School Board’s Press for Accurate Hiring Information Comes to a Head
by Laura Vass,
News and Commentary
The Special Meeting
On April 16th, The Custer County School Board held a Special Meeting to determine a course of action concerning recent hires based on the recommendation of the Superintendent. According to CRS 22-32-109.8 (6.5) at least one of the new hires may not be eligible for school employment in the state of Colorado. The agenda called for the board to consider the following actions:
Consider placing Superintendent Thom Peck on paid administrative leave, consider placing High School Principal Aundrea McCormick on paid administrative leave, and if approved, to hire temporary replacements for the three positions those actions would leave open; Superintendent, HS Principal, and Athletic Director.
Board President Reggie Foster announced the business of the meeting and after citing policies, she said “I’ve been made aware that our hiring practices, which are the responsibility of the Superintendent, may have violated State law.
District protocols and policies and State statutes were not followed and must further be investigated by the Board and its legal team. While investigation concerning the violations of state law, District policies and most importantly, school and student safety continues, I believe that it is in the best interest of the District, Superintendent, and the High School Principal for the Superintendent and the High School Principal to be placed on administrative leave effective immediately and until such time as these alleged illegal practices are fully examined.”
With that, the Board put forth its first agenda item, recommending that the Board place the “Superintendent on paid administrative leave per Section 10 of his contract, pending an investigation into alleged violations of applicable state law and district policy in connection with district hiring and background check procedures.”
During discussion by the Board, it was noted that there are about 20 statutes on hiring and that they are giving a list of those policies so people can look them up. Those are to include, “but not limited to, CRS 22-32-109.8 (6.5) and district policies to include but not limited to GCE/GCF-R and GDE/GDF for hiring and background checks.”
It was also noted that no violent crime offenders can be hired. It’s a state law. They’re disqualified from employment by the school district.
To clarify, one Board member said, “ I just want to make sure that we, I, know that every meeting I keep asking. –Do we have everything, background checks done, licenses, references and I keep getting the answer is yes.– And now this is yet another time where we have been given information that was not correct and we are now faced with having to investigate. Am I understanding it correctly?”
That was affirmed. Kobe Lewsader, School Resource Officer was asked if he had everything in place to assure the safety of students. He said yes.
The Board voted Yea. And authorized Reggie Foster to notify the Superintendent in writing of the reasons for his leave and otherwise be the Board’s liaison with the Superintendent during the period of paid administrative leave.
The Second agenda item, to place Principal McCormick on Administrative leave,, was also passed by the Board. The Board made it clear that it was for the same issue but that the Superintendent and Principal have different roles and responsibilities and the actions of both must be looked into.
Next the Board voted on temporary replacements. It was agreed that Walter and Lori Cooper would be offered the positions and receive the same pay as the superintendent and the principal contracts and act as superintendent and principal ogether, splitting duties as they see fit. The Coopers are retired Superintendent and assistant Superintendent, respectively. This passed unanimously.
Finally, the position of athletic director, also held by Aundrea McCormick, needed to be assigned temporarily to someone. Joy Parrish, who had held the position before, did accept the nomination. The Board approved Ms. Parrish to serve as acting athletic director.
Without accepting questions from the public, the Board adjourned. As it should be. It’s a meeting in the public, not of the public.
The Background
At the March School Board meeting, there was an effort to move new hires, non-renews, and renewals as well as moving school employees to the proper categories of staff or faculty lists. (The Superintendent created the agenda in the Board President’s absence. The names listed under the categories were incorrect or misplaced, and some were included that should not have been.) So the meeting started with many adjustments to the agenda.
Clarifying Procedures on Hiring
The Board asked Superintendent Thom Peck very specifically
about proper procedures on non-renewals, renewals, and new hires. The Board appeared intentional in their questions to ensure that any non-renewals had been given all their options including the opportunity to resign, that all hires had complete background checks and certifications, all renewals had had the required observation and evaluations completed, and that if there were teachers not certified, that they at least meet the state statute requirements under the rural hardship guidelines. Superintendent Peck stated over and over that everything was in order.
He had one teacher changing positions and one teacher completing certifications over the summer as well as a few on the non-renewal list. He said there were few final classroom observations/evaluations to complete. (That turned out to be 60% more evaluations to complete by the time the next meeting in April was held. And there were many teachers who had not had any classroom observation at all, formal or informal.)
Based on the information presented by the Superintendent and affirmations to their many questions, the Board proceeded to approve renewals, non-renewals, and new hires.
Bullying is Still a Big Problem
Also at the March meeting, the Board became aware via a letter read by a member of the public, ( Peggi Collins with the permission of the parent and student) said that some serious ongoing bullying was taking place and not being addressed to the satisfaction of the victim or the victim’s parent(s). According to the letter, the student had even attempted suicide over the issues and the parents were having to come up with a relocation plan for the child.
Mr. Peck did not directly answer the question when asked. Instead he mentioned a student survey he had done before Christmas break that did not indicate a student perception of a bullying problem, programs that are already in place to address the issue, and singing the praise of our “good kids”. Nothing got solved here and the Board seemed taken aback (aghast, really) that Peck and the Principals had not brought any bullying issues to the attention of the Board nor included it in their reports to the Board over the last several months. Steps were put in place for Mr. Peck to address the issue and report back to the Board and then to ensure the Board was kept informed of future issues. (Note that the steps are more likely than not, in his job description, part of state statutes and school policies–part of his job in the first place.)
First April Meeting
The new meeting agenda item, “Board of Education and Superintendent Accountability”
At the April School Board meeting, it became clear that Superintendent Peck had possibly not been truthful or accurate in his statements concerning the hire, renewal or non-renewal process.
First, during a new meeting agenda item which Peck approved of, via a mediation session, teachers, faculty, parents and the public can submit for reading or present to the Board items concerning “Board of Education and Superintendent Accountability”.
Under this new category, a teacher spoke concerning new teachers not getting the guidance they need, that FAC reports and surveys are being ignored or at least not utilized, and that “it’s unfair to evaluate the teacher and not even have the courage to speak with them before handing them a non-renewal letter.”
Megan Agnew complained about the new accountability section added and said it seemed to be a personal attack on Thom Peck. The Board President reminded the public that Superintendent Peck had agreed to this form of discussion via a mediation session and that he had requested all communications with him regarding his performance be done in a public meeting for transparency. The Board President confirmed that this is the path Peck and the community had demanded.
One teacher said that Mr. Peck had not been in her classroom to observe even once during the school year.
Michelle Tillotson said that the Administration had not done observations or worked on a plan to help one of the teachers. Specifically lacking, she noted, is the past effort to work with new teachers on an “improvement plan, clearly identifying areas of concern, stating specific goals, and stepping out an action plan.” She also asked the pointed question, “On a related topic, how much of our teachers’ failures are related to our district administration’s consistent inability to implement our behavior policy?”
Lea Grundy said two students will not be able to attend prom because of ineligibility, She wondered if the policy could be revisited, because this is a once-in-a- lifetime experience.
The Board hit the highlights of letters and emails they had received for both the Correspondence and Accountability sections.
“We do have an evaluation and survey that was done about the evaluations that contradict what we were told and advised in the last Board meeting. One teacher’s letter says….”
“I’m writing this letter in regards to several concerns about teachers and our current practices of evaluations. I’m deeply concerned with our current management process. There’s no support in place for struggling teachers. There’s no one guiding them or coaching them through the challenges of being in the classroom. I was at the Board meeting. Mr. Peck assured the Board that teachers were given every opportunity to resign. This was a flat out lie. That opportunity was not given. It is truly disheartening to me that Mr. Peck could lie that easily in front of everyone, as well as lying about evaluations and feedback to teachers. I can’t speak for everyone, but to my knowledge there’s not been an informal observation in any high school classroom and formal observations didn’t begin until December.”
Another teacher said that she was given short notice of non-renewal and that contrary to what Peck said at the last meeting, he did not advise her on her options to resign from her position.
Just an example of the Board’s frustration in having made decisions based on false or inaccurate information from Peck:
Peck, instead of taking responsibility for evaluations and classroom observations, pointed out that the “RANDA” system had issues and that he and Principal Aundrea McCormick had to go through training modules to learn how to use it and that the school was flagged last year on these issues (timely evals)) and that some of the faculty hadn’t been evaluated in six years so he thought they were actually ahead of the game this year. (Technology being the excuse/hurdle for not completing the required duties.)
The Board’s frustrated reaction to this;
“Let me just listen to people making statements that you lied to us in a meeting and now you’re justifying it by something about ‘RANDA’. All we did was ask you a question, which was ‘did you have evals done’ and you said yes. And we made our decision based off what you told us. And we cannot make decisions based off not factual information. It has to be–We have to know what’s going on.” (Highlight ours.)
“So from my perspective, in your interaction with the Board, like the number one thing we need from you is accurate and useful information. And any information that we make decisions on, that we have to vote on, and we specifically ask you for, ask a question… If you give us the wrong answer that’s not factual in any way, shape or form, you’re misleading and undermining the Board.”
Executive Session
The Board also had to go into an executive session on personnel issues which, based on decisions made afterward, pertained to teacher grievances relating to Mr. Peck’s decisions and/or interactions with those teachers.
Post-executive session, the Board voted to rescind a non-renewal vote, and asked Mr. Peck to provide that teacher with all his/her options and then bring his recommendations back to the Board on that teacher, so that they can properly proceed. The other executive session item was also a grievance. The public was able to surmise via the Board’s request of Mr. Peck, that he provide that teacher with all options available within the district and that he apply his “mantra” of “ the school is a family” since there was an accusation that he was very unprofessional when dealing with that teacher. Again, he is asked to come back to the Board with written documentation and recommendation for the Board before they vote on renewal or non-renewal of that teacher’s contract.
Two Meetings Better than One?
There have been several school Board meetings this year that lasted four or five hours. This is more than most parents, teachers, and even school Board members can handle on top of a full workday. The Board proposed and passed a decision to split these meetings up and have two meetings the first and second Tuesday of the month.
More Approvals Made based on the Superintendent’s Recommendation
With Mr. Peck’s assurance that procedures were followed and completed for recommended new hires and renewals, the Board voted on a list of hires and a list of renewals. One can speculate from the calling of a Special Board Meeting within a week, to consider placing Superintendent Peck and Principal McCormick on paid administrative leave, that some of those new hires did not, in fact, meet the state standards for employment by the district, putting the staff, students, and School District at risk.
(Reporters NOTE/OPINION: There is one social media commentator and one local “reporter” who cry foul, every time the School Board calls a special meeting. This meeting and the last one were posted within the required time. And no Sunshine laws
were broken.
Also for the record, the reason that the agendas in both cases had actions listed is so that those actions, if needed, can be taken and legally voted on. Agenda items do not express intent.
Clearly the job of an administrator is to handle the administrative duties. Though admirable, it is not to give pep talks about how wonderful our kids are, or to drum up great ideas for an already highly involved community to be more involved, or for an already highly sports-conscious school to have more kids in sports. Great ideas do not make a great administrator. It’s just icing on the cake. First things first. The school Board has been working on not only their own accountability and School District accountability through policies that align with State statute and community mindset, but that of their one employee, the Superintendent.
For the first time in years, we have a school Board that goes beyond the good intentions of serving, and is capable of taking on the complicated challenges in our district. Let them do their job.)