In a statement not likely to quell any of the rising chorus of dissent over the handling of the firing of girl’s basketball coach Jeff Christian in early January, the district issued its most direct comment on the situation.
The Coach, his attorney, and the school district finally met this week, a month after the firing, with the school district announcing that it stands behind its decisions to release Mr. Jeff Christian from his duties as basketball coach.
Superintendent Roberson told the Vanguard on Saturday that, while there were other matters that the district needed to urgently address, there was enough public scrutiny to warrant a formal statement from the district on this matter.
“On January 3rd Deputy Superintendent Kevin French meet with Mr. Christian, placed him on paid administrative leave and explained why his release was being recommended to the board,” Dr. Roberson’s statement went on to say.
He continued, “Mr. Christian received his entire coaching stipend at the January 3rd meeting and was offered in writing an opportunity to meet again with the deputy superintendent if he wished. Mr. Christian did not take advantage of this opportunity and did not request a further meeting with Mr. French.”
This statement is counter to claims made by the Coach and his attorney Steve Boutin, who two weeks ago claimed that the Coach had no idea why he was fired and was not offered an opportunity to meet with the district.
“(As) already made public by Mr. Boutin, Mr. Christian was not released for removing two students from the team,” the Superintendent continued.
Instead he claimed, “Mr. Christian was released for past and present behavior patterns that do not meet DJUSD standards for dealing with students and parents; including but not limited to disparaging two high school students in the newspaper by announcing their private discipline and dismissal from the team without first notifying them or their parent(s).”
Moreover, they wrote that Mr. Christian would have been aware of this issue since they had met with him on previous occasions.
Superintendent Roberson writes, “Corrective meetings took place between Mr. Christian and District administrators, including past and present superintendents, principals, and athletic directors.”
Our review of the public record that on December 31, 2010, the Davis Enterprise reported, “Coach Jeff Christian said the pair had been dismissed from the Lady Blue Devils after a team meeting following a last-minute loss on Tuesday to Inderkum. Christian said the cause was “conduct detrimental to the team.””
On January 2, two days later, Bruce Ballaudet of the Enterprise reported, “Jeff Christian stands behind his decision to remove standout twin-sister players Khaliya and Malika Wilkins from the Lady Blue Devils’ roster.”
The article added, “But since her daughters’ dismissal from the team last week, the girls’ mother, Lorraine Wilkins, has been publicly critical of the situation, posting some of her concerns on The Davis Enterprise website, while reaching out for what she calls ‘a more positive outcome for the girls.’ “
The Enterprise continued, “The Enterprise has learned that Christian allegedly was not accusing the Wilkins twins of drug or alcohol use or possession, but was scolding them for not handling the situation better as it unfolded around them.”
“They are expected to be leaders at a party prior to basketball season, but ( Christian ) doesn’t think enough of them to make them official captains, even though they have seniority,” Lorraine Wilkins told the Enterprise.
The Enterprise reported, “In her Dec. 17 note (and in another note dated Dec. 13), Wilkins cites a handful of encounters in which she believes her daughters were unfairly singled out, challenged or accused by Christian.”
The Enterprise further reported that in reaction to the senior Wilkins’ claims or whether there will be further discussion of the girls’ inclusion as team members, Coach Christian said that Saturday, “I have no comment. We’ve moved forward. We have our team.”
From a review of this public record, it is unclear how the coach disparaged the kids. He mentioned that they had been released for “conduct detrimental to the team,” which is kind of the generic sports announcement on disciplinary proceedings.
There may be more to this decision than that, because on the surface this seems a bit of an overreaction unless the district deemed that the Coach acted improperly or with some sort of vendetta against the two student-athletes.
Superintendent Roberson also announced that this issue would not be taken up in public. It was taken up during closed session on Thursday, but there was no reportable action, which means that the board did not make any decision to revisit their previous actions.
The Superintendent stated, “DJUSD proudly protects the confidentiality of its students, families and past and present staff members; and under the advice of counsel has determined that this personnel matter will not be scheduled as a public hearing agenda item for any future board meetings.”
The Enterprise reported that Mr. Christian’s attorney, Steve Boutin “contended that ‘the district has tried to rationalize a basis for Jeff’s termination’ through several explanations. Boutin also described the case in very different terms than Roberson, saying, ‘As a result of one complaint by one parent, Jeff Christian was relieved of his position. … The district owes it to the public to come forward with the truth.’ Boutin said that the district failed to investigate the matter properly before Christian was relieved of his duties as coach, and once again challenged the district ‘for a legal basis justifying the termination.’ “
The Enterprise continued, “Boutin added, ‘It is indeed an ignoble day when the district invites litigation, and the concomitant effort and substantial expense.'”
The article then added, “Boutin also said ‘if Jeff chooses to sue, he will prevail and the district will lose,’ adding ‘If Jeff does not sue, it will likely be because he is secure in his values and who he is, and he will have concluded that he cannot continue to give his heart and soul to coaching to those in the administration who have so grievously wronged him. … He has loved working with the girls on his teams over the years, but would anyone want to work for folks who are so unappreciative?’ “
The district response, not surprisingly has done little to quell public dissent. Davis Enterprise columnist Bob Dunning had strong words to say to the school district on Sunday.
He said, “The district may feel it does not owe Jeff Christian the time of day. He is, after all, a mere part-time employee who provides ‘at-will seasonal services.’ But the district does owe us an explanation.”
“The arrogance and contempt the board president displayed the other night when 30 or 40 concerned parents, coaches, players and community members dared to approach the public microphone to air their thoughts about this issue was something I thought I would never witness in Davis,” he continued.
“These were ordinary citizens, many of them testifying for the first time in a public forum, and the board gave each of them ’30 seconds’ to have their say,” he continued. “They were even admonished like a bunch of kindergarteners when they offered applause after Jeff Christian’s heartfelt statement. Apparently, the First Amendment is not operative during Davis School Board meetings.”
In fairness, it is relatively standard that local governing bodies attempt to avoid applause. It is after all a public meeting, not a political or pep rally. We have seen much more arrogant displays of condemnation for public sentiment, rife with allegations of mob rule and intimidation. We have commented and posted videos of far worse displays by city council.
We can quibble about the appropriate length of time granted to 30 to 40 people speaking to an issue that is not on the agenda, and thus that cannot be acted upon when the district needed to take up matters of import such as the budget and putting the parcel tax on the ballot.
The purpose of any public speech is to communicate public sentiment to the board and in this case, whether they were given 30 seconds or five minutes (as Mr. Christian and his attorney were each given, de facto), the message was delivered loud and clear.
But the lack of public noticing meant that the Wilkins family and their side was not represented on this evening, as they had no way to know there would be a discussion.
In the end, while I agree with Mr. Dunning that the district owes the public more than it has gotten in terms of an explanation and that they have not handled this particularly well, I am forced to disagree with his closing statement, “For certain, after the disrespectful treatment they received, this will be the last time many of these people ever grace the board’s chambers to offer their opinions to deaf ears.”
I would argue that the people who came to speak were treated appropriately. It is, after all, a public meeting, not a sporting event. And the district must weigh all community views, not just those who happened to attend and express themselves on that evening.
In the end though, I agree with Mr. Dunning.
He wrote, “At this time of budgetary crisis and painful budgetary decisions, the district appears ready to gamble with your money and my money to defend the indefensible.”
He continued, “There are very simple processes and procedures one should follow in dismissing an employee. Very clearly, these processes and procedures were not followed.”
And he concluded, “Instead of swallowing hard and admitting that mistakes were made and that Jeff Christian was fired in haste without a full and proper review, the school board and district administration have stubbornly dug in their heels and decided to fight an unholy war with our tax dollars.”
Bottom line is that nothing I have seen in the public record shows me a reason demonstrating that Mr. Christian acted outside of the bounds of his duties as a coach. If they disagree with his decision to remove the twins from the team, say so. If there is something more, then tell us. But his public actions seem within the bounds of a normal statement made by a normal coach in explaining why two players are no longer on the team.
In closing, I have come to respect the work of the members of the school board and the administration. However, in saying this, I expect more from them than business as usual in terms of the handling of this delicate situation. And while I have generally been supportive of their efforts, they fall short of their own usual high standard of conduct here.
To echo the words of Bob Dunning, this indeed has not been their finest moment, but I will add, they have had many.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I found these latest developments very revealing. Carefully worded remarks and written statements by both sides are more insightful for what they don’t say as much as what the do say.
The District’s written response completely refuted Christian’s earlier remarks about not being told of his impending release. Persons and dates were given, and documentation as well, offering a subsequent meeting.
Neither Christian nor his attorney refuted this statement by the District. That’s strange, given the fact that it attacks Christian’s integrity and recall of events.
The District unequivocally says that it was NOT the release of the two players that caused Christian to be released. Instead, a past history of rule violations were mentioned which, when taken cumulatively, lead to Christian’s release. Christian was counseled in the past about these violations, according to the District summary. The District contends that the final straw was not the release of the players, but rather a failure to notify the players’ parents prior to their dismissal. Evidently, this is a District rule.
Again, neither Christian nor his attorney respond to this new information. Instead they continued arguing it was the player’s release that lead to Christian’s dismissal. They did not deny the District’s story of past rules violations and corrective counseling.
Were I in the District’s position, I would ask Christian for permission to release the written documentation of the January 3rd meeting. If it exists, it destroys Christian argument of not being given notice or due process.
Agree. Seems muddier than ever. His credibility is shot if there indeed was meeting and offer of more since that has been denied all along.
Doesn’t let Board off for their cavalier attitude with public.
Harris blew it by not letting people vent. Its odd that you would defend him by making the exact opposite argument as when Don Saylor held the similar view about public participation at Council meetings.
I think you can infer quite a bit from the statements of the district about previous reprimands from Hammond and Dietrich. Whatever happened it was something he had been warned about in the past.
As for the confidentiality of the students this is a big deal. Talking to the press before talking to the parents is clearly unprofessional and is cause for firing in many districts even for teachers with tenure. When I was hired in another district I had to sign a statement about releasing confidential information about students to the public. I have never forgotten and have been careful to never breach my pledge.
Finally, I wonder what Murphy would have done. My guess is nothing and the win streak since the firing wouldn’t have happened either.
Clearly, this matter was all about friction between a parent and a coach – in the end the parent won. The school failed to deal with the real issue. Apparently both sides had issues and the District chose the easiest solution by removing the coach – a real teaching moment was missed.
dmg: “The article then added, “Boutin also said ‘if Jeff chooses to sue, he will prevail and the district will lose,’ adding ‘If Jeff does not sue, it will likely be because he is secure in his values and who he is, and he will have concluded that he cannot continue to give his heart and soul to coaching to those in the administration who have so grievously wronged him. … He has loved working with the girls on his teams over the years, but would anyone want to work for folks who are so unappreciative?’ “
From Boutin’s statement above, I have my doubts as to whether Christian was perfectly candid w his attorney as to what actually happened. The statement above sounds like a lawyer’s excuse why his client has decided not to sue… bc he does not have a good case when all is said and done.
Dunning also wrote: “Boutin, however, counters that Christian was merely following instructions from his immediate supervisor, Athletic Director Dennis Foster. Wrote Boutin to Yarnell: “Dennis Foster responded by giving explicit directions to Jeff Christian as to how to handle (the players) and exactly what to say regarding their quitting the team. Jeff Christian, when later asked, followed to a ‘T’ the directions of the Athletic Director. Interestingly, Christian wasn’t given the opportunity to explain his side of the story before the decision was made to terminate him.”
Two wrongs do not make a right in the law or anywhere else. Following directions you know to be inappropriate does not absolve you of sin or your legal responsibilities. Second, Athletic Director Dennis Foster may have a different version of events than what Boutin says Foster said. Third, I take Boutin’s statement as essentially a concession that, in fact, announcing private discipline of students is inappropriate. Pointing fingers elsewhere (“he told me to do it”) is not helpful here. Fourth, any opportunity for Christian to “explain his side” would not have erased the wrong of having gone against district policy.
Bob Dunning goes on to say: “The district may feel it does not owe Jeff Christian the time of day. He is, after all, a mere part-time employee who provides “at-will seasonal services.” But the district does owe us an explanation.”
What part of “at-will” does Dunning not understand? “At-will employment” means the employee can leave at any time; and the school district can terminate employment at any time for any reason, including no reason at all.
And I would ask one final question: Does it not make sense that if a coach were going to terminate two players from a team, two players that were top athletes that appear to have been good students, the coach would have given those students a “fair hearing” to “tell their side” to school officials before termination from the team? A “fair hearing” in which their parents were present bc they are after all juveniles? What’s good for the goose is good for the gander…
Jeff Hudson article in today’s Enterprise:
[url]http://search.davisenterprise.com/display.php?id=73644[/url]
Bob Dunning’s article in today’s Enterprise:
[url]http://search.davisenterprise.com/display.php?id=73659[/url]
[quote]Harris blew it by not letting people vent. Its odd that you would defend him by making the exact opposite argument as when Don Saylor held the similar view about public participation at Council meetings. [/quote]
My objection to Saylor was his lecture of the public – I agree with him that it disruptive for people to be carrying on with cheers and boos as though it were a sporting event. Also it was a publicly noticed meeting that the council was taking action on, this was a non-noticed item that the board could not take action on. The board listened to the one-sided concerns for 40 minutes, they got the message and then they had time to move on deal with pressing public issues that were on the record. I don’t see anything that would have been gained by another hour of public comment – and I say that as someone who is not a big fan of Richard Harris at times and certainly I am favorable to the position of those in audience that day. I don’t think the district handled this well and there is no good reason on the public record for the termination.
Harris should have said there are a lot of you. who can say in in 30seconds? Then gone up to 1 minute, 2minutes and so on. It would have taken longer but it would have better preserved his shelf life as a politician.
It was more important to get the parcel tax and budget information right, imo. There wasn’t anything that was going to be said after 40 minutes to change anything. It wasn’t an actionable item anyway.
dmg: ” I don’t think the district handled this well and there is no good reason on the public record for the termination.”
That is certainly a matter of opinion!
“That is certainly a matter of opinion! “
Yeah, my opinion, as opposed to yours. Which is why I wrote “I think” rather than “Elaine think”
[i]” Also it was a publicly noticed meeting that the council was taking action on, this was a non-noticed item that the board could not take action on. The board listened to the one-sided concerns for 40 minutes, they got the message and then they had time to move on deal with pressing public issues that were on the record.”[/i]
I think in hindsight there was a better option, though not a perfect option. Richard Harris (once he saw all the people who came to defend Jeff Christian) could have said something like this:
“We have dozens of people here to speak about a non-noticed item, the Jeff Christian situation. We also have a very important agenda of business items for this Board which must be addressed tonight. I don’t want to stop members of the public from sharing their views. But as a Board, we have a primary responsiblity to conduct the business items on our agenda.
“Therefore, I will allow 15 minutes of public comment right now. Each individual can speak up to 1 minute. At the end of 15-minutes, I will close public comment and we will get on with the noticed items on our agenda. After the last noticed item on the agenda has been dealt with, I will re-open public comment and anyone who would like to speak on that topic will have up to 3 minutes each for as long as it takes. If Mr. Christian or his representative would like to speak at that point, they may have up to 10 minutes.”
That would not have been a perfect solution, because it would have forced people to stick around for hours after the public comments period of the meeting was to have happened. That alone would have angered those folks. However, doing it my way would have allowed the meeting to proceed and would have allowed each person to speak to the Christian issue a fair and full amount of time.
To Rich Rifkin: I actually think your solution would have been a good one…
This whole incident has surely had a chilling effect on the coaching community. It will be interesting to see if, in the future, the DJUSD has problems the with recruiting “at-will” coaches.
[i]”To Rich Rifkin: I actually think your solution would have been a good one… “[/i]
To be honest, I doubt I would have thought of that on the spot. It’s easier to be wise in hindsight, especially when you know how things played out.
Rifkin: “To be honest, I doubt I would have thought of that on the spot. It’s easier to be wise in hindsight, especially when you know how things played out.”
Agreed…