Boards of education are sometimes asked by news reporters or other citizens to explain the reasons when they fire an administrator, teacher or other employee. Some school boards, in fact, are publicly criticized when they refuse to divulge such reasons or do not speak out in defense of a dismissal.
The Illinois Association of School Boards believes such criticism is almost always unwarranted and unfair. The public needs to know that a school board must treat information regarding an employee dismissal as completely confidential.The fact is, a public right to know rarely if ever attaches to an employee dismissal, especially when the employer is a public body.
Even in those rare situations involving criminal misconduct, responsibility for publicly releasing information about formal charges would rest, not with the public employer, but with law enforcement officials.Under any circumstances imaginable, it would be improper for the members of a school board to comment publicly regarding an employee dismissal for at least three reasons:
1) Barring some heinous misconduct on the part of the employee, no employer should wish to make future employment any more difficult than necessary.
2) Releasing stigmatizing information on an employee, even in the form of accusations or opinions, will increase the level of hostility and make an amicable settlement of an employment dispute impossible. The cost of going to court is many times greater than the cost of an out-of-court settlement and is not a prudent use of dollars that should be spent on educating children.
3) Public employees have constitutionally protected interests in personal reputation, integrity and the right to future employment opportunities. A public body that divulges stigmatizing information in dismissing an employee jeopardizes the constitutional rights of that employee and creates an intricate and costly web of procedural due process requirements. Even where stigmatizing information is believed to be true, efforts to prove it in court carry enormous financial risks.
read more here...
7 comments:
Interesting that the BOE has to go so far to protect Ms. McArdle's rights, but her attorney is willing to release as much info as possible. It's unfortunate becuase people form opinions based on one side of the story.
I would hope that McArdle and her attorney would pull back on trying Hinton et al in the court of public opinion. The charges are serious, what is the objective really, to right a wrong or to get paid in a settlement?
Does Ms. McArdle really want to be reinstated at Lindbergh? How well would that go over? Maybe she will end up as another fat cat administrator with a settlement under her belt.
I have also heard that she was disappointed to find out that Lindbergh had such a "diverse student body". But now she is suing the District stating misuse of waivers. Amazing how when it comes down to getting what one wants people are always willing to use the plight of the poor little inner city kids as a trump card.
It is inexcusable for Ms. McArdle to provide records from the School to an outside entity showing confidential student information. Her attorney should have caught this mistake before filing the documents. Now maybe those parents should be looking to sue somebody.
Once Ms. McArdle is awarded the money asked for under #2 (re:violating the NCLB) in her Complaint will she be giving it to those students who she was concerned could not attend Lindbergh on a waiver? After all, it was their rights that were violated under NCLB - not hers.
Blogs are changing how information is reported, etc. At this point there are all kinds of opinions and rumors and probably facts floating about both Davis and McArdle (comments that would never be allowed in the traditional press). I am not so happy about the personal attacks being made on either the former or present principal. However, I'm glad to see blogs offering an opportunity for transparency about the way the district conducts business. For instance, on C.J.'s blog I used Manual's retired band director as an example of how school finances should be handled. He was super careful to keep records in an orderly and transparent manner and according to standard bookkeeping procedures--always ready for an auditor. The district should demand such record keeping for all the organizations, clubs, etc., throughout the district--to protect the district's money and even the employees from themselves.
All these little accounts offer many opportunities for misuse of funds throughout the district--no plan is foolproof, but the district doesn't seem to have any consistent plan.
I see this case as an opportunity to discuss and maybe bring about change in the way finances are managed and reported. Also, I see it as an eyeopener about the whole evaluation process of principals and teachers. No one would dream of expecting Caterpillar's CEO or board members to listen to public opinin about whom to hire and fire. However, thankfully, laws against discrimination make the workplace fairer than it was years ago etc. Because schools are public institutions and because of children being their clientele, the public gets more involved in personnel matters. I have no problem with parents complaining about problems with principals, teachers, etc., as long as there are objective listeners that can put all that they hear into perspective--I'm not certain that is happening here. However, I really can't offer any opinions about either McArdle and Davis--before all of this happened I knew almost nothing about either one. I believe the district has made a huge mistake by not taking care of the accusations about misuse of money first and then moving on to decide whether or to terminate McArdle's contract. McArdle could be a lousy principal and Davis could have misused funds--the two issues should not have been treated as one issue. Finding McArdle to be a bad principal in no way clears Davis--there are records that need to be explained. The district itself (yes, probably Hinton himself) created that situation by ignoring a potentially explosive situation. The problem is compounded in that Davis is the academic officer to whom the parents would logically complain about the person who took Davis' place. Under the circumstances, the whole process smells to high heaven. Obviously, there was no rush to make the decision to fire her (unless, of course, the district thought it could help in covering up the money mess). She is still staying until June 30, so now wasn't the time to fire her. I don't believe there is any deadline for ending a principal's contract (I could be wrong) beause principals have very little job security. I think they could have told her in June that she was fired. The district has set LMS and McArdle up for a terrible ending to the year. Principals are supposed to evaluate teachers (I don't think that process would be complete by now). McArdle's authority has been completely stripped now, so who will do the evaluating, etc.
Personally, I don't have a good feeling about the parental involvement in this situation--too many opportunities related to favoritism, special treatment expected, etc.
As to the question in your original post: Personnel matters should be private. As in the case of Dr. Royster, I do not think the district should have been forced to reveal their reasons for firing her--to protect her, not themselves. However, I think she should have been free to reveal the reasons she was given. The same goes in this case. The district should not air the list of reasons for dismissing McArdle. However, McArdle should feel quite free to share the reasons with others if she so chooses. At Manual,some of us made a habit of sharing our evaluations with each other--it gave us a sense of how fair or unfair the evaluation process was. Administrators didn't want us to discuss our evaluations with each other--obviosuly, a good reason to do so.
I hope I didn't make a mistake and get this on twice.
From what I have read, McArdle was released from her contract, but her attorney filed an injunction, so that she can stay in her job until the end of the school year.
It seems that that might be true--bad idea. Makes sense--no one could really make her stay. The whole thing is so messed up. I can't get past all the comments on the blogs from LMS parents--they seem to either hate McArdle and love Davis or hate Davis and love McArdle. I can't get past the administration handling of the situation either. Actually, it's interesting to see all this drama in the north end schools.
Going back into the workplace after filing such a charge is usually advised by the attorney. You have to "act like you want the job" by fighting for it - if you expect to get paid for being removed wrongfully.
It may not be good for the atmosphere at the school, but it is good for the lawsuit.
Yes, I get it. Can you think of any reason why the district had to choose this moment for firing McArdle? Maybe there was some contractual reason for the timing--I really don't know. Shouldn't the district have had the effect on LMS uppermost in their minds when deciding when to terminate her contract before school is out? What was their motive in choosing this time--it really looks like it had something to do with covering up her accusations, doesn't it? Shouldn't they have tried to avoid the appearance of a coverup even if they had legitimate reasons? I am also wondering what kind of interviewing, etc., went on before hiring McArdle. I stated somewhere that if the district is going to make a habit out of hiring strangers from out of the district (McArdle, and Richwoods principal) they really do have to give them time to adjust to a new situation--and all the emotions of parents, etc. I surely have the feeling that some of the parents are used to having influence over the principal, etc. Peoria never takes kindly to strangers in positions of authority. Anyway, I really am not defending or criticizing McArdle at this point--the lawsuit will do whatever it will do (out of the district's hand except for preparing a case against her). I am concerned about all that it says about District 150's way of handling problems--always being reactive instead of proactive.
Post a Comment