There is a lot of speculation as to what the fallout from the volleyball controversy will be, but a lot of that conjecture is premature, as we are still nearly 10 days away from the school board even hearing the appeal. To my knowledge, the board has not even read the 72-page report from the investigator as of yet.
One thing we have seen posted in comments and have heard in various quarters is the notion that the public is going to withhold support for the parcel tax.
It appeared again today in Bob Dunning’s column when he printed a note he received, which stated, “I have spoken to several Davis voters who have stated that they will never cast a positive vote for any school bond, and the older ones are going to apply for the senior exemption for the first time.”
Most likely this is anger and frustration rather than reason talking. After all, once again, we do not know what the outcome of this latest episode is just yet and, besides, it hardly seems the appropriate punishment to punish teachers and students who have nothing at all to do with this by forcing layoffs, higher class sizes and program reductions just because the athletic director, HR Director and possibly the superintendent did not handle a coaching situation in an ideal manner.
Those kinds of cuts are rarely going to lead to better decisions and a better environment for our kids. So perhaps we can state categorically, let us not allow the kids to suffer for the errors of adults.
I have also heard whispers from some surprising quarters that this might also have an impact on the city council race, with one of the city council candidates having sat on the board of education for the last nine years.
Again, and I want to stress this point, I have spent a lot of time talking about the issue with Board President Gina Daleiden both on and off the record, and I believe that the board really wants to get this right.
As Ms. Daleiden has stated, since “the School Board is now acting in a quasi-judicial role in a current appeal process, we each have to maintain impartiality until the conclusion.”
She added, “The Board does desire to be as transparent as possible. In order to follow through with our role in the appeal, however, we must protect impartiality.”
As I wrote on Sunday, I am normally the first one to cast blame on public officials for failing to do their duties or taking the easy way out because it is more politically expedient. But in this case – at least for now – I urge patience.
The board is actually in a far more precarious position than many wish to believe – they really lack the power outside of the appeals process to change much at this time.
Board President Gina Daleiden repeatedly used the term “quasi-judicial process” to describe the appeal, and whether they really are four judges, as she contends, that need to remain neutral is at least a debatable contention.
However, to my knowledge, the board has yet to read the investigator’s report, and they have yet to have a full-closed session discussion amongst the four of them. Based on this, and based on the potential for lawsuit, it seems practical and wise that the board reserves full judgment until they have all of the facts at hand.
If the board fails to put this to a stop at the end of that process, then by all means, people should be critical of the board. But we at least need to wait out the next ten days to see what happens.
Finally, I want to address other points that were raised yesterday to me in private. The Vanguard is attempting to get to the bottom of what happened and how it transpired, and therefore we saw the post by Leigh Whitmire Choate as adding a good deal of information that was previously unknown to the public.
At the same time, we saw the discussion by Board Member Nancy Peterson as not adding to the discussion and we believe that each time she or her husband has spoken out, it has made things worse, not better. Therefore, we rhetorically argued on Saturday that she and the community would be better off if she stayed silent and allowed the process to unfold.
On the other hand, we saw the opportunity to get new information out to the public as vitally important. The public has unfortunately been given information in small increments, and that is a frustrating process for both the public and those whose jobs it is to get the information out.
It is along those lines that we received yet another criticism that argues that we have maligned Nancy Peterson, and do not have the full facts at our disposal. Unfortunately, that is the nature of this kind of story – we do not have all of the facts at our disposal and what facts we do have generally come from parties that have a stake in the matter.
So, while I understand that we do not have the full picture, I think we have a full enough picture to evaluate the controversy as we did last week in “you make the call.”
What I continue to see is an ongoing dispute between two parties, one of whom is an elected member of the board of education, who long ago should have bowed out and allowed administrative staff and her colleagues to take the lead.
Again, even without knowing a lot of background information, I can evaluate Nancy Peterson’s public comment as unnecessary and inflammatory.
But if you believe that you have pertinent facts that have not come out, then the onus is on you to present them in a way that they get into the public discourse. The idea that there are facts that only you are privy to, that will change the evaluation, sounds more convenient than true. The facts need to get out and if they are game changers – all the more so.
Bottom line, there are a lot of good people in this community who have done great work over the years and I respect them and that work, but, at the end of the day, I cannot see a justification for how this process has unfolded, even if we accept for the moment a premise that Nancy Peterson is correct.
I hope in the end, that the school board can issue a strong enough ruling and statement to help mitigate the side issues. I still believe that a restorative mediation process could help both sides in this matter move forward.
I’m not hopeful that this will occur, but I believe it to be the best thing for all involved and the community.
In the meantime, we will continue to try our best to determine what happened and to uncover new information.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
David, believe you are being too kind to the Board and I think many posters including myself have enumerated actions the Board either took or didn’t take that illustrated their lack of leadership. Why now, in the face of this on going scandal, is the Board waiting until 3/13 to discuss and rule on the appeal. And to have not read the report to date?
Don’t they want to resolve this if they can?
Perhaps. But in the end, they either are going to fix this in ten days, or not. So let’s see what happens before we attack them.
“Why now, in the face of this on going scandal, is the Board waiting until 3/13 to discuss and rule on the appeal. And to have not read the report to date?”
I think you’re ignoring that there are procedural issues. They cannot discuss these matters outside of a scheduled and noticed meeting and the report is only available to them upon agreement to appeal.
So I think we should wait and see, there will be plenty of time to criticize and second guess after their decision.
Point taken, but are you saying there is no way this could be heard earlier than 3/13?
I really don’t know why they pushed it back a week from the original 3/6 date.
The school board is hoping for the easy way out.
” I still believe that a restorative mediation process could help both sides in this matter move forward.”
Ms Peterson has shown no interest in taking any responsibility for her statements and actions. Coach Crawford has followed set procedures and been noticeably absent from the” controversy, created and nurtured by the Petersons. The only “restoration” possible would be to restore the coaching position to Ms Crawford and recall or at least formally censure Ms. Peterson. In a small community, I would think the Petersons are due a good shunning, as well.
If Davis is so problematic, why don’t they move to Granite Bay or Palo Alto and start fresh?
As an outsider looking in (my child graduated from DHS and was greatly influenced by the academic challenge; wonderful faculty), I have to concur with Biddin’s assessment. It appears to me the Board was remiss in allowing the Petersons to proceed in such a manner.
Stating Crawford was unfit to coach and then sending her daughter out for tryouts was a Catch 22 for Crawford; setting the stage for claiming discrimination. Sure looks like entrapment to me. If Choate’s statements are correct then the DHS administration has failed the faculty big time by not standing up to bullying. So far Crawford is the only person that lloks like an adult here.
You neglect to point out that there could be FIVE judges… the other could legally participate, but morally, ethically, politically, and intelligently, should not. But it would be legal.
My fear is that the Peterson’s have pushed an “investigation” that makes a mountain out of a molehill, and dressed it up with emails and slights – all over an extended period – delivered on a silver platter by an attorney. Further, one of these slights will be tied to some regulation or bylaw, and they’ll use that as their justification.
My hope is that the board will see through the Fog of Peterson to see the larger context with wisdom and maturity. This larger context may include a 4-year history of being hen pecked, badgered, and there are also serious allegations of harassment and bullying. Dr. Peterson himself doesn’t respect the decision made by the board last summer, so I’d include Mrs. Peterson in that sentiment. (iSeeDavis.com video)
Can Julie Crawford publish the 72-page report, with redaction’s?
Can we see the full 2-page Summary, since parties may have already waived attorney-client privilege?
Are there 3rd party’s willing to do the right thing, and verify the allegations of Ms. Choate and Coach Crawford?
“Can Julie Crawford publish the 72-page report, with redaction’s?”
She can probably publish it without redactions if she has it. But I’m not sure that’s a good idea.
Will Ms Crawford even have access to the report if it is not placed in her personnel folder?
I don’t believe she will. I think she will get what the Peterson’s got – a summary letter from HR.
I can’t imagine that she didn’t already get such a letter in mid-December.
That strikes me as odd. So the report can be used to fire and tarnish her, but she can’t even check the veracity of what is alleged? Maybe it would come out as part of the discovery process if there were a lawsuit, which I hope there isn’t… I hope the board puts a stop to this nonsense.
Then we need to put a stop to coaches being treated like pawns in the Helicopter Parents generation. Where does this nonsense end? Have you heard that a small percentage of parents today are actually going with their college-graduate children to their job interviews??!!
the report was only used to tarnish her because it was leaked to the press by the peterson’s in summary form. in terms of ability to check the veracity, i just an appeals process or a lawsuit would have to do that.
OK… dumb question again, Ms Crawford is not currently facing the loss of her JOB, but ‘just’ the bonus of being a coach with a stipend. Yes?
True hpierce, but do you think her reputation has been tarnished by the allegations?
Another aspect?
If certain parties (Julie, Leigh, et al) knew of these issues, why didn’t they speak out during the campaign?
Although hard to do, might that have avoided this at least at the Board level if the sentiment had led to a different election outcome? And it seems from what we heard yesterday that there was pressure going back quite a while…..
Speaking out, as a public employee, is “theoretically” protected by ‘whistle-blower’ statutes. In the real world, good luck with that. At best, would bet it is a 50-50 proposition.
Good point, hpierce….
They’re also protected by the First Amendment. They’re also protected by The Vanguard’s Law of Pseudonymnity. Together, these important freedoms make it closer to a 100-0 proposition.
Everything we think we know firsthand about this long, awful history comes from Leigh Whitmire Choate’s Vanguard posts since Coach Crawford’s Enterprise “leaks” were all of positive personnel papers.
I can think of reasons to keep silent–and there’s certainly no requirement that they speak up–but they must have contemplated a Peterson school board role with some terror if the current description of the free-flowing hate is accurate.
Was Ms. Choate’s formal complaint against Ms. Peterson filed when she was a district employee or when she was on the board? Was Ms. Peterson “not rehired” at anytime during these battles? Did Ms. Crawford file any complaints against Ms. Peterson? How many complaints have been filed against each of these three by anyone?
I did speak out during the campaign. I was told that Nancy had been advised to stay away from volleyball (then didn’t) but she would be kindly reminded again to stay away.
Sorry I missed your comment while I was speculating on my own in response to other’s speculation. Did this admonition to “stay away from volleyball” go to Ms. Peterson before or after she was elected? Who had the authority to give her such an instruction?
Do you mean “stay away” from the court, the coaches and players, the events, etc. or to recuse herself from any board business that involved the sport?
So, back to complaints from these involved in the volleyball program:
Was your formal complaint against Ms. Peterson filed when she was a district employee or when she was on the board? Was Ms. Peterson “not rehired” at anytime during these battles? Did Ms. Crawford file any complaints against Ms. Peterson? How many complaints have been filed against each of you three by anyone?
It was a discussion I had with her campaign manager during volleyball tryouts before she was elected and was an effort to keep her from harping on vb constantly. It had nothing to do with recusal but just to leave vb alone other than just watching and being a normal parent in the program (if that makes sense, I can’t speak too much about it for fear of retribution)
My formal complaint was against Ms Peterson when she was a board member. I got the outcome info and nothing more.
if you mean rehired as a volleyball coach, no, but she wasn’t trying to continue t coach at that time, she was running for school board and had just stepped down as president of blue and white
when you say complaints do you mean formal? If so the only two I know about are the Peterson complaint toward Julie and my complaint toward Nancy. I don’t know of any other formal complaints.
sorry it was during the election, after re-reading I realized that was not clear. Girls vb starts in Aug and lasts through the start of November. The discussion I had was in late August/early sept after teams were made
Thank you for clarifying. Did Ms. Peterson use the volleyball program as a campaign issue? (Did your lack of success in getting her to “stay away from volleyball” help you come to the realization that most campaign managers are full of …?)
Some have commented that the investigation into your complaint must not have been handled properly by the administration if it didn’t cost the district anything close to handling Dr. Peterson’s. Do you think your complaint investigation was handled in an appropriate manner?
Was your grievance about something that Ms. Peterson did as a school board members you personally, or was it a complaint about some more general matter in the way she was handling business?
What were the approximate dates of the complaint and finding–where did these events fall with respect to the Peterson/Crawford timeline?
Was the issue resolved, and were you satisfied at that point?
“…something that Ms. Peterson did as a school board member TO you personally….”
I dont think my complaint was handled as well as it could have been, and I feel that it was swept under the rug and deemed unimportant even though district knew this was occurring.
It was a complaint regarding how Nancy was treating my daughter (in my opinion bullying) because she was mad at volleyball and at me and was taking it out on her and on other adults and players (including myself and Julie). I made this all clear in my complaint.
The only reason I mention my daughter is I don’t want to be misleading regarding the complaint but I would like to keep her out of this discussion.
The issue was not resolved in my opinion. It was last spring when I filed my complaint and at the time I was teaching physical education full time and was the department chair at DHS.
As far as the timeline, it would have been sometime during the boys season last year after Julie was “re-hired” (after the first attempt to have Julie removed) and during the club volleyball season that runs November thru June.
hope this helps
Yikes. I am sorry to hear about what you have had to go through. I haven’t read “the report”, so I can only judge what I have seen, read, and heard, over and over again. (And schools are where we have all of these anti-bully education?)
One could think that you, Coach Crawford, the assistant coaches, almost all of both teams, and your Father are engaged in some grand scheme.
Or, one could think that a few individuals who feel entitled had a dose of real life, and losing that entitlement set off this drama, and at will employees steered clear out of fear, common sense, and self preservation.
Maybe there is a middle ground. Maybe Coach Julie had some brisk words for Mrs. Peterson on a few occasions. But that is no smoking gun.
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely.
Sorry that the district didn’t find a satisfactory resolution to your complaint.
There’s not much worse than the feeling that one’s concerns get swept under the rug–I don’t think this qualifies as being “handled as well as it could have been.”
Since this happened between the board’s actions on Coach Crawford and the cutting from the team, it’s obvious the DJUSD administration should have been fully sensitized and hard-at-work to get things mediated some way.
I’ve got one more specific: Do you think that the actual investigation was extensive enough to evaluate your complaint (regardless of the shortcomings you see in the actions)?
IMO it was not extensive enough
Leigh Whitmire Choate states that she filed a complaint against Mrs. Peterson. Do we know if there were any other complaints filed against her?
I made a records request, but unless people come forward we will not know the content of those complaints.
If there were, we should not know about them… you either trust your Superintendent or you don’t. If you don’t, push for a regime change.
Have either of you asked Leigh Whitmire Choate for details about her complaint and the findings?
Do you really want public notification of all the complaints filed with the superintendent. I understand this is no small number, that many are unfounded and/or are resolved and that the parties usually rely on confidentiality in the process. Or, is it just an accounting of all complaints against Nancy Peterson you seek?
David, did you ask for information about all complaints against Coach Crawford in your records request?
The district cannot provide information about complaints, they can provide numbers, costs, and things like that. We’ll see what we get. I have asked for a general number and an idea really of how many of them end up with an investigation and an outside investigator.
I don’t think, then, that you were being at all responsive to TrueBlueDevil’s question about how many complaints have been filed against Ms. Peterson.
Interesting that you got specifics about costs for this one. Maybe you could ask, “How much has it cost to deal with all complaints about Coach Crawford.” Oh, sorry, I meant, “…about Board Member Peterson?”
I sent very specific questions to the district, I’m being cautious as to what I put out here until I get a response. I hope that makes sense to you.
Lots of stuff you say and do makes sense to me, and this certainly does.
So, just accept my questions and TrueBlueDevil’s as our suggestions for you to handle in your spare time.
Mine mostly was to suggest that you not limit your investigation only to matters that might end up supporting your already-announced, sole-contributor theory in this mess.
The $22,000 is chump change. I’d like to see Mr. Greenwald or another writer try to piece together a total cost for this whole fiasco. Add in the cost of the forthcoming original complaint, from Ms. Choate. Add in legal costs after the $22,000 figure was released.
Then, add in internal costs for the AD, Superintendent, staff, etc., who are already stretched thin. This whole fiasco could easily top $100,000.
What can’t be calculated are the lost opportunities in teaching, mentoring, leadership, and brainstorming while the numerous individuals are tangled in this drama.
“I have also heard whispers from some surprising quarters that this might also have an impact on the city council race, with one of the city council candidates having sat on the board of education for the last nine years.”
Whispers?! Don’t you read The Vanguard? Sheila Allen’s performance as president and member (and council candidacy impact) has been mentioned repeatedly in more than secret whispers.
—–
“Based on this, and based on the potential for lawsuit, it seems practical and wise that the board reserves full judgment until they have all of the facts at hand.”
This is the second time you’ve threatened a lawsuit in the future? From whom, against whom, on what basis, for what purpose?
——
“I hope in the end, that the school board can issue a strong enough ruling and statement to help mitigate the side issues. ”
What could you be talking about here? The so-called “side issues” have been repeatedly presented as main issues.
The school board will make a decision on whether to overturn the administration’s decision not to rehire Coach Crawford. The discussion will be in private and will consider information from the appellant and the administration. The public statement will be minimal, terse and will make every effort to avoid any “side issues.”
Whatever decision gets made will cause serious consternation in the community, satisfying almost no one who has been engaged making impassioned statements in The Vanguard or in The Enterprise letters or columns.
Regardless of the board’s action, expressions supporting Coach Crawford and demonizing the Peterson family will continue for weeks. However, recent attempts to jack up the stakes of the board’s decision (threats of lawsuits and personal tax vote decisions) will dissipate.
Somewhere down the road, board members and district employees will pay their individual prices for this debacle, mostly based on the so-called side issues that won’t even be considered in the board’s deliberations about the appeal.
No “strong ruling and statement to help mitigate the side issues” could do more than worsen things–the blood is in the water.
“Whispers?! Don’t you read The Vanguard? Sheila Allen’s performance as president and member (and council candidacy impact) has been mentioned repeatedly in more than secret whispers.”
Don’t I get any poetic license from you?
Jeezez, you ask for a lot. Okay, sometimes you’re just a little too subtle, though. You should give some notification just before you go all Dunning on us.
P.S.–how are you doing on collections for the current Vanguard parcel tax?
LOL.
We’re unfortunately like a lot of other non-profits these days, scrimping together funding to get by.