Special Meeting of January 13, 2005

[Diane Blevins]

Proceedings of the Board of Trustees

District No. 2, Yellowstone County

High School District No. 2, Yellowstone County

Billings, Montana

 

January 13, 2005

 

Call to Order

 

The Special Meeting of the Board of Trustees of School District No. 2, Yellowstone County, Montana, and High School District, Yellowstone County, Montana, was duly held at The Lincoln Center, 415 North 30th Street, Billings, Montana, January 13, 2005, at 12:00 p.m.

 

Those present included: Katharin Kelker, Dale Getz, Karen Moses, Clerk Leo Hudetz, Conrad Stroebe, Stephanie Krueger, Judith Herzog, Superintendent Rod Svee, Malcolm Goodrich, and Mike Dimich via speakerphone. Gene Jarussi was absent.

 

Registered guests included: Jeff Weldon, Carl Hanson, Loraine Hanson, Chip Alwood, Julie Brown and Jane Stevens.

 

Communication from the Public

 

The Board recognizes the value of public comment on educational issues and the importance of listening to members of the public in its meetings. The Board also recognizes the statutory and constitutional right of the public to participate in governmental operations. The Board encourages members of the public to participate in and express opinions about issues important to the District. This part of the Board’s meeting is dedicated to public comment on any public matter that is not on the agenda of this meeting and is within the jurisdiction of the Board of Trustees. Members of the public may also address particular items on this agenda either now or at the time the Board considers the particular item. There were no public comments.

 

Policy 1700 Appeal Meeting

 

The Chair stated the hearing is based on Policy 1700, Level 5, which is an appeal to the Trustees who serve as a review panel in the complaint. The following are the issues to be reviewed: 1) did the Superintendent comply with State statute and Board policy; 2) was the Superintendent required to bring a recommendation for termination of one or both teachers involved in the alleged incident at Skyview; and, 3) what was the process and logic followed by the Superintendent in arriving at his decision concerning the Skyview incident appeal? The Chair stated no decision would be made on the original incident. There were four complaints filed but those involved have agreed to join together in one hearing. Cary and Julie Brown, Jane Stevens, Loraine Hanson, and Chip and Raye Alwood filed the original complaints.

 

Julie Brown stated her husband’s complaint was that the matter was not resolved in a manner that would assure it would not happen again and the Skyview administrator and District administrator did not address it properly. She recommended the case be reopened as an appeal as today’s hearing, and, ultimately, the punishment given was not sufficient. She reported she has sought legal counsel in the matter.

 

Chip Alwood spoke on behalf of himself and his wife Raye. He addressed the letter received from the Superintendent dated November 5, 2004. The letter stated Superintendent Svee found no violation of Board policy or law in the instance. He stated his daughter was involved as stated in his complaint. He asked if the teachers did nothing wrong, why were suspensions given. He read the Professional Educators of Montana’s Code of Ethics. Mr. Alwood cited Montana Codes that he felt the teachers violated. He requested the Board to open an independent investigation into the situation. He felt the two people involved should be terminated from their positions. Mr. Alwood’s written statement is part of the permanent record of minutes in the District Clerk’s office.

 

Loraine Hanson addressed the Superintendent’s letter of November 5th. She did not feel all of the information given to the Superintendent was not received initially in order to take the appropriate action. She further reported the letter stated that ‘prior incidents were dealt appropriately with by Bob Whalen’. She felt if there were prior reports dealt with appropriately, then the student’s information on the incident on September 7th should have been in addition to the prior reports and not the only thing discipline should have been based upon. She cited various Montana codes that she felt had been violated. Copies of the codes cited are included in the permanent record of the minutes in the District Clerk’s office.

 

Joan Stevens addressed the Board as a complainant and the mother of the daughter who witnessed the incident on September 7th. She reported the incident to a counselor who wrote the statement and reported to the principal. She contacted the Board and was told to call the Superintendent. Mrs. Stevens felt morality has gone out the window and something must be done.

 

Superintendent Svee reviewed the packet of documents given to the Board members. He reported the District had not identified the girl per the request of her father, but her mother has now identified the witness. The parents have joint custody and the District did not violate the father’s request. Superintendent Svee stated ‘just cause’ for termination of a teacher is a legal term indicating the level of proof the District must have. To terminate a teacher in the middle of a contract or to terminate a tenured teacher, involve at least ‘good cause’, not ‘just cause’. The Board did not receive information on the incident, as it is the first level in the appeal process. Mr. Svee stated judgments were made which were very firm legal judgments. One of those, since the witness is a child of joint custody, a ruling would have to be obtained which could allow the minor child to testify, but the parents disagree. He also looked at the possibility of putting a minor child through the process of eight hearings with cross-examination. The complaints filed appealed two items: 1) disciplinary action given by the administration was inadequate due to the background of the situation and the severity of the faculty’s action; and, 2) due to the fault of the building administrator, the complainant felt not all of the facts were addressed during the initial meetings with the students and parents, during the initial investigation. Superintendent Svee stated he found out additional information from various parties involved. He found nothing that contradicted what he had heard originally. The teachers have denied the accusations. Superintendent Svee stated the Board would have to look at the level of evidence of what happened in that room.

 

Trustee Goodrich asked if the teachers deny anything occurred and administration had a proof problem, why was discipline assessed and why was it different between the two parties? Mr. Svee replied it was based on prior issues and things that are subject to grievance and those things that are not subject to grievance. Trustee Getz asked if the discipline was voluntary or given by the administration. Mr. Svee stated the teachers chose to resign from their coaching positions. Trustee Stroebe felt the discussion was inappropriate as the parties were not in attendance at this meeting. Mr. Weldon reported their attorney had been notified of the hearing, and their privacy is being preserved. Mr. Audet, BEA President, informed the Board that one of the teachers called him and requested he attend this meeting.

 

The Chair stated she determined the demands of individual privacy exceed the merits of public disclosure. Under Montana law, she has the authority to close the meeting. She assured the audience, no formal action would take place during they closed session. The Board then went into closed session.

 

The open meeting reconvened at 1:40 p.m.

 

Trustee Herzog asked the Superintendent if he had engaged legal services during the investigation. Superintendent Svee reported he spoke to in-house council. Trustee Goodrich asked what standard of proof the Superintendent applied to evaluate the capacity to prove or disprove the allegations. Mr. Svee responded statements were reviewed, and he considered the ability of the School District to be able to prove it or not prove it in District Court and beyond. Trustee Moses asked if anyone had ever brought up sexual misconduct incidents at Skyview prior to this incident. Superintendent Svee reported they had not, but since then, he has heard a few comments. Trustee Goodrich asked the parents if they had referred these issues to the County Attorney for investigation of criminal matters. Mrs. Hanson reported the City Attorney would investigate the matter.

 

The Chair asked Mr. Svee, in his opinion, if the students involved have been treated appropriately and were their rights and needs addressed. Superintendent Svee has checked with administrators at Skyview and the parents to make sure things are all right. The Chair asked why a teacher had not been transferred. Mr. Svee reported one teacher’s area of teaching is very difficult to hire in and that area is now without one teacher due to a military leave. It might be possible to transfer one of the teachers at a later date. The Chair also asked if the students themselves were feeling any pressure to leave the school or change schools. Mr. Svee did not believe they students were feeling any pressure.

 

Trustee Stroebe asked the Superintendent to prepare a statement as to how the list of legal statutes cited by the parents were handled. The Superintendent stated he would prepare a response. Trustee Getz asked who took the disciplinary action. Mr. Svee answered it was a group of administrators that included Bob Whalen, Dave Williamson, Rod Svee, Jeff Weldon and Carol Wicker.

 

Trustee Goodrich suggested a Special Meeting be held next week to make the Board decision. It was determined the issue will be revisited at a noon meeting on Thursday, January 20th.

 

 

 

Adjournment

 

As there was no further business, the meeting adjourned at 2:15 p.m.

 

 

 

 

Katharin Kelker, Chair

 

 

 

Diane Blevins, Recorder