Comments on: Legal expert: Haslett can take action against drunk-shaming teachers

By: Intelmom

Intelmom — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 21:08:54 +0000

From a moral standpoint, I don't think this community missed the point of 'what' occured. Frequently moral issues are juxtaposed against legal details.We simply cannot throw out due process.I believe the frustration for this community is that we DO get the 'what' of this issue; the 'where' and 'when' has gotten in the way of justice. I am still concerned that the Board hasn't quite grasped the deepr root of the issue…..drugs and alcohol certainly were fuel to this flame, but there was a spark of intolerance to begin with.When administration and the Board first learned about this situation, they were not under the influence of drugs and alcohol and still exercised extremely poor judgement. They sat by idly doing nothing proactive to rectify this sitation; in essence condoned it..The bottom line is that it should not have taken 2 and half years to address this insidious act of violence against another human being by HPS staff regardless of 'where' and 'when' it occured. May I suggest some sensitivity training for the whole district?

By: Intelmom

Intelmom — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 16:08:54 +0000

By: MoralitySeeker

MoralitySeeker — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 22:47:03 +0000

The “where” is irrelevant compared to the “what” that happened two years ago. People keep focusing on the fact that this horrific act against a human being (and work colleague) happened at a private residence. Where the shaming took place is not important.

The point is that people who were capable of treating another person in such an insensitive and morally questionable manner are still permitted to teach our young people. And those trusted educational leaders who could have intervened on behalf of the students by doing SOMETHING (counseling, reassignment, reprimand, training . . .) did nothing.

By: Intelmom

Intelmom — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 13:37:25 +0000

It is a slippery slope for sure as these actions did occur offsite.Had the Ingham county prosecutor not recused himself and passed this on, it appears pretty evident that criminal charges would have moved forward. So, it's not that there wasn't a crime;it's that the judicial failed too. However, I do believe what this parent is upset about is the lack of any action by the District. Certainly a letter of reprimand could and should have been placed in their files as the code of conduct mandated by the state addresses behavior on and off the workplace. Surely even a token effort would have put the District in a better light than they now find themselves in. This District has also had more than 2 years to clarify their confusion and to amend their own rules of conduct. Instead, they did nothing. Curiously, the agenda for tonight's Board meeting only indicates a 'discussion lead by Rob Fowler', Board President, about policy. I can only imagine what that will actually translate into. I'm sure that the Michigan Department of Ed, the U.S. Department of Ed, and the Attorney General's office could have provided some guidance on this issue of code of conduct had the Disrict chosen to inquire and define. It appears that they really weren't as interested in this as they would now like us to believe.

By: beth98

beth98 — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 16:26:52 +0000

What in the world does Duda being a “former MSU football player” have to do with anything?

By: hesaysshesays

hesaysshesays — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 20:28:17 +0000

What Ravitch doesn't make clear, and I would be very interested to know, is whether the provisions he points to govern misconduct unconnected to the workplace or only to misconduct that takes place during the course of employment. That, in my mind, is a huge distinction which this story seems to be silent on. It is my understanding that Haslett's legal counsel has maintained that the provisions pointed to by Ravitch do not govern in a situation unconnected to the workplace, which this clearly is.