From the perspective of the Vanguard, the closure of the Julie Crawford matter, with the district last week rejecting her appeal and this week re-hiring her effective March 21, presents far more questions than answers.
We have been asking the school district to address some of these points of confusion for the public.
The following are questions that we had for the school district and, with the close of the investigation, we decided to pose them for Superintendent Winfred Roberson.
Here are our questions:
1. Why was Julie Crawford not offered a VSA last summer?
2. Why was there a delay between the conclusion of the investigation in November, the letter from Matt Best to Robert Peterson in December, and the decision to withhold a VSA to coach Crawford in late January/early February?
3a. The district has a policy that automatically investigates complaints; first, why did this complaint get investigated externally? Who made that call? Who decided who should investigate that complaint (what firm or attorney)?
3b. Is there a fail safe in terms of the amount of time and money an investigation would cost? Who makes that determination? At what point does the school board get alerted to the investigation?
4. Who made the decision to pull Coach Crawford’s VSA in late January/early February?
The following is the statement that the Vanguard received from Superintendent Roberson yesterday evening:
“DJUSD does not disclose confidential personnel matters to the general public. It has always been our legal and ethical practice to protect student and employee confidentiality, even to detriment of popular opinion. Employees in any work place expect and appreciate confidentiality as an organizational practice.
“Board Policy 1312.1-4 and administrative regulation 1312.1-4 guide DJUSD’s administrative complaint processes. DJUSD Board Policies and administrative regulations support due process and the right for all parties in complaint procedures to appeal. Ensuring that all parties have been heard and responded to appropriately takes time. Administration is exploring ways to possibly shorten this timeline without compromising due process for involved parties. The DJUSD Board and administration will review the above BP’s and AR’s at an upcoming Board meeting to help parents and employees understand them better.”
“Investigations reveal facts that ultimately lead us closer to the truth. We recognize that not all complaints are the same. When faced with unique and complex investigations, DJUSD historically has engaged outside assistance, including when appropriate, legal counsel. Regardless of the level of complexity, all our student, employee and parent investigations are conducted professionally in compliance with Board Policy, State and Federal laws. As a community of learners DJUSD is always open to improving its practices, at all levels.”
To these questions we add one as to why Ms. Crawford was not allowed to see the administrative investigative report prior to her appeal last week.
Personnel laws were put into place for the protection of public (and private) employees. However, too often those laws meant to protect employees are used by public agencies to shield them from scrutiny.
There is little public accountability here. The district spent over $22,000 on a 72-page report that detailed the cutting of a player and we cannot ask questions and receive answers about how that money was apparently spent and who exactly made that call.
Clearly, we are getting closer to the need for a Grand Jury investigation because at least they can pierce confidentiality laws and compel public officials to give testimony.
The fact that the district has now rehired Julie Crawford, after a slap on the wrist, only adds to the intrigue.
As Bob Dunning put it on Wednesday, “Her transgressions were detailed in a 72-page, $22,000 report that both the District and the Board read with a fine-tooth comb, but apparently the complete report was never offered to Crawford ahead of time so she could mount an informed defense.”
He continued, “Still, come Monday, the superintendent met with the deposed coach, decided she had been flogged enough, and suddenly began to treat her as the Coach of the Year that she is.”
“If you’re scratching your head and wondering out loud how in a span of little more than 80 hours Julie Crawford could go from bad coach to good coach in the District’s mind, you are not alone,” Mr. Dunning writes. “The District is like the guilt-ridden dad, who, after angrily sending the children to bed for making too much noise, feels so bad that he calls them back into the living room and announces the whole family is going to Disneyland.”
Later he states, “We keep hearing that ‘mistakes were made,’ but the only one who had to go to confession and genuflect at the Board’s feet on her way out was Julie Crawford.”
He adds, “I’ve yet to hear a single Board member or anyone from the District staff who participated in this debacle admit even the slightest degree of fault.”
Mr. Dunning continues, “The three Board members who voted to punish Julie Crawford have yet to register any disagreement with the ill-advised hiring of three outside attorneys to compile a top-secret report at taxpayer expense.”
Furthermore, he notes, “And then, almost simultaneous with Roberson’s about face, Board members Sheila Allen and Susan Lovenburg released a letter to the editor of The Davis Enterprise basically telling us all that it’s ‘time to move on.’”
He concludes, “I guess if I were running for City Council as Allen is, I’d suggest it was time to move on, too, but it’s never wise to talk down to folks in the Second Most Educated City in America. Nancy Peterson learned that lesson the hard way after telling the whole town to ‘calm down.’”
This is what troubles me. First, we have no accounting for the expenditure of tax money. The superintendent won’t even state who made the decision and what safeguards there are for preventing the investigation from becoming a runaway train.
Second, there is the Sheila Allen-Susan Lovenburg piece that quasi-details the findings against Julie Crawford with no acknowledgement of board or district mistakes.
Third, the most severe punishment, albeit self-imposed, was on Nancy Peterson and her resignation and yet there is nothing from the district indicating that they have an inclination to investigate her activities.
I know the district wants to put this behind them, they are desperate to do so, but their actions this week have triggered more questions than answers.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“Clearly we are getting closer to the need for a Grand Jury investigation because at least they can pierce confidentiality laws and compel public officials to give testimony.”
I agree, or do I need to just calm down and move on?
I think that Ms. Dalieden’s comment would be as applicable here as it was when she made it from the dias.
I do not see that there is need to go Code 3 and/or jump off the deep end of the pool. How about some time to allow administration and board to do a self review, present their findings and proposed changes, and then decide if further steps are necessary. Do any of us believe that even without paid jurors that Grand jury investigates are
“free”. Now we are calling for more expenditures without so much as a question about how much more money will be entailed ?
Don’t you want to know who decided to spend the $22,000?
To what purpose? I think it would be sufficient to admonish the board, and senior administration, that moving forward, such an effort needs to be entered into only in extreme circumstances, and needs to be disclosed to the public as soon as possible. Not sure I’m ready for a ‘one strike’ standard to hunt for heads. I’d feel differently if the cost was 5X as much as it was, and I’d point out to the Board and Admin, does it make sense to spend 5X more than the VSA is apparently worth (and I thought, earlier, the amount cited as the ‘value’ of a one semester coaching VSA was ~ $2500)?
Do I want to know who was the person(s) responsible for the expenditure? On one hand, the voyeur in me says ‘yes’, but on the other hand, I don’t want Davis to become the new “Salem”, and put the whole affair into a crucible. The bad part of me wants to pun off the alliteration, but I’ll try to give that up for Lent.
hpierce: (and I thought, earlier, the amount cited as the ‘value’ of a one semester coaching VSA was ~ $2500)
$4,298.00
…and how much would a Grand Jury investigation cost? $22,000?
I doubt it.
A Grand Jury investigation is made up of volunteer citizens not lawyers on the public dime at $250 per hour.
This needs to be done in the interest of openess and transparency. It looks like that is the only way we are finally going to get to the bottom of this as in my opinion we’re only getting canned answers from the people invloved.
A little simplistic, given the staff time to support the GJ, costs of salaries, benefits for public employees, called to ‘testify’, costs to publish and distribute the GJ to the public, review responses to the report, publish those, etc., etc., etc. (as Yul Brenner might have said).
Yeah, at the ‘end of the day’, if all costs were tracked, suspect the total could approach $20 k.
While that is true David, it does not include the amount we are paying for their support while doing their investigation.
Do you know how much a grand jury investigation costs ( or more accurately, how much their investigations range). I have no idea, but I do know that they do not compete their work without the support of payed public employees.
“I know the district wants to put this behind them, they are desperate to do so, but their actions this week have triggered more questions than answers.”
And they would appear to have a segment of the community who are completely unwilling to let them do the work that would be necessary to address their missteps, and continue to conduct the business of the board without massive amounts of public self flagellation.
All of the board members have made public statement in recognition of error ( at this point in a general, not specific sense). All have agreed that process will be reviewed and revised. Note the statement ” Administration is exploring ways to possibly shorten this timeline without compromising due process for involved parties. The DJUSD Board and administration will review the above BP’s and AR’s at an upcoming Board meeting to help parents and employees understand them better.” seems to me a clear indication that the intent is to evaluate and provide information to the public just as they are being asked to do.
The public response to this reminds me of the Homer Simpson line when told there is a waiting period to purchase a gun responds “But I am angry now !”
Can we really not allow them a modicum of time to do what they said they will do ?
““Still, come Monday, the superintendent met with the deposed coach, decided she had been flogged enough, and suddenly began to treat her as the Coach of the Year that she is.”
“If you’re scratching your head and wondering out loud how in a span of little more than 80 hours Julie Crawford could go from bad coach to good coach in the District’s mind, you are not alone,” Mr. Dunning writes. “The District is like the guilt-ridden dad, who, after angrily sending the children to bed for making too much noise, feels so bad that he calls them back into the living room and announces the whole family is going to Disneyland.”
What I am really scratching my head about is why anyone thinks that this is particularly perplexing behavior.
Let’s take Bob’s analogy.
Let’s suppose that the father in this scenario realizes that he has overreacted and sent the kids to their rooms in error. What would we really like him to do ? My preference would be that he say to them “kids, I made a mistake, please come on back out. I don’t expect that he will have made a complete reassessment of the entire chain of events that made him lose his temper ( that can wait for further reflection) but what he should do is to take the kids out of detention and make as much right of the situation as he can as soon as he can.
From my point of view, this is what the board did.
So from my point of view, the community spoke out about an injustice. The board perhaps did an loops ! we overreacted moment, and did what they felt was right by Ms. Crawford. Wasn’t this actually the correct order of operations ?
Now it remains to be seen whether they follow through with the complete self evaluation to see where improvements can be made in the future. If they follow through as they have announced, is that also not what the community has been asking them to do ?
Yes and No. You make many valid points.
But the larger questions cover 2-3 years of mis-steps, high turnover with very successful coaches, and pass-the-buck behavior. Who is making these decisions … Roberson, Brown, or Foster? It can’t all be blamed on Nancy Peterson.
And did Nancy Peterson ride our former Principal out of town? I’ll I read, upon digging, were nitpicking comments about a slight modification to school policies on the length of shorts and non-students visiting campus.
The Superintendent is stonewalling you David. While he is correct that he can’t talk about personnel issues there is nothing that prohibits him from talking about process and if and when the $22,000 was approved by the board the vote should be on the record somewhere the date of that record will tell you who decided to spend the money, administration or trustees. Further asking board members should do the trick and get you an answer.Why don’t you ask Gina, if she won’t tell you after voting against the rest of the board you could go ask the rest of them and if they won’t tell you then there is a conspiracy to cover up the truth by the entire board.
Not sure how much of the details of the “truth” the public truly needs. Am smelling a blood lust, but in the winter, can’t always rely on my nose.
Yeah, always hate it when the public gets the details of the “truth”. The tax paying public can’t be trusted with the truth.
I can answer that: the administration and not the board approved the expenditure on the independent investigation.
Can you find out if a powerful parent asked for an outside investigation?
Let me clarify. If the board approved the $22,000 expenditure there should be a record of it. If they didn’t there are only a few people who have the authority to spend that kind of money without a board vote. Still i think its obvious that its probably the Superintendent who authorized the expenditure.
See my comments above. Feels like a “witch hunt”.
‘witch hunt’ = ‘investigative reporting’, as practiced by some.
Not really. I’d like some answers and perhaps a few mea culpas. Governance changes might happen but the governance is only as good as the trustees demand and ultimately that is where the responsibility is vested by the voters.
Another way to get this answer is to ask for the first date the lawyer billed hours, and the last.
A Grand Jury investigation should have happened years ago. My advice, in the strongest terms possible, is to NOT ask the Grand Jury to enter the fray now. First, it allows the so-called leadership of the District to hide from public accountability, saying we’re meeting with the Grand Jury, wait awhile (like 8 months).
Second, the Grand Jury is antiquated and should probably be abolished. The concept is great, dating back centuries. But it’s effectiveness today is nil. Two weeks after a Grand Jury report is published, it’s forgotten and put on a shelf with all the other dusty Grand Jury reports.
Were I a beleaguered School official right now, I’d love to have my accountability postponed to a Grand Jury of amateur investigators operating with the speed of a glacier. Don’t go there if you want real answers.
I don’t agree with you here Phil. Although I do acknowledge the lack of speed. However, without the Grand Jury, we never would have uncovered corruption in the Davis Fire Department. Granted it took another five years and multiple lawsuits to get the ensuing investigation, but the point is we got it.
Although you do give me a good idea.
Good ‘hunting’.
We still do have a lot of information, theoretically, in the pipeline, which will lead to more questions and conclusions. See below.
Probably true. Still shouldn’t there be a vote logged somewhere if the board approved the expenditure? If not there are only a few people who could authorize this expenditure. This could be easily narrowed down. Ask them all who authorized the expenditure. If nobody tells you then the trustees should be held accountable. Remember it was the cover up that took down Nixon. If they really want to move on they need to disclose anything that is not privileged from public disclosure. Expenditures of public money should always be disclosed.
Finally you should ask John Munn what he thinks? He was on the school board and is running against Shiela Allen for city council. He is also involved with the Yolo Taxpayers Association. I bet he has some really interesting insights on this issue of who authorized the $22,000..
FYI, $22,000 is probably not the final figure.
Ok, now ‘we’re’ comparing a one semester VSA for boys’ volleyball, to an attempt to affect (sabotage) the election of the President of the United States. Who is going “code 3 ” now?
hpierce wrote:
> Ok, now ‘we’re’ comparing a one semester VSA for boys’ volleyball,
> to an attempt to affect (sabotage) the election of the President of
> the United States. Who is going “code 3 ” now?
At what level do you think it is OK to ask any questions?
Does it need to have “national” importance?
If someone stole $22K from a soccer club should we just “get over it” and “move along” since it is not as important as stealing from a Presidential election?
Oh please.”Its the cover up” gets you 2 billion responses on a google search. Its a pretty common reference.
Mr. Toad: Still shouldn’t there be a vote logged somewhere if the board approved the expenditure? If not there are only a few people who could authorize this expenditure. This could be easily narrowed down. Ask them all who authorized the expenditure.
There is a line item in the district budget that covers fees surrounding legal actions and fees. When the school board passes the budget, then it approves all the appropriate categorical expenditures. I highly doubt that there was some special motion passed in a secret meeting in the middle of the night to authorize this expenditure.
The school district regularly deals with litigation/lawsuits/complaints brought against it, and it has a responsibility to respond to these actions appropriately.
Thanks for clarification WDF1.
I am following up with Gina Daleiden and Winfred Roberson on getting these questions answered more clearly and specifically.
David, I hope you can get an answer on why an employee would not be shown an investigation, which seems to violate California employment law in 2 instances.
Maybe the instigator built up the age of the player as a plausible reason for keeping it secret, but the name of a minor can be redacted, if needed. Since it would not leave district offices, and wouldn’t be photocopied, I don’t see the issue. I believe this is a significant question, because all teachers, staffers, and administrators could be in the same boat. This behavior seems like something out of eastern Europe.
I think the letter by the two board members was tacit admission that harassment of the volleyball coach may have occurred. So what triggers do we have to prevent that?
If a parent files 3 or 5 or 8 complaints, can we formally or informally label them a Vexatious litigant?
“Vexatious litigation is legal action which is brought, regardless of its merits, solely to harass or subdue an adversary. It may take the form of a primary frivolous lawsuit or may be the repetitive, burdensome, and unwarranted filing of meritless motions in a matter which is otherwise a meritorious cause of action. Filing vexatious litigation is considered an abuse of the judicial process and may result in sanctions against the offender. A single action, even a frivolous one, is usually not enough to raise a litigant to the level of being declared vexatious.”
Source: Wikipedia
________________________________________________
FYI
Article: Davis hockey team fans come to blows
10/21/2009
CHICO — “According to most witnesses, it was a one-sided fight Monday when the father of a Davis Senior High School field hockey player allegedly delivered three quick blows to a man identified as the father of the school’s junior varsity coach. The Davis “Blue Devils” were in Chico Monday for varsity and junior varsity matches against Chico High School.”
http://www.chicoer.com/ci_13607481
In many respects, these ongoing discussions are “first world problems.” If it really bothers you still, then do your thing to continue to investigate the district — it’s your right. Personally I don’t think you’ll find the malfeasance that you suspect.
Many other school districts barely have any athletics program (or at best have boys’ football, girls’ volleyball, girls/boys basketball, track and field), and are thankful if someone even volunteers to coach. DHS is home of:
source
If there was a hint that Crawford made a poor judgement in some way, well, then she paid the price with a one semester suspension from coaching. If you think Crawford was poorly treated, well, she’ll be back in the fall, you have agreement from Trustee Daleiden (“Code 3” comment), and a personal visit from Roberson. To me it seems like Crawford has moved on, but some of the commenters, here, still remain seriously traumatized. But remember that you have the privilege of having an athletics program to get upset over.
What we need is information; information is power.
I was told by a parent in another affluent school district that they require their parents to sign a code of conduct agreement. Does DHS have anything like this?
How many complaints have been filed in the past 3 or 5 years? Year by year numbers? [This may be coming.]
How many formal, outside investigations have been conducted? Yearly numbers? [This may be coming.]
Who decides when a formal outside investigation is in order?
How many of the complaints are for: grades; make-up work; athletic issues; minor issues; and potential criminal issues?
Interviewing former Athletic Director Mark Dietrich might shed light. How were complaints handled then? Was there an upward trajectory in entitled parents?
Interviewing Mr. Dave Whitmire, former long-time football coach, might be illuminating. How were complaints handled, how many investigations were ever conducted, relationship with AD (??), Principal, parents, etc.
How do our level of complaints and investigations compare to affluent areas like Granite Bay or Palo Alto?
The issue is not one coach. It is dozens of coaches, 12-13 coaches who depart early, and how do we manage problem parents / vexatious litigants.
TBD: I was told by a parent in another affluent school district that they require their parents to sign a code of conduct agreement. Does DHS have anything like this?
See the CIF Code of Conduct form, signed by both parent and student. Also the DJUSD Agreement for Participation form, same link, has code of conduct language.
This is truly amazing. David asks some pretty straight forward questions and gets stonewalled by the Superintendent and people question the lack of transparency and then all these people come out supporting the lack of transparency one way or another. If everyone truly wanted to move on they would ask for as much transparency as is legally possible, get all the questions answered and then the board could take action to fix things. Its not that hard. Leaving unanswered questions just breeds contempt for the school board and the district administration. It fosters distrust among the teachers, parents and taxpayers.
I agree Toad. All those that want everyone else to calm down and move on sure do spend a lot of time posting on here about it. You would think they would just ignore the stories and comments. Obviously it’s they that can’t move on.
Mr. Toad: This is truly amazing. David asks some pretty straight forward questions and gets stonewalled by the Superintendent and people question the lack of transparency and then all these people come out supporting the lack of transparency one way or another.
The only question that you, David, or GI probably have reasonable grounds to ask is 3a. & 3b. above:
3a. The district has a policy that automatically investigates complaints; first, why did this complaint get investigated externally? Who made that call? Who decided who should investigate that complaint (what firm or attorney)?
3b. Is there a fail safe in terms of the amount of time and money an investigation would cost? Who makes that determination? At what point does the school board get alerted to the investigation?
Roberson at least partially answered the first question:
We recognize that not all complaints are the same. When faced with unique and complex investigations, DJUSD historically has engaged outside assistance, including when appropriate, legal counsel.
I suppose 3b is left unanswered.
As an employment matter, the remaining questions concern Julie Crawford specifically. Crawford probably has standing to ask those questions, but it’s hard for me to imagine how anyone else — David, Mr. Toad, GI — will get an answer. If Crawford wants to ask those questions and then reveal the answers, that’s probably the only way you’ll find out.
Why are 2 and 4 not answerable? They too seem like process questions instead of personnel questions.
Because those questions are asked specific to Crawford’s case. A better way to ask those questions is to remove Crawford’s name from the question. For instance:
Under what conditions would a VSA be pulled?
How soon after an investigation concludes is a defendant notified of the results?