Board Appeal Panel Minutes of March 23, 2007

[Diane Blevins]

Proceedings of the Board of Trustees

District No. 2, Yellowstone County

High School District No. 2, Yellowstone County

Billings, Montana

 

March 23, 2007

 

Call to Order

 

The Board Appeal Panel 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, March 23, 2007, at 12:00 p.m.

 

Those present included: Tom Willis, Carol Willis, Trustees Katharin Kelker, Malcolm Goodrich, Joel Guthals, Attorney Larry Martin, Human Resources Director Dan Martin, and Superintendent Jack Copps.

 

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.

 

Trustee Guthals asked the Chair if there were any privacy issues. The Chair stated those issues would be stated and Larry Martin would be asked if the meeting should be closed.

 

The Chair read the procedural guideline for those present. Mr. Willis had filed an appeal as directed in Policy 1700 but it was determined that Policy 5002 was more the nature of the appeal to the Board. This is not an investigation. The Chair stated this matter is more of an appeal and, at this point, does not deal with confidential issues raised under Policy 5003, which will be discussed shortly. He referred to Mr. Martin, legal counsel, for his opinion on the privacy issue.

 

Larry Martin reported Mr. Willis filed the policy 1700 complaint and specifically waived his right to privacy with respect to that particular complaint. Clerk Leo Hudetz determined it would be more appropriately handled under the non-discrimination policies and, therefore, that complaint was handled under a different set of policies. I believe that Mr. Willis’ position under Policy 1700 was he waived his rights but he didn’t think he was under Policy 5003. Mr. Martin considered that to be a moot point. The issues are the same, the complaint is the same, and that waiver would hold over under a different set of policies. In addition, he concurred with the Chair that it is no longer in the investigative phase anymore. On February 16, Dan Martin, Executive Director of Human Resources, advised Tom Willis of the panel hearing, “although you have previously waived your right to privacy in filing his complaint, if you believe that any privacy rights that should be considered, you may notify the presiding trustee prior to the meeting or any time during the meeting of the nature of the privacy rights”. Mr. Martin was not aware of any privacy rights being addressed earlier. It was his conclusion that the matter should proceed in an open meeting. Trustee Guthals had asked whether there are privacy concerns about the materials in the packet, Larry Martin believed there was nothing in that packet that were of a nature in which the demands of the rights of privacy would out weigh the public’s right to know. There may be some issues that may arise during this panel proceeding that could involve a right to privacy and Mr. Martin thought the presiding trustee should be aware of that, and if at any time the issues do arise, then he would have to determine whether a portion of this meeting should be closed.

 

Trustee Goodrich stated if that point should arise, he would close the meeting for the trustees to focus on that fact. Given that, he declared the meeting opened, he reserved his right as the presiding trustee to close the meeting if an issue should arise. Trustee Goodrich summed up the proceedings prior to this meeting according to the Script for Presiding Trustee, Section D and E. A copy of the Script for Presiding Trustee is attached.

 

Mr. Willis registered his concern about his privacy rights. He stated he did not invoke his privacy rights for Policy 5000, as they were two different policies. He stated he did not give them up. He said that in your determination, I do not have any privacy rights, which is causing me much concern. He said that he wanted to invoke his privacy rights or at least register his complaint. Mr. Willis said you can go as you choose but I have not given up my rights to privacy. He said we are done with Policy 1700, when it was dismissed, it became Policy 5000 and past practice by this Board is that it was shifted from one to another. He stated the District has had, in the last year, a process that occurred in this same way. Trustee Goodrich asked if Mr. Willis’ remarks changed Mr. Martin’s opinion. Mr. Martin said that it did not change his opinion.

 

Trustee Kelker asked for background on the investigator. Mr. Martin reported Jean Fuare is an attorney in Great Falls who has been in practice for a number of years and has done considerable amount of work on discrimination law. She came highly recommended and this is the first time she has performed an investigation for the school district. In conjunction with the Superintendent, he believed that she would be independent and objective in her attitude of this matter.

 

Trustee Goodrich reiterated that the meeting will proceed ahead in open meeting but the meeting will close if needed. He further stated he wanted to give Mr. Willis as much opportunity to make his case so he may error on the side of due process. He said if we are getting far a field of the complaint or in the matters that are irrelevant, then I will reserve the right to truncate the discussion. Trustee Goodrich said once Mr. Willis and the Superintendent make their presentation, this panel will consider the testimony and make a decision. He asked Mr. Willis to make his presentation.

 

Mr. Willis reported the packet has all of the information; the result of two investigations, one of which was conducted by a person who the complaint was filed against. Mr. Willis said the following; I registered that complaint but the evidence is still here; the other investigation was handled by someone who asked for witnesses that I would like to have contacted; none of those witnesses have been contacted and I would say that you have everything that you can make a decision with; so that is that; you have everything that you need.

 

Trustee Goodrich asked whether you are concerned that, the first investigation was made by Mr. Martin? Mr. Willis reported it was. The second investigation was by attorney Jean Fuare. Mr. Goodrich wanted to make sure our records are clear. He said I just want to make sure that you have adequate opportunity to present your concerns, if you feel there is anything in the investigations that are flawed, beyond what you made or you want to present your case, or just give your sense of all of this information, I want to give you the opportunity to do that now.

 

Mr. Willis reported you have everything. He said that he believed the investigation by Jean Fuare is flawed, containing erroneous information, but that it is the District’s investigation and they are welcome to make decisions based on it.

 

Trustee Goodrich stated now is the opportunity to contest those findings and tell us why you object to the findings in particular detail. Mr. Willis reiterated that no witnesses were contacted other than the witnesses that stood up for the decision made by the Board.

 

Trustee Kelker asked for an example of the erroneous issues. Mr. Willis stated the following: that you were there for these decisions and know the chronology that these decisions were made; you yourself know what decisions were erroneous in there; you have your investigation, make your decision based on the investigation. He said he didn’t want to sit and argue with people who have lawyers here when I do not; I just came here to try and solve this problem through the process of Board policy; this is me trying to do that but I see that you have considerable legal help that I do not have available for myself so I have to say for me to say anything without legal counsel would be foolish.

 

Trustee Guthals asked if Mr. Willis wanted legal counsel to represent him at this proceeding. Mr. Willis reported he was just trying to satisfy all of the policies and to try to get this through here but now it appears that he needed to have legal counsel. Mr. Willis said: I will say that any answers I give you and I feel that I am getting into a situation that I need to talk to counsel, then I will make a decision and defer until a later time when I can defer to counsel. Trustee Guthals asked if he wanted the opportunity for legal counsel to be present at the hearing. Mr. Willis stated he had not heard anything that would violate my privacy rights already. He felt it was making him very nervous but he would wait and see if he needs to defer to counsel.

 

Trustee Goodrich stated he was sorry if he gave the impression that, as he leans over the table, it looks like he’s ready to attack, it was only a habit. He wanted to give Mr. Willis an opportunity to review his case. He did not want Mr. Willis to lock himself into a situation that he would regret but wanted to give him a really good opportunity to explain his case. Mr. Goodrich said: we will review this on an impartial basis and I agree with Trustee Guthals in the fact that if you think you need a lawyer, I am perfectly happy to reset this hearing for you to have due process. So if you think, you need a lawyer we will recess right now. Mr. Willis said that he did not believe he needed a lawyer to go through this policy and try to get this decision talked about; at this point, he was not going to put any more money into it at this moment, will just try to have an audience with the Board.

 

Trustee Guthals asked Mr. Willis if he believed that he was receiving a fair hearing. Mr. Willis stated there are two Board members who are lawyers and legal counsel to whom you refer and I have none. Mr. Willis said: he was just trying to follow the process laid out by Board policy; you have paid for an investigation twice now and you have enough information to make a decision. Trustee Guthals said that, from his standpoint, it is very important that you have right to due process, that you have the right to counsel and I don’t think that it is a good position for you to take by not telling us any issues that you have. Mr. Willis stated you have the report; this is not a court of law but just a Board meeting and so I am still stumped why I need legal remedy here or need to have representation to have this conversation. Trustee Guthals stated that Mr. Willis should understand that in my mind there are times that school boards must, as a result of state law, conduct their adjudicatory function and at other times be a decision making body at which the Board makes decisions for the school district; but sometimes the Board must take on adjudicatory function like a court and that is what this is. We have been impaneled to adjudicate your appeal so this is a legal proceeding in my mind. I want to make sure you are acting in your best interest and having legal counsel would be in your best interest. Mr. Willis responded he felt they were adjudicating a decision that you made.

 

Trustee Kelker stated the panel’s decisions are based on if due process has taken place; what we would normally do is look at the chronology to see if things occurred or did not occur; in going through the investigative reports, we need to go through the chronology. Trustee Goodrich said that he felt that what he was hearing was that Mr. Willis stated the panel has the material in the packet to make a decision and the investigative reports are flawed and we should go forward on the case. Trustee Kelker asked about the procedural acts that are claimed not to have been followed. Trustee Goodrich said his concern was that he was hearing a complaint about the process that has been flawed in terms of who did the investigation and how it came out. He stated that is the due process and procedural issue and the other concern was that Mr. Willis felt this was turning into some type of court with lawyers. He wanted to make sure that if Mr. Willis feels he needs legal representation on this issue he was happy to recess to recess this so he can retain that. He felt Mr. Willis was saying this is the Board meeting, let’s go forward, I have concerns about the process and evaluate the process based on what you have, and make your decision accordingly.

 

Trustee Kelker wanted to agree on the steps in the process so everyone is on the same page. She didn’t want to just look at the investigative reports. Trustee Goodrich felt the only thing to do is to note Mr. Willis’ objections in the record clearly so that he can reserve his right to contest any decision that is made and proceed forward.

 

Larry Martin explained the process that had been followed saying: In your packet of material is all of the documentation from the very beginning of the filing of the complaint until today. They reveal what the process was. This is an unusual situation and it is not demarcated specifically in your policy. The reason for that is that normally the process for dealing with discrimination complaints may sometimes start at the Director of Human Resources and Mr. Martin and sometimes at the school level, and ultimately the Human Resources Director is charged with the investigation and making a recommendation to the Superintendent. The Superintendent then conducts his own investigation and reviews the material and ultimately decides whether he wants to agree with the recommendation from the Resources Director or not. He makes a recommendation and the final conclusion, which then goes to the Board for an appeal. This case is somewhat different because when Director Martin got this he made some preliminary inquiries and, in his belief, rightly concluded that since he was indirectly involved in the decisions which Mr. Willis challenged, and Superintendent Copps was directly involved in those, we couldn’t use the standard procedure in your policy, which is I make a recommendation, and the Superintendent reviews the recommendation. That is the final administrative recommendation that goes to the Board and for an appeal. So he recommended to the Superintendent that an outside investigator be employed, the Superintendent stay away from it entirely, and that report go directly to the Board for ultimate action because ultimately, under law, it is your responsibility to determine if discrimination did occur, and to do something about it. So, the process is somewhat unusual and as I said is not completely defined in your particular policy because the policy does not specifically account for this situation. With the chain of command that the normal process goes through, it is also involved in the subsequent issue. You are here today, basically, in the same setting as the Superintendent would normally be having received the investigative report, looking at all of the material, and then making a decision, in this case, a recommendation that would go to the full Board. I hope that puts the process in perspective. There is nothing that we can really do about the fact you act in various capacities and sometimes you have to act in adjudicatory capacity over issues involved with people that you work with every day and Montana law provides for that. The remedies, when someone has a claim of discrimination, it doesn’t necessarily have to end here, as there are legal remedies. So I think the process that you followed is an appropriate process. The other thing is if there are any issues involving that process that Mr. Willis wants to bring up, I think it is appropriate for you to review them. One other thing I would like to say in the matter of privacy, is that everyone wants to be respective of Mr. Willis’ right to privacy, but as we all know that right to privacy is governed by Montana law and not only by Mr. Willis’s waiver. If there are any particular issues of privacy that he believes this meeting should be closed in order to be discussed, I recommend that you bring them forward and then you as the Board Chair can make the decision as to a specific issue as opposed generally believing that the privacy rights are not respected because we have to deal with those on a specific issue basis.

 

Trustee Kelker said that the panel was obligated to review the due process that is in place and she was not comfortable, as she understood, with the objections of the 1700 complaint. The Chair stated, without legal counsel being present, you are prejudicing your rights in these matters. That is why we suggested the only way to get around this, other than what you are telling us, we need to make sure that the record clearly portrays Mr. Willis concern about the process and at this point he is raising his concern about legal counsel but that we have given him the opportunity to retain legal counsel and it is my understanding, Mr. Willis does not intend to have us recess this so that he can obtain counsel. Mr. Willis responded that was correct.

 

Trustee Guthals asked if Mr. Willis wanted the panel to address the policy on senior administrative appointments in the entire school district or his particular situation. Mr. Willis responded his complaint is that the procedures and the way the District follows policies makes it so that people of particular populations cannot apply for these jobs. He said, the Equal Employment Opportunity Act makes sure people conform; you say you do; but I don’t know how you could; why those jobs were not posted so we could apply for them, so that I could apply for them, I have no idea. Trustee Guthals stated the major part of the complaint is that Mr. Willis wants the Board to address the way personnel policies are administered or change those policies. Mr. Willis stated he wanted those addressed. Trustee Guthals stated that is more of an overall Board function than an adjudicatory committee to address how policies are administered. Trustee Guthals said the other part of the complaint is an allegation of discrimination; this panel, assigned to adjudicate and investigate your complaint, cannot change policy or rewrite and change procedure; that would take the whole Board to do and the Policy Review Committee would go through that process. Mr. Willis stated the Board has policy and the Board did not adhere to it. Trustee Guthals stated the committee must go through the process on Mr. Willis’ complaint that the law has required it to go through; that will give you a basis if you decide you want to take further legal action; if there is a way to divert your personal discrimination complaint by having the Policy Review Committee and the Board take a thorough look at the policy procedures for hiring and recruiting administrators. Mr. Willis wanted the panel to make a decision and it understands what the complaint is. He said it started a year ago and we are just getting to this point; decisions are going forward that I think that the remedy that I got is even possible. Mr. Willis said in the first place, when I first talked to Mr. Martin, at that time, it could have been remedied; all I asked for was a fair application; I told Mr. Martin all I wanted to do was help the school district make it so they didn’t have to get into some mire on this thing; we may get the same result that we have gotten already but at least you are defensible; in my mind, you are not defensible. He stated he had been hurt by this and saw in his mind that there is no way to go back.

 

Trustee Kelker stated she is at the point that she wanted to make sure everyone is understanding this; there is a difference between policy and procedure and the Board does not write procedures; that is done by the administration; the Board has nothing to do with procedures except when asked about them; so our expertise and our area of responsibility is in the policies themselves. She said I don’t hear objection to the policy but I hear objections to what you believe to be the procedures. Mr. Willis responded there are policies that were designed to make sure you comply with the EEOC. Those policies were not followed. Trustee Kelker asked if he was saying that those policies were at fault. Mr. Willis stated no, he believed that they were well written and they were designed to make sure the District stays in compliance. Trustee Kelker stated the procedure and practical application of the policy have caused the procedures to be flawed. Mr. Willis responded there was a choice to deviate from the policy. Trustee Kelker said that the policy did not outline a particular procedure. Trustee Kelker said, if the Board were to be reviewing the policy, we would not be looking at the procedure. The Board would not go into fix the procedures. It requires the Board to be non-discriminatory and it is for administration to come up with the procedures.

 

Trustee Goodrich said that he felt Mr. Willis’ complaint is that the procedure was improperly implemented, or perhaps the procedures themselves were dovetailed in the way that the policy is implemented; he felt they had gone as far as they could and asked Mr. Willis if he would like to proceed with the information available in the packet. Trustee Goodrich then turned to Superintendent Copps for his presentation.

 

Superintendent Copps said that he appreciated the fact that Mr. Willis recognized that Policy 6440 authorizes the Superintendent to reorganize the staff and that he agreed that it was an appropriate policy. Mr. Copps said the matter before you is a discrimination and if it is discrimination it must be directly related to his protected class, which in this case is age; though the argument here is that this District has discriminated against Mr. Willis due to his age; the findings of the independent investigator, who I did not know prior to her being assigned to this matter, the finding of that investigator was in fact there was no special treatment and that is always a good test. Mr. Copps said that if you look at all of these practices that have occurred in this District where we assign and reorganize, alleging that we are putting it out to favoritism for younger staff members or whether or not that favoritism or that practice was generally across the board where senior staff members and younger staff members were transferred, that was not true; it was the finding of the investigator that the process was across the board and no discrimination was shown. Trustee Kelker asked if there were written procedures that Mr. Copps followed at the time. Mr. Copps stated that there were none. Mr. Copps said that he took issue with some things that Mr. Willis was saying about characterization of what transpired, but one thing he said that was correct and that was prior to coming to this school district, he had not on previous occasions transferred any administrators into a position without actually opening the position first; he had not done that. Mr. Copps said that this District has a policy that authorizes, not only the Superintendent to reorganize the staff, but it also had a practice that clearly demonstrated that had been done on a number of occasions in this District. Mr. Copps said that, unaware to Mr. Willis, there was a real urgency, in Mr. Copps’ mind, to move forward as he was in a position that the Executive Director of Secondary Education position could be lost because trustees had shared with him that it was possible due to the cuts that were going to be made; he deemed it an urgency to fill the position if that action would have been taken.

 

Trustee Kelker asked if past practice showed that sometimes positions are advertised and sometimes they are not. Mr. Copps stated that was true. Trustee Kelker asked if Mr. Copps’ interpretation of the policy of the overall responsibility of transferring the administrators is up to the Superintendent. Mr. Copps replied yes and, the panel needs to understand that in June he was not the Superintendent at that time; he relied upon the counsel of others in this District to make a determination whether it was an appropriate factor in this District to have the Superintendent make these kinds of assignments based upon the information that he had collected without officially opening up the position; he did believe that it was a well-established practice and usually occurs in large districts. Mr. Copps said that it may not be a common practice in the state of Montana but it is clearly a practice in other states. Mr. Copps added that there are rights clearly established in the EEOC that allow administration or a large government body to reorganize staff; they cannot do so by specifically discriminating against a protective class such as age. Mr. Copps said that we could not reorganize our staff and say we were not going to appoint Mr. Willis to the position at Senior High because he is too old; we can’t do that as it is blatant violation of protected rights but we also have a practice in this District that shows it does not target older administrators and violate their rights.

 

Trustee Kelker asked if Mr. Willis had been involved at times when a sitting Superintendent has made a transfer of administrators; She asked have you experienced that other than at this time. Mr. Willis replied he had. Trustee Kelker asked Mr. Martin what usually happened in the past practice. Mr. Martin replied it had happened in this District but in this circumstance was very unique because what we were dealing with was these administrators RIFed from a position and get the first possible position they can get; Mr. Martin state that when the discussion took place about what to do with these vacancies, on one hand we had the opening process and the other hand we had the tenure law. Trustee Kelker asked if tenure referred to teachers or administrators. Mr. Martin reported tenure usually refers to teachers in the law book.

 

Trustee Guthals asked for a clarification on Policy 6440 from Mr. Copps. The Superintendent stated Policy 6440 gave the Superintendent the authority to make transfers and reorganize staff. Trustee Goodrich asked if there was a written procedure, not policy, on transfers. Mr. Martin referred to page 2 of the attachments. Trustee Goodrich read Article IX “assignments, transfers and vacancies – Section 4. Vacancies Subd. 1. The School District shall announce all new positions or vacancies in the appropriate unit to the present staff at least ten (10) days prior to the application deadline.” Mr. Martin reported it came from the BEA Agreement.

 

Trustee Guthals stated the policies at issue according to Mr. Martin and subject to administration are Policy 5002, 5004, 5013, 5014, Article IX of the BEA Agreement, and Policy 6440. (Mr. Guthals read each policy as included in the packet.) Trustee Guthals asked the Superintendent if those were the policies at issue. Superintendent Copps reported they were. Trustee Guthals asked Mr. Willis the same and he replied yes. Trustee Guthals asked if there were any procedures involved for those policies. Mr. Copps replied not that he was aware of any procedures. Trustee Guthals asked if Mr. Willis was covered by the BEA Collective Bargaining Agreement. Mr. Copps replied no. Trustee Guthals stated that Article IX did not apply to Mr. Willis’ situation. Trustee Guthals asked the Superintendent if he was involved in the acquisition of staff, certified or classified, with the respect that Mr. Willis is referring to. Mr. Copps reported no. Mr. Guthals asked him how he was involved. Mr. Copps reported transfers only. Mr. Guthals replied that Policy 5014 did not apply as it refers to acquisition of staff and transfer of staff. Policy 6440 provides for the Superintendent to reorganize for executive district operations. Mr. Copps reported there was no violation of Policies 5002 and 5004, which refer to discrimination. Trustee Guthals said that 5004 appears to do with participation of benefits, program and activities. Mr. Guthals asked the Superintendent if Mr. Willis was allowed to participate in accruing benefits. Mr. Copps was not aware that Mr. Willis had been denied participation. Mr. Guthals asked Mr. Willis if he was denied participation in accruing benefits, educational programs or activities. Mr. Willis stated he believed that the accruing of benefits as far as his ability to accrue benefits within the District was curtailed. He felt it had to do with recruiting benefits of participation in the school district.

 

Trustee Goodrich asked if Mr. Copps or Mr. Martin had anything to add. Both responded they had nothing to add. Mr. Goodrich gave Mr. Willis the opportunity to respond. Mr. Willis thanked the panel for giving him the opportunity and asked about the emergency that existed in Mr. Copps’ mind that the Board wanted to circumvent a decision he was about to make. Mr. Copps explained that we were having discussions about where the cuts would be made and there were no official conversations but there were conversations occurring that would indicate that there was a possibility that the position (Executive Director of Secondary Education) could be cut. Mr. Copps said that he knew that that position would be very vulnerable if we arrived at a point where no one was available to fill the position and the position was left vacant; based on that, he made the decision as the Superintendent to proceed with filling that vacancy; he did not circumvent Board action, as no official Board action had been taken. Trustee Goodrich asked if the Board approved the reorganization. Mr. Copps replied it did. Mr. Willis asked if there was an emergency, or clearly no emergency. Mr. Copps reported, in his mind, there was an emergency, an urgent need by him to take action to fill that position clearly and clearly in the minds of all of his advisors at that point. Mr. Willis stated he heard of three positions that were to be RIFed and asked if that were true. Mr. Martin stated one was the Crossroads principal, the Curriculum position and the Career Center position. It was a reduction in force due to financial situations; the Curriculum position was reassigned and the Career Center position was reconstituted. Mr. Willis asked if he wasn’t to have that priority when talking about those positions and was concerned that there were four positions, as his job no longer exists as it was defined. Mr. Copps replied that is why the transfer was made to cover that position. Mr. Copps said that at that point, Mr. Willis was notified that he would be transferred to one of two different obligations and one of those obligations was to administer to the freshmen academy that was located at the Career Center. Mr. Goodrich asked if that transfer was made under Policy 6440. Mr. Copps replied that was correct.

 

Mr. Willis asked if they were to construe that a transfer is the same as a promotion. Trustee Goodrich said that he felt what they were here to do today was not to have people go back and forth but was to refer to any policies and any argument you would like to make. Mr. Willis said that transfers are not the same as promotions and that promotions are not the same as transfers; in both transfers of Scott Anderson and Dennis Holmes, they were both promotions; those were defined under a different guideline as far as acquisition of staff as opposed to transfers and that the procedures used for acquisitions should be used for promotions.

 

Trustee Goodrich declared the argument phase of the appeal hearing to be ended and said that discussion by the committee would follow. Trustee Guthals said the first thing to discuss was whether there was a violation of 5014, 6440, 5002 or 5004. Mr. Guthals said that the committee should disregard Mr. Martin’s investigative report. Trustees Goodrich and Kelker said they agreed. Trustee Goodrich referred to Policies 6440 and 5014 where 5014 deals with the acquisition of certified and classified staff. He said that this complaint dealt with people who were not presently certified or classified staff members; Policy 6440 talks about reorganizing and rearranging of administrative staff, which could be moving staff either up or down. He said that he believed that 6440 also included promotion issues. Trustee Guthals said that the use of the word ‘assignment’ also included promotions. Trustee Kelker stated her understanding that in Mr. Willis’ opinion that it would be fairer for current employees for the administration to always in the future advertise the positions that need to be filled. She said that Policy 6440 is very broad and is used for new hires. She asked whether as the process of filling the position went forward, if there was discrimination on the basis of age. She said that in looking at the investigative report, it does cover how age might have been used as it moved forward. Trustee Goodrich said that Policy 6440 was a very broad policy with no written procedure in place and he found that, in respect to Policy 6440, it was followed by administration.

 

Trustee Guthals stated that since the committee members did not find any violation of policies, they should focus on discrimination as the issue. He asked if there was discrimination based on age. He said that no evidence was found by the investigator showing the decision was made on the basis of age. The investigator conducted a number of interviews and listed those interviewed. The investigator interviewed Tom Willis, Scott Anderson, Rodney Svee, Carol Wicker, and Jack Copps. The investigator found that there were not any acts of discrimination against Mr. Willis. Mr. Guthals concluded that the investigation appeared to be thorough and careful. He concurred with the findings.

 

Trustee Guthals made the following motion with a second by Trustee Kelker:

 

Motion that this committee recommend to the Board that they accept the investigative report issued by Jean

Fuare and it deny the complaint by Mr. Willis.

 

Those voting in favor were Trustees Joel Guthals, Malcolm Goodrich and Kathleen Kelker. The motion passed unanimously.

 

As there was no further business, the meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m.

 

 

 

Malcolm Goodrich, Chair Katharin Kelker, Trustee Joel Guthals, Trustee

 

Diane Blevins, Recorder