The Davis Joint Unified School District spent more than $22,000 on a nearly 100-hour investigation, the Vanguard learned in response to a public records act request on Tuesday.
Last week, we learned that Coach Julie Crawford “retaliated against her leading critic, school board member Nancy Peterson, by cutting Peterson’s daughter… from the girls roster last summer, a school district investigation concluded.”
The investigation was concluded in November but it was not until February 5 that Ms. Crawford was told her service agreement would not be renewed. Parents found out about this the day before tryouts were going to begin. So the timing of this decision does not make a lot of sense.
The Enterprise reports, it “has obtained a letter from Best summarizing attorney Alex Sperry’s investigation and which describes the violation of board policy that may have cost Crawford her coaching job.”
The paper reports, “The investigation was triggered by a Sept. 3 complaint filed by longtime Blue Devil volunteer sports doctor Rob Peterson, Nancy’s husband and Ms. Peterson’s father, after Ms. Peterson was cut from the volleyball team.”
Further, the investigator concluded that “more likely than not, Coach Crawford’s decision to cut (Ms.) Peterson from the varsity volleyball team was influenced, at least in part, by Coach Crawford’s feelings about Nancy Peterson.”
The Vanguard learned on Thursday that the parent who filed the complaint is the one who leaked to the paper.
The public records request fills in one missing link – how much money and resources the district expended on the investigation.
On Sunday, we learned that Ron Duer and Jordan Friend have taken over the team on an interim basis. But Rob Cole was apparently told by district administrators that he would be the interim coach and then the district changed its mind.
According to one source that asked to be anonymous, the Vanguard learned that Mr. Cole has close ties to Nancy Peterson and coached her kids in Sacramento.
Mr. Cole was quoted in the paper as having believed he was offered and would receive that position. However, by the end of the day, the district went with Ron Duer and Jordan Friend.
Mr. Duer said, “Jordan Friend and I are co-interim coaches until Julie gets her job back.”
Board President Gina Daleiden told the Vanguard late Tuesday, “It’s important to remember that employees are not ‘hired’ until the Board votes to approve employment.”
She explained that the hiring process for coach includes screening, panel interview, reference checks and fingerprinting. She said, “Information is gathered at each stage in order to inform employment decisions.”
She added, “It is not uncommon that an offer of employment is withdrawn if there are legitimate reasons. In this instance those legitimate reasons did not come to the attention of our staff until after the employment offer had been made.”
The Vanguard has submitted a number of questions for follow up and will have a series of additional articles based on those responses.
The story began in February 2013, when Nancy Peterson pulled the coach’s VSA (variable service agreement) from the consent calendar so that her contract could be discussed and voted on separately in February 2013. She was joined by Gina Daleiden, who believed she had insufficient information to make a decision, but was outvoted at that time 3-2.
Matt Best, who heads HR for the district, made the decision in June not to submit the VSA to the board. Three weeks later, the school board voted, in open session, to reverse the earlier administrative decision made by Dennis Foster and Matt Best, and rehire Crawford as the DHS Girls Volleyball coach for the upcoming fall season.
In her dissent, Peterson cited a passage from the school district’s handbook for coaches regarding “integrity,” and added, “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.”
Ms. Peterson’s daughter, however, tried out for the volleyball team this fall and was apparently cut from the team.
A letter to the editor in today’s paper from a former Davis High School volleyball player, who played both freshman and sophomore years, adds fuel to the file.
She writes, “When I started out as a freshman, there were 14 freshman athletes playing volleyball. By the senior year, only three remained. Most of the 11 who quit did so because of personal conflicts with the coaches. The volleyball program has had a history of complaints that have mostly been ignored.”
She notes that Ms. Peterson’s daughter was cut before her senior season, “She was the only one cut and the only senior.”
The volleyball player adds, “(Ms. Peterson) is a talented athlete who did not deserve to miss out on playing her senior year because of a problem her coach had with her mother.”
The Vanguard will have additional updates on this story as they become available.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I wonder how common it is for the district to spend this much money based on the complaint of a single parent.
Am guessing about as often as Haley’s comet comes by.
Or as often as the parent making the complaint is married to a school board member…
she was not the only senior cut and she was not the only player cut during tryouts just to be clear
also, the author of the letter to the editor in the enterprise never played on the same team as the player in question so it seems like an inaccurate way to assess another player’s talent/skill level, especially if it was just from witnessing play from the year before during the previous high school season. I do however respect the fact that she is standing up for her friend, but in this case, it simply isn’t accurate information.
Wow. Next thing we’ll hear will be how the Peterson-picked replacement coach helped improve the team in 6 hours … oh, wait, he already told us that.
Great job by the Vanguard.
In response to the DSHS volleyball player (Letters, today’s Enterprise) who came out in support of the cut player’s ability, I’ll quote a recent reply from Yahoo Sports. I do this because this is from a national website, and the poster appear to have no stake in the fiasco.
Article: Volleyball coach fighting for job against school board member whose daughter was cut from team
Feb 14, 2014
Yahoo Sports included a link to MaxPreps. Here was the reply on Yahoo Sports.
dazfx2: “Based on her stats as an OH [outside hitter] in 2012 she was not all that good.”
This DSHS volleyball player also states that the cut player was successful on a club team, but when I looked, the cut player is not shown on that roster.
I applaud this player for standing up for her friend. However, she also goes down the road into reciting younger players who gradually left the system, and connecting that to Coach Crawford. I don’t make that connection. There are many reasons why students leave a team. I read the coach’s rules last year when this fiasco first broke. She has laudable goals and high expectations. I suspect her firm no drugs / no drinking rule contributed to a few players deciding not to compete. I’m sure a few dropped off for various reasons. But I suspect increased competition was probably the number one reason. The increased level of play and success of the team probably drew more talented players to the success of the program – playoff berths, awards, and probably college scholarships. Success breeds increased competition and bigger commitments. Proof of this is the increased participation rate and enthusiasm for boy’s volleyball.
I’m also curious to know who and how these types of expenditures are approved?
If you’re Daddy Big Bucks and your child doesn’t make the coveted team, I’m sure the threat of lawsuit is in the air at some point in time. The Youtube video of Dr. Peterson saying that the right thing wasn’t done last year is telling, he never gave up the ghost. The settled issue wasn’t settled in his mind.
BTW, $225 an hour is a lawyer’s rate, an investigators rate is maybe $80-90 per hour.
Be clear, DJUSD had their attorney review the report. Those hours were probably charged at the going rates for attorneys.
Actually fairly low numbers for attorneys.
Acknowledged, and my intended point was that the attorney hours were minor, but at a high rate.
So these lawyers were getting paid by the district anyway and this was just what they billed their hours toward?
It is going to make it harder for people in Davis to vote for a tax increase when they learn that the city will blow $20K every time a parent thinks their little darling was not treated like the next Kerri Walsh buy her coach (when they have been telling her that she is a “gold medal” volleyball player since she was 5)…
Vanguard: “Matt Best, who heads HR for the district made the decision in June not to submit the VSA to the board. Three weeks later, the school board voted, in open session, to reverse the earlier administrative decision made by Dennis Foster and Matt Best, and rehire Crawford as the DHS Girls Volleyball coach for the upcoming fall season.”
I think the board only votes on personnel once recommended by the staff, so it wouldn’t be correct to characterize that the board chose to reverse what the administration decided. The administration would have changed their mind and decided to move Crawford forward for board approval.
It was unclear to me how this series of events transpired.
And it will probably won’t be while any of the protaganists live. I sincerely hope that will be another 70+ years.
I read a portion of an article tonight on vice.com, and the writer referred to “Generation Wuss” and the cocooning of our children due to the Helicopter Parents… and you know what story I thought about.
My coach in grade school made fun of me in front of half the team. In high school, a marginal teacher dished negative comments about my athletic ability, I gave a smart reply, and when final grades came out, that was my worst grade. In nether instance did my parents interject themselves into my problems. They’d serve as a sounding board, they’d give some advice, and they’d let me handle it.
Anytime an employee or parent files a complaint the district is legally obligated to investigate. I wouldn’t think it is an expenditure that would need approval because they really have no choice and I am not surprised that it cost this amount. When students are at stake, I would expect a thorough investigation and after 100 hours, I believe that expectation has been met.
Now, it leads us to an interesting quandary. Despite public opinion, I do not think that the school board can overturn this investigation. They are really in a lose/lose situation. If they overturn it, they will send a message that retaliation is tolerated (based on the findings that I have read about in the paper) and they will look foolish for throwing out the findings of a 100 hour investigation. If they do not overturn it, there will be public outcry.
I have no way of knowing who is in the majority and who is in the minority. Just because one side screams louder, does not mean they are in the majority-they are just loud. Either way the school board will lose the confidence of the voters.
On another note- can we PLEASE stop attacking any and all students involved in this! Now, some have drug and alcohol problems? Really?
So every time a parent complains the district is expected to spend $22,000 to investigate?
Sure, if the parent is a board member. Part of the reason may well be (no evidence, an opinion) district staff needs a 16 foot pole o keep them safe from a board member.
If this is true, how can it be possible be justified?
A third, uninvolved, party was needed in the best interest of all, I suspect. Yeah, the cost was high, and may yet be higher still, depending how this plays out.
Spending $22,000 to investigate if a player was unfairly cut from a high school sports team seems outrageously high, regardless of the parties involved.
Maybe we need to go to a 1% sales tax increase so we have the money to spend $50K every time a high school student is not happy with their grades (or a cheerleader is “unfairly” cut from the squad). I know a lot of people that will lose all faith in the management of the school district if this is “swept under the rug”…
DJUSD Administrative Regulations 1312.1 Complaints Concerning District Employees
In posting the whole Admin. Reg. section, I meant to convey the point that not every complaint has to result in hiring an outside investigator. But it’s also a roadmap to show where things are in the process, where they will go.
Thank you once again for providing excellent resources.
Here are some questions I would like to know the answers to:
1) how many complaints from parents make it to the point where the district decides it’s necessary, and merits the cost, to bring an outside investigator in?
2) Did the Peterson’s ask for this step to be taken? Or did the district take it without the Peterson’s knowledge or consent.
3) If they requested it where they aware of the cost associated with taking it?
In 100% agreement.
je d’accord.
Did the Peterson’s file their complaint in French?
It doesn’t matter the language, the message is the same NO slandering of the students involved in the situation.
The question isn’t that the district investigated, it’s the 100 hours, $22,000. By way of comparison in 2008 the city hired an investigator to look into a grand jury complaint against the fire department – that investigation cost the city $30,000.
Again, the need for staff to be “at arms length”.
Comparing a department with ‘known’ issues vs. a few individuals? C’mon.
Guess I might have missed the essence of your point, David, if you are saying that the cost of the investigation was disproportionate.
David, how much of the cost is for an investigation and how much is for the district to get legal review and advice on proceeding?
An investigation and district legal review that took 100 hours is fine if it’s adequate to support whatever decision the school board makes. If it can’t, it isn’t worth half of what the district paid.
This has been a controversial matter for the district, and the charge is serious. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that the district might go overboard trying to get it right. Still, they’ve gotten it screwed up in more ways than most organizations could have.
—
“According to one source that asked to be anonymous, the Vanguard learned that Mr. Cole has close ties to Nancy Peterson and coached her kids in Sacramento.”
David, this sounds a lot like gossip, along the lines of suggesting that Coach Crawford’s strong “no drugs allowed” team rule drove off the team members. Same source? “Close ties,” hmmm. Same church? Business partners? Even closer?
But, what’s the implication? Is it a conspiracy? A disqualifying job history? What?
P.S.–Agree with those who’ve said we shouldn’t be judging the kids involved here.
The charge is serious? The charge, as far as I can tell, was that a high school volleyball player was unfairly cut from a sports team. Unless I am missing something, I’m having a hard time understanding how the district can justify the need to spend $22,000 dollars to investigate and determine how to proceed.
It is not gossip that he coached her child in Sacramento, if the club volleyball website has the coach and child’s name listed for that team.
“David, how much of the cost is for an investigation and how much is for the district to get legal review and advice on proceeding?”
That question ends up falling into a realm of attorney-client privilege, so if I had asked for more detail, I would have gotten a lot of blacked out portions of documents.
“David, this sounds a lot like gossip, along the lines of suggesting that Coach Crawford’s strong “no drugs allowed” team rule drove off the team members. Same source? “Close ties,” hmmm. Same church? Business partners? Even closer? ”
Yeah except I largely confirmed it off the record with a board member. Let’s just say they were concerned enough that it was why the contract was pulled and please allow me to leave it at that.
“But, what’s the implication? Is it a conspiracy? A disqualifying job history? What?”
It was a perception issue.
“Agree with those who’ve said we shouldn’t be judging the kids involved here.”
It’s part of why I stopped naming the kids even though the cat is out of the bag and most are 18 now.
Where was Sheila Allen in this mess? Does anyone know if she took a leadership role in trying to solve it ? She wants the big job at City Hall, so voters should look at her time on the school board.
I am upset with the $20K as I stated earlier but it is the 72 pages of the report that amazes me; how could the investigation justify 72 pages?
Will it become public?
No it won’t become public.
I think the 72 pages justifies the $22,000, if you get my drift.
I am a civil litigator and routinely look into complex issues.
That attorney investigation should have been between $5-7,000. The file was way over billed.
Who on the Board opened up that unlimited budget project ?
Did the investigation have a budget? Who approved the expenditures? I’m assuming staff?
Do we know if this was paid from the general fund? Or was this covered by some type of insurance fund?
Tbd: good point
The issue is not whether the player was cut, but was she cut in retaliation against her mother. That is the bottom line.
This is a very serious offense and has far reaching implications. I really can’t think of any justification for a teacher/coach to take out his/her anger on a student. From the very beginning, I saw this as a disgruntled employee situation. The disgruntled employee was not happy with a decision that didn’t go in her favor. So she went to the papers and said that she had no idea why this happened. All the while, knowing exactly why and knowing that the employer cannot refute her claims. This happens all the time and I will admit that I am a little biased having been on the employer side of this before. The employee can say whatever they want and the employer must remain quiet.
I did find it odd in the original article that the Coach provided her evaluations up until Spring 2013, but did not provide Fall of 2013 and the reporter took her at her word that it was a good evaluation. I actually had to read that part of the article a few times just to make sure that I was reading it correctly. I went to bed and didn’t really think too much of it — maybe it was a misprint? Then I woke up the next morning and read another article about the retaliation claim and the result of the investigation. It suddenly made sense! What she didn’t count on was the father going to the paper with the letter. We can argue if this was a violation of confidentiality some other time, but as a parent, I might have done the same.
If the guidelines detailed above were followed — the coach was aware of the complaint, the findings and had appealed to the Superintendent. I guess pulling the VSA was his way of denying her appeal. All of this leads me to the conclusion that the coach was not forthcoming and intentionally misleading when she went to the Enterprise. Which unfortunately for her, lends credibility to the findings of the investigation. Specifically, the part about the coach lacking core ethical values of trustworthiness, respect and responsibility. The coach has no one to blame but herself for that move. But on the other hand — I can see why she did it. If you incite the public, they lose sight of the original issue. That is a strategy that works very well.
“The issue is not whether the player was cut, but was she cut in retaliation against her mother. That is the bottom line. ”
At this point that is one of the issues. In the end here, it may well be that both sides acted wrongly. But if truly the investigators report was bottom lined at “More likely than not” and “influenced in part” I wonder if we were really best served by having the investigation, terminating the coach, and having this whole mess thrown into the public. I wonder if this would have happened had the player not been a school board member. I wonder if the Petersons used good judgment sending her back to the team, filing a complaint, and leaking the complaint to the press.
The answer to that is easy: no. Nancy should never have put her name into the fray; as a Trustee, her first duty is to the District and she should have remained silent on the matter, recusing herself whenever it came before the Board. Her husband could have represented the family in the complaint and all follow-up. Nancy’s decision to use her privileged position instead of letting the process play out as it would for any other parent was a grave mistake, and casts a pall of doubt upon her continued role as a Trustee.
Actually, I think you’ve described exactly how Nancy has remained silent and recused herself while Dr. Peterson has handled the complaint for the family and all follow up.
How long has she remained silent, 1 week? We know who started the train, put it on the tracks, and put it in drive.
This time, yes, after the storm of protest from Nancy’s prior direct involvement in complaints and formal Board actions.
Agree, my point exactly. She learned from the experience, I presume, and stayed out of the picture since her daughter was cut from the squad.
enoughsaid, you call a reserve player being cut from an affluent suburban volleyball team a very serious offense?
You also seem to be the first person to allege that Coach Crawford went to the paper. Is this a fact? You might ponder why anything so horrible can happen in suburbia, but in the real world reserve players get cut all the time. And if it is true that said player was disrespectful and didn’t follow direction, all the more reason. I don’t know the answer to that question, but I have seen conclusive proof that over 20 student-athletes got up at the crack of dawn to support their coach. One student athlete said that it was one adult who has the problem (i.e., Nancy Peterson). That is on videotape on the student newspaper website.
enoughsaid, you seem pent up about what happened last summer. The only person I have heard with similar current, live emotion about that long-ago round 1 is Dr. Peterson. Interesting.
You wrote “I might have done the same. [gone to the papers with a confidential paper]” Really. And put your daughter into the middle of a media frenzy for another 3 to 6 months?
enoughsaid: “Which unfortunately for her, lends credibility to the findings of the investigation. Specifically, the part about the coach lacking core ethical values of trustworthiness, respect and responsibility. The coach has no one to blame but herself for that move.”
I’m probably wrong, but boy you sound like Dr. Peterson.
$22,000? WOW !!!!!
Just think, that works out to 108 Measure E homeowner parcel tax payments.
Keep paying those taxes, your money is being spent so well.
How do we know this player was cut in retaliation against the mother? If so, what was the mother doing?
In response to “True Blue Devil”, yes, I assumed that it was the coach that went to the paper. I have no proof of that, but it was an assumption based on the article itself that is loaded with quotes from the coach and that she provided the reporter with copies of her evaluations. She was obviously prepared for the interview. Maybe the reporter went to her- I don’t know. But in any case, it’s not an unreasonable conclusion.
… or maybe someone close to her.
We will see more of this as Davis’s population grows while resisting a second high school. There are only so many slots on a team. If a kid wants to play a sport, there is a greater probability that the entire high school experience will NOT including playing a sport. And if the kid is upset about it, and his/her parents have the resources and connections… I would expect them to intervene. For the very reason that parents… especially Davis parents… don’t accept anything less than perfection for everything their little darlings want to do.
I understand that Folsom has a lot of school transfers from one high school to the other due to kids wanting to play a particular sport.
There are instances in which a third tier team can be set up, i.e., JV, and maybe a Varsity A and Varsity B team (secondary to Varsity A), if there is enough interest in a sport. Granted that it maybe tougher to round out a schedule for such a team. I saw one example with Jesuit HS’ Rugby program, and another example with another HS rugby program, but I can’t remember which one it was, maybe a Bay Area HS.