
The main response I have seen so far is that a student who doesn’t get chosen for the varsity team should learn a life lesson and “move on” (a phrase that has acquired offensive baggage in this discussion). Okay. The student didn’t “pass the audition”, but what else is available then? We don’t kick a trumpet player out of the music program at any point because he/she didn’t make it into the jazz or symphonic band. Instead there are opportunities to participate in the non-audition concert band or the pep band. Students mature at different rates, students have variable stresses in their lives at different times. Sometimes a student’s course load is really too much to accommodate participation in an audition music group. This doesn’t have to be a conversation about excellence in all things or nothing else. It is worthwhile for a student to maintain a lifelong interest in arts and sports as part of being a well-rounded person. Many adults engage in playing with community bands or orchestras as well as city recreational sports leagues and activities. There is something significantly missing when a dedicated senior athlete’s only choice is the school varsity team or nothing else.
I’m interested in ways to see the athletics program expand so that Crawford can have her varsity team and maintain her high standards, but there is something in there for a second tier of students (seniors not selected for varsity, maybe juniors on the cusp).
Well said wdf. Very well said.
I must say that I was very surprised to hear the DJUSD prohibits both seniors and juniors from playing on the JV team. Seems exclusionary to me.
Wdf1. I respect your post and agree in the music/band ideaology of offering non-audtion spots to further the interests in what they want to pursue. I personally do not know much about that.
I know the sports world. That to me, is simply unrealistic in the public school realm. Yes, private schools may be able to provide those luxuries in band/choir/athletics/drama/debate/ etc..
If you are TRYING out for any inter-scholastic sport, you run the risk of not making the team. Unless, you are at a school like Davis Waldorf who do not make cuts or at the Jr. High schools in town who don’t cut. You end up with 25 kids on a basketball team, which in itself must be hard to run a practice. I could have missed more examples and I apologize. But the simple fact is, that is a risk you take trying to make the team.
It really stinks not to make the cut when you were part of the team before and I get it. In my experience of playing sports and coaching, if a player is not quite good enough but shows heart, determination to be a team player, and knows his/her role, and be a positove influence I might keep them. Not sure there is a perfect answer to this dilema.
DJUSD is blessed with having a higher than average concentration of involved students — students involved in sports, in the arts, in clubs, etc. I think a downside to this blessing is that it has created some tension in athletics. Right now there can only be one varsity basketball team, one varsity girls VB team, etc. You’re right that it simply doesn’t make sense to run a varsity basketball team with 25 players. Why not be able to split that and have two teams? Maybe a top varsity team and then a secondary varsity team?
The answer I’m hearing is that CIF doesn’t allow it. Can’t this issue be raised with CIF? DJUSD can’t be the only school district with this problem. And I’m sure it would give CIF a sense of purpose and accomplishment to be able to expand the number of students who meaningfully participate in inter-scholastic sports. It would give DJUSD an opportunity to field more students and give more students a sense of belonging and organizational/community commitment and responsibility, which is supposed to be a hallmark of high school sports. I think this would allow a number of athletics programs to operate under less pressure than currently exists.
One commenter below suggested that there be two high schools in Davis to allow for more sports opportunities. That is a very strange motivation for opening up another comprehensive HS (but there really isn’t enough enrollment to pull that off, anyway). Again, we don’t think of opening up another high school in town because there are too many students to be in one band class. Instead we open up other bands in the same school.
If you’re a coach connected to DHS athletics, then please consider having this discussion with the next athletic director and with CIF.
Don’t know how the approved policy is ACTUALLY worded, but it is clear from the video, that the former board member said…”up to and INCLUDING dismissal”. You may want to edit/delete your comment on that.
In any event, IF a dismissal could result from cutting a player from a team, without ‘malicious mal-intent’, we need to modify the policy, quickly. This is becoming insane.
While I agree with most of your assessment, I feel that Nancy Peterson may have one valid point here.
I find it inconceivable that an investigation would be conducted without an interview with the presumed victim.
In my setting this would be the equivalent of a medical assistant ( or her representative )saying that a doctor was retaliating against her, and conducting the investigation without interviewing the medical assistant. This would be an absurd breech of process in my setting and I find it difficult to believe that it would not be in any setting.
Well I thought about that but she stated that no one from the administration, DHS, or school board contacted her, she never said the attorney didn’t.
Ah…that is an important point that I overlooked. I wonder if she was interviewed by the attorney or representative since that would make all the difference.
I’m inclined to agree with your main point, Tia, but I can see a couple of complicating considerations. First, even tho’ no-one has really accused the student for misbehavior (there have been some ‘what-if’s’), not sure of the legal constraints about interviewing a minor w/o parents’ knowledge/permission/presence. The other consideration was that those responsible for fact-finding/investigation were afraid. If the latter was a factor, and upper admin was “afraid,” then they should be purged, as their duty is to “do the right thing” even if there is a modicum of risk to their job security.
…’afraid’, they should… missing a comma, first time.
hpierce
It seems we have more agreement than disagreement. However, I think the “fear” factor was removed by hiring legal counsel to do the investigation. I cannot believe that the attorney would have in any way been intimidated by Ms. Peterson. Or perhaps I am misunderstanding?
I see a couple of different possibilities for going with an outside attorney in an investigation.
One would be to remove the appearance of favoritism coloring the investigation itself.
Another might be to ensure that those conducting the investigation are not intimidated by any party whose actions might be scrutinized by the investigation. Am I portraying this accurately ?
Point taken as to why outside counsel would be sought. My point is if your are a high level administrator in the public school system, where hopefully ethics, respect, and honor are supported, if not directly taught, you should have a “pair” and weigh what is right over job security. I know number of people in the public sector who chose to do it. Sometimes they prevailed, and set a standard for behavior. Most of those who did not prevail, realized the were working for a corrupt agency, and gladly moved on.
Thinking it over, I should have used “integrity” instead of another word I used.
I disagree.
A month or so back we had one or two posters claim that the Peterson child was openly disrespectful and disobedient to the coaching staff. This is not an exact quote, but is very close to the intent of the original poster(s).
This is one component in choosing a player for a team, and I believe being cooperative, a team player, and respectful are qualities listed in the volleyball rules, DHS athletic rules, and I’d imagine CIF rules.
While, if true, the previous behavior were grounds for being cut; it looks like the addition of superior talent ultimately led to a slot not being open for their daughter.
TBD
“A month or so back we had one or two posters claim that the Peterson child was openly disrespectful and disobedient to the coaching staff.”
Respectfully we have no idea whether or not these claims have any validity.
And I have already posted my comments about the multifactorial nature of player performance. I really believe that speculating about the actions of Ms. Peterson is not productive and should not be used as justification for the actions of the adults involved.
I guess I don’t understand, are you saying that the athlete shouldn’t be held responsible for her attitude, behavior, or level of play during tryouts and that the only reason she did not make the team was because of the adults?
I guess she is implying since we don’t know this for fact, and since I didn’t provide an exact quote, we shouldn’t address it. Hence, not valid.
Leigh
That was not at all what I meant. If you will review my posts, I never spoke about the “only reason” but rather about the multifactorial nature of performance, in sports, part of which is dependent upon both team and individual coaching as well as individual athlete effort.
However, TBD is accurate in the main assessment of my point.
What we are dealing with in regard to the young Ms. Peterson’s behavior is hearsay and therefore invalid as a factor in making a judgement. Even if one were present at the time words were spoken, there is a very fine line between “telling it like it is” which many people equate with standing up for yourself and “being rude” . I just don’t believe that we should be judging the student athlete on hearsay provided on the basis of what is necessarily very subjective observation and interpretation.
Disagree all you like, but the information you cite was hearsay, which carries very little (if any) weight in a legal proceeding.
Nancy should talk to her daughter and explain why she screwed up her senior year. I can’t imagine the guilt and regret that Nancy might be feeling and her disparation to find somewhere else to lay the blame. Nancy needs to explain what she thinks was retaliated against and why she thinks committing her own retaliation will cure the harm done to her child.
I think your first sentence is profoundly correct. As to the rest, I believe the “adult” Petersons should stop digging the hole deeper.
Ryan wrote:
> Nancy needs to explain what she thinks was retaliated against
> and why she thinks committing her own retaliation will cure the
> harm done to her child.
It is ironic that while Nancy says it was wrong to “kick her daughter off the team” she has been working nonstop for YEARS to “kick the coach off the team”…
If you read what David wrote, and presumably you are commenting on what he wrote, Nancy Peterson isn’t in a place in her mind or soul to talk to her daughter. She is, like Captain Ahab, intent on vengeance with no thought or reflection regarding the harms done to the community, the DJUSD Board or even her own daughter. Please stay on topic.
If it is true that the coach didn’t talk to the Peterson child for three years, this means that the volleyball coaching staff has been walking on egg shells for 3 years, or possibly years before, back to the Coach Leigh Whitmire Choate years. Coach Choate has said as much here on numerous occasions. Further, two BOE members published an opinion piece that they believe parental harassing may have occurred. (Imagine what documents and stories they have heard.)
This might give us further proof that we have to deal with policies and procedures to protect coaches and teachers from meddlesome and possibly harassing / bullying parents. I suggested classifying a parent who has filed more than 2 or 3 complaints (pick a number) in a year as a Vexatious litigant. Maybe for these special parents, new criteria need to be established and reviewed by legal counsel.
Given the enormous time, stress, and expenses the district and school have spent dealing with one parent – which probably total well over $100,000 – 200,000 – maybe a transfer or termination option should be strengthened. When you add in the “opportunity cost” of all the time and effort that could have spent teaching or mentoring other children, the costs are enormous. This would be complicated, but would only be used after numerous attempts at mediation and conflict resolution.
If the Peterson’s are willing to fork over a $10,000 retainer, which will quickly become $20,000, it’s a free world. However, they could also prompt a counter-suit which might open up a treasure trove of documents that would be quite damning. Given that we know that eight silly complaints were filed in just one year, these eight are likely only the tip of an iceberg that would paint the picture of what DHS was dealing with for years.
“Walking on eggshells” is not even close to the model I’d want to see teachers/coaches imbue to their students. I know I have confronted nearly every attempt to ‘bully me’, with strong resistance, even tho’ it cause be minor injury, as I was the ‘less strong’ one. Hell, in Jr Hi, I got ‘suspended’ for 3 days for getting into a physical fight with another student who was bigger, stronger and started the whole conflict. Didn’t care tho’, as I did a ‘stupid’, ducked into the punch, causing a laceration of my ‘inner mouth’, which required 3 stitches, got infected, and so I wouldn’t have been in school those 3 days anyhow. Like David’s characterization in the title of the article, I didn’t even land a punch. Funny thing… the student who fought with me and I realized we had both done ‘stupids’, and were pretty good friends afterwards (and needed not intervention from the school staff). Guess ‘kids’ are more resilient than ‘adults’.
Just remembered… the kid I got in a fight with… his first name is David. But, not to worry, I only throw verbal or written ‘punches’ these days.
hpierce
I respect your choice to “strongly resist” attempts to bully you. I would also hope the there would be respect for those who prefer not to use the same tactics as the bully in order to avoid/end bullying. There are some who chose to live in peace regardless of provocation and I believe that approach should also be respected and valued rather then derided as weakness.
Time, place and method. However, I hope you can respect that there are times in life (I’ve had one, as an adult), where some of us are fully prepared to use lethal force to protect the life of a friend or loved one… or an “innocent”… it was a defining moment to be ready, but with luck and perhaps God’s grace, I didn’t have to go there.
TBD
“This might give us further proof that we have to deal with policies and procedures to protect coaches and teachers from meddlesome and possibly harassing / bullying parents.”
This part of your post I agree with. However, if this feeling of need to “walk on eggshells” led to avoidance or neglect of a player by a coach, the coach does not have a leg to stand on with regard to neglecting the development of a player because of dislike of or intimidation by a parent. If this kind of behavior is occurring, the coach ( teacher) should be working on this through the union and administration, not by either directly or indirectly taking it out on the student who is also dependent on the actions of the parent and thus in a completely no win situation if the parent is not behaving well as would seem to be the case here.
My best wishes go out to the young Ms. Peterson who truly does seem to have been placed in an untenable position by the adults in her life.
We can only speculate. My guess is that the daughter received as much instruction as the other players, maybe more, and received as many opportunities as the other players in drills and team exercises. I can’t imagine neglect for three reasons. One, that is not why coaches coach, second, all of the coaches knew they were under a microscope, so they were being extra extra careful, and third, Nancy Peterson has not alleged it.
The coaches went to their superiors, who apparently felt like they could not help her.
The “walking on eggshells”, therefore, refers to Nancy Peterson’s claim that nobody talked to her daughter in three years and the possible harassment / legal implications. In my day, coaches never had a formal sit-down with a player, so I’m not sure what she was after. If we study history, possibly more badgering. I’m pretty sure they avoided any uncomfortable situations, which covers a lot considering NPs behavior.
I’m pretty sure the coaches wouldn’t look forward to a meeting with Nancy Peterson, which repeated evidence shows would be a no-win situation. Common sense would dictate to stay away from meetings without superiors and witnesses to disprove any wild allegations. And since she made the team the first three years, I don’t see why a meeting was needed.
Mrs. Peterson leaving out that her daughter was given a position as a junior high coach while still a student adds more context. That was a classy and wise move, and allowed her daughter to stay active in volleyball. Instead of taking this as a positive, new, promising development, Mrs. Peterson chose to go to war.