My initial view on the firing of Davis High’s basketball coach was formed watching dozens of parents, community members, and former players of the coach speak on his behalf. It was an emotional and moving appeal from a lot of people who clearly have a huge amount of passion and even love for the coach.
At the same time, I am viewing this as an outsider. I have never watched a girl’s basketball game at Davis High. I could not have told you the name of Jeff Christian – nor do I think most people in this community could. I was at the meeting for another issue and stumbled upon this cauldron.
However, I must say at this point, I am at a loss to understand where this all goes. We got an explanation from the school district – in fact they probably said far more than they really ever intended to. The school board has twice unanimously affirmed the decision of the superintendent. I know the individuals on the board well enough to know that they would not simply rubber stamp such a decision.
“After reviewing reported and investigated information, the DJUSD Board of Trustees still supports its original decision to release Mr. Christian from his duties as head coach, and considers this matter resolved,” Superintendent Winfred Roberson said in a statement released to the Vanguard and other media outlets. He further cited that, “District officials exercised appropriate due diligence for the release of an at-will staff member.”
“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.”
This really suggests that some of the claims made publicly by the Coach were untrue.
Bob Dunning has been on this story from the start as it has all the markings of one of his issues – merging his love for sports with his taste for the controversial and a cover-up by the powers that be.
He reports that Mr. Christian’s attorney Steve Boutin “still maintains hope that cooler heads will prevail and that a lawsuit will be unnecessary.”
Mr. Dunning quotes Mr. Boutin saying, “The District appears to be attempting to close the book on this matter. Please understand this matter is not going away. Neither the Davis public nor Jeff will countenance this type of terribly unfair treatment. However, we are willing to extend a second and final ‘olive branch.’ “
The upside of Mr. Boutin’s contention is that Mr. Christian wants to be reinstated as head coach, but for next season. The argument seems to be that allows the district to maintain their role in discipline while allowing the coach to return to what he wants to do.
Writes Mr. Dunning, “Now there’s a proposal with considerable upside. First, it doesn’t undo the action of either the administration or the board to relieve Christian of his duties for the remainder of this season, thus no one has to swallow hard and admit to making a mistake. Second, the administration has it well within its power to hire Christian back for next season without seeking formal board approval. So no board member will have to admit to violating due process in this firing.”
“The ball is now clearly in the district’s court. It’s time for those who represent the citizens of Davis to revisit this case from the beginning and grant Jeff Christian the legally mandated full and open hearing he has been consistently denied,” Mr. Dunning continues. “If the Board is unwilling to do so, it should at the very least accept Boutin’s reasonable compromise of hiring Christian back to coach next season.”
He concludes, “Otherwise, it is clear that ego and stubborn pride will cause the district to spend untold thousands of tax dollars defending the indefensible. Not to mention what a settlement might ultimately cost. At this time of fiscal crisis in our schools, that would not be a wise course to take.”
The problem that I see is what is the claim that Mr. Christian has at this point. He was an at-will employee which presumably means the district has the pleasure of hiring or firing him at their discretion. Claiming an abuse of discretion is a huge burden to overcome.
It is not even so clear that Mr. Christian was denied his right to process. Unless the Superintendent is outright lying here, he was met with on a number of occasions for inappropriately dealing with students and parents, and apparently disparaging two high school students in the newspaper.
Now, our review of that matter suggests the term “disparaging” is probably overblown. The most I can see is that he publicly acknowledged that the two students were dismissed for conduct detrimental to the team, a term that is thrown around in sports parlance as a bit of a catchall. But generally that refers to professional adults and occasionally amateur adults – although college sports programs are much more guarded about releases due to discipline, because of these concerns.
It is a bit dangerous to utilize anonymous posts, but it is telling that a reader of Mr. Dunning’s column wrote the following, “This is what I’ve seen: If the players are having a bad night, the new coach, Foster, calls them over and makes some coaching adjustments, tells them not to let prior success go to their heads and sends them out to play their game. Result: win for the Blue Devils.”
He continues, “The old coach, Christian, called them over, stomped on the floor, threw his clipboard, and yelled at them about their poor character and laziness, while they listened respectfully in spite of being totally embarrassed I am sure. Result: loss Blue Devils.”
Now clearly in sports, temper is something that is tolerated a lot more than in a classroom, but it is still a high school team. The district may well have had irreconcilable differences with the style of Jeff Christian that perhaps the sports community, that showed up at the board meeting, did not.
Both sides may be right here, it may just be a matter of taste. The problem is that because Mr. Christian is an at-will employee, his recourse is limited.
The bottom line is that while I think reasonable people can and will disagree on the propriety of Mr. Christian’s conduct and thus his firing by the district, from a legal standpoint, I do not see a leg for him to stand on.
Mr. Dunning indicates that this may end up costing the district in legal expenses, but they plan for such expenses, they have risk management, and are members of a risk management pool that mitigates these costs. They may well settle with Mr. Christian, but that’s standard in terminations anyway.
Bottom line is that I do not see this issue going much further than it has. I do not see a deep groundswell of support that suggests this will become something larger. And the district frankly has much more pressing concerns to worry about. It has to find a way to fund its core educational programs. That should be our focus for the next few months.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
The basic flaw in Mr. Christian’s argument is as follows:
1) Christian and his lawyer Boutin complain Christian was not given due process as required by school policy and a chance to explain his side; yet he never gave the two girls kicked off the team their due process rights to explain their side before he summarily dismissed these two students from playing team basketball anymore.
2) Christian is an at-will employee, which means he can be fired at any time for any reason, or no reason at all.
3) It appears Christian was given an opportunity to explain which he failed to avail himself of.
4) It appears according to district policy the girls were entitled to due process and a fair hearing w school officials and their parents present, which never happened.
5) Christian, through his attorney, mentioned the students in the media, which is against school district policy and a violation of the students’ right to privacy.
6) Had Christian followed district policy as was his duty under his contract, it is less likely this man would be in the position he now currently finds himself in.