Tim:

This is an interesting issue to tangle with and I'm willing to bet this article only discusses part of the real policy being implemented.

I am very interested in the contributing factors that have led to this policy shift. For instance, how many anonymous complaints has management actually acted on in the past two school years against teachers? Are we seeing an increase in anonymous complaints?

If we are seeing a rise in anonymous complaints the next logical question for me would be... is there retribution taking place against complainers, which is forcing more anonymous letters or does management act more swiftly on anonymous letters than non-anonymous ones?

Trustee Kurachi makes sense when she says that if the complaint is true, management should be able to act to correct it. She is saying anonymity is less of a factor than truth.

However, Arleigh makes sense when he says that teachers have a right to face accusers? That is part of due process and underestandable from someone being accused. I know if someone at my work made accusations, I'd want to know who that person was.

I just can't form an opinion as there are more facts out there that need to be reviewed like how many instances are we talking about or are making performance improvement calls solely based on anonymous complaints?

From what I see here, I think anonymous complaints are important to forming a judgement of performance and should not be thrown out entirely, so long as they are respectful and based on specific instances. However, I would also say anonymous complaints should not be used as a sole reason to give performance improvement plans either.

Something tells me there is more in this policy than I know about.

Scott

Scott,
Thanks - I hope this will be a productive debate.

While I agree with Gaudioso: "It's not fair to the employee unless they know all the details," Gaudioso said,

I am concerned as well for the kids - who may have a serious problem and need to address it with someone in confidence before it becomes an issue with the teacher.

I also agree with Collins that the policy should be uniform district-wide. Inconsistent, campus by campus policies don't do anyone any good.

I would also like to know how many complaints such as this happen every year.

I think the staff and trustees should pursue a policy that makes it uniform across the district, while keeping the interests of the children, and the teachers in mind.

Tim

Article VI of the Bill of Rights, gives us the right to face our accusers. Are you against the Bill of Rights Tim? Angie left out that I also said that if any employee retaliated against someone after learning who the accuser was, that they should be disciplined. I personally have never heard of a Simi teacher retaliating against someone. If someone makes an accusation it can be investigated, but if it turns into a formal action the employee should have the right to then know all the facts in order to defend themselves. If it is good enough for America to have this in the Bill of Rights should it not also apply to SVUSD? Moorpark and Conejo already have policies in place like this. The real story here is that Tim ignored Angie's other story about the school bond in Simi, could it be because it was a positive story?

Actually I didn't see the other article. If you'd like to post the link to it, I will check it out. I'll also go to the Daily News web site again and see if I missed something. I would think ANY news on the bond might be good news.

As for the Bill of Rights, I think the provision you are talking about applies if you are accused of a crime. And even then, I think there are cases where the protection of the accuser has played an issue.

Listen, I am with you as to unifying the policy across the district - I just think some measure of protection for the accuser is in order.

Tim

Tim,
I think it is an accepted principal in this great nation of ours that we have the right to face our accusers. Like I said, if anyone retaliated against the accuser they should be disciplined. If someone calls the Simi Valley PD today and said they saw you speeding, should the police be able to give you a ticket? Would you not ask who it was? Would you not want to know all the facts to defend yourself? Should Tom Delay get to face his accusers or should they just take as fact any accusation made by annonymous sources? Our Nation needs to stand on its principals!

Arleigh,

While I appreciate your support for the principles upheld by the Bill of Rights, and people do have the right to "face their accuser" in court, I think we're getting a tad too far off subject - This is not a constiutional debate, it's a debate about how discipline and employee complaints are handled at the school districts, and whether a uniform policy should be implemented district wide.

Again, I haven't really even taken a position yet, just pointing out the story and asking questions.

But speaking of Tom Delay - the accusations against him came from sealed Grand Jury Indictments - He won't see or meet his accusers until he gets to court to face the charges.

Using your SVPD analogy another way. No, I would not expect to get a ticket if someone saw me speeding. I would however, if accused of a more egregious offense, expect to meet my accuser in court. I would not, however, expect to get to meet them as the SVPD is taking the Police Report from them.

Tim

p.s. Do you have the link to the Daily News "positive" bond article so I can post it for readers?

Arleigh is back! After no response to facts directly refuting his months-long rants about the ICOC I thought he had permanently turned off his computer. Truth triumphs once again!

The constitution gives the right to face accusers in CRIMINAL trials only. Perhaps the people who throw around the constitution should read it first? The 6th amendment was ratified in 1791 - perhaps Arleigh hasn't had time to read it yet. Here is a link to go to an online copy of the constitution so you can check it out for yourself: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am6

Is anyone suggesting that the School Board is determining criminal guilt or innocence?

The school board should be expected to determine the weight anonymous evidence is given (which could very well be none) but to prohibit anonymous complaints is typical of the current group-think of labor unions.

Chris:

From my understanding public jobs such as teaching or classified workers positions are treated much the same as the city council treats property owners. You cannot deprive someone of their property without due process of law. I will look up the case law to back up what I'm saying tonight, but I know the Supreme Court has ruled in past 60 years or so in favor of public employee protections such as due process and the right to face one's accuser.

You are using the "original intent" of the constitution, which we can debate about, but from my understanding the constitution has evolved through Supreme Court jurisprudence to allow public employees certain protections from government action.

The government cannot deprive a public employee of their property, "job" without due process. I think you are arguing more from the Scalia side of the Supreme Court.

My question for Arleigh is why this wasn't pushed earlier. Are you saying that the school board wasn't following due process before?

If the policy is changed, what will happen to anonymous complaints? Will there be an effort made to get people that complain anonymously to go on the record?

Also, Are we just talking about anonymous complaints that involve criminal activity or just performance-based complaints?

I want to be clear here, if we are talking anonymous complaints regarding criminal activity, then I absolutely feel these criminal complaints need to be investigated anonymous or not...

Scott

Scott,
We are talking about performance complaints etc. This is an issue that has come up from time to time. Most people give their names and the problem is resolved. Most Principals will not use annonymous complaints, but a few do. This is not a major issue. The reporter calls around asking what is going on and then does stories. Because she did a story on this Chris and Tim got all excited, but in the big picture it is just something that we have been working on. Chris, I spoke with some HH teachers about you saying that they had "confessed" to you that they had "broken the law" with their informational picketing (Protected by the Constitution). After they stopped laughing they said that conversation never happened. Now, not only are your 15 minutes up, but your credibility is gone!

Arleigh - I never said anyone "confessed" to anything. Name the teachers you spoke with and I will tell you they were not in the room during the Site Council meeting. Of course you won't name them (speaking of anonymous sources) because you didn't speak with anyone about it. Nor are you willing to expose your game.

You are so twisted that it can only be a matter of time before the teachers figure out you hurt their cause far more than you help it. If anyone is laughing, it is all the teachers I talk to in the District who laugh at you, your antics, and your wild assertions that border on a clown act. The only way you have, or keep, your job is that you are willing to do the dirty work of your bosses.

Enjoy the comedy, Arleigh. You are the one providing most of it. Hopefully, the teachers in the District will one day have compentent, respectable leadership and representation.