OFFICIAL MINUTES FROM THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES MEETING OF THE
The Board of Trustees for the
Present: Henrietta Williams, Chairperson; Pam Hyneman, Vice Chairperson; Beth Gray, Secretary; Andrew Tolbert, Board Member; Dr. Doug Watson, Board Member; Johnny McGehee, Parent Representative; Janice Vaughn, A.S.D. Parent Representative; Jim Hill, A.S.B. Superintendent; Dr. Marcella Dalla Rosa, A.S.D. Superintendent; Katie Becker, Cherie Courtwright, Interpreters; Amy Ford, Office of the Attorney General; Members of the Deaf Community; Members of the Blind Community
Call to Order
Ms. Williams called the meeting to order at
08-J-008 Motion to Approve Consent Items
Ms. Williams asked for a motion to approve the minutes from May and June. Ms. Gray made the motion and Mr. Tolbert seconded. The motion passed unanimously.
Action Items
None
Discussion Items
Janice Vaughn – A.S.D. Parent Representative
Ms. Williams introduced the new A.S.D. parent representative, attorney Janice Vaughn. Ms. Vaughn said she has a child at the School for the Deaf and has been on the board previously and is happy to be back on the board. She is an attorney and said she has always loved the school and wants to make sure it, as well as the School for the Blind, continues in fine standing. The board members all welcomed Ms. Vaughn as the new A.S.D. parent representative.
Johnny McGehee – A.S.B. Parent Representative
Mr. McGehee welcomed Ms. Vaughn to the board of trustees.
Board of Trustees Meeting
Page 1 of 9
Ms. Williams said the parent representatives are a vital part of the board and she wants to be sure they receive copies of information that is sent to the other board members regarding the board meetings.
Discussion Items
Uniform Grievance Procedure
Ms. Williams: I did have a couple of questions; I didn’t know if someone was going to speak to it or not first.
Dr. Dalla Rosa: Why don’t we start with your questions?
Ms. Williams: OK.
Mr. Tolbert: Before we start with that, the highlighted areas are the only changes?
Dr. Dalla Rosa: Correct.
Ms. Williams: OK. Good clarification. Um, the very beginning, “all grievances are confidential and shall not be discussed with other employees”. Why was that added?
Dr. Dalla Rosa: Um, because we’ve had a problem with people saying like if I want to share the information, I’m going to share it.
Ms. Williams: Well, don’t you think that that person, if I’m the grievant…
Dr. Dalla Rosa: But it wasn’t the grievant.
Ms. Williams: But, well, if I’m the grievant, don’t I have the right to share that with whoever I want to? Aren’t you limiting that person?
Dr. Dalla Rosa: It was a witness and said I’ll talk to whomever I want, because that was part of the paperwork. Lucy, do you want to say something?
Ms. Williams: But we’re trying to set the policy for that and not for, you know, a specific occurrence that may have occurred. So, this would go across board for grievant or whoever is involved, wouldn’t it?
Mrs. Vaughn: What kind of authority does the board have over somebody who is just a witness in a grievance?
Ms. Williams: That’s why I’m asking. I don’t think we can. I don’t think we can limit that person or any, the grievant, or whoever, to not discuss the issue with anyone,
Dr. Dalla Rosa: And I guess the anyone was other employees. So going back…
Ms. Williams: or with other employees.
Dr. Dalla Rosa: I don’t …
Ms. Williams: OK. Anyone else to speak to that? I can see where it would cause problems, but I also see that it would limit a person’s, you know, right.
Mrs. Vaughn: You have a right to speak out and if, I mean I hate to jump in so early but legally, from a legal standpoint, you can’t. You have no jurisdiction over a witness in a grievance. Um, this isn’t like a grand jury that you swear them in and you’ve got, it’s confidential. I think certainly grievance personnel matters are personal as far as the school and those over them. But as far as the persons themselves, what authority do we have to tell them they can’t talk about the grievance?
Board of Trustees Meeting
Page 2 of 9
Ms. Williams: I think that needs to be strike, taken out.
Mrs. Vaughn: From a legal standpoint.
Mr. Tolbert: Before we added the items to this, did we seek legal council?
Dr. Dalla Rosa: Yes.
Mr. Tolbert: We did?
Amy Ford: I reviewed them. That statement didn’t come out to me, the biggest thing being the administrative process, the reason for the statement seemed to, the reason was to keep the amount of gossip and discussion and changes of testimony taking place; and it was basically, my interpretation was that it should be merely part of the administrative process and they shouldn’t be discussing their testimony with others. But there is an issue of the right to speak and to be able to discuss things, but the balance is the administrative process versus if this is not a judicial action. It is an administrative process.
Ms. Williams: But couldn’t it move into a judicial process later and therefore would cause problems at a later time.
Amy Ford: It is possible that it might be part of the EEOC complaint and that would be something you might be concerned about.
Dr. Watson: It comes up again on Page 2, under Procedure.
Ms. Williams: Right. That’s where I am now.
Mrs. Vaughn: Why would we want to buy ourselves a lawsuit? I mean, you can’t do it. You have a right to speak. You have the right to freedom of speech, so, I mean…
Mr. Tolbert: I guess my question would be, if one were to violate this, what would happen?
Amy Ford: My thinking it would be in violation of work conduct standards for not following the conduct in the grievance policy.
Mr. Tolbert: Which would result in?
Amy Ford: It could result in disciplinary action against the individual.
Ms. Williams: I don’t like it. I do feel that it is not warranted and should be taken out. I understand the rationale behind it, but I really feel that we can be biting off more than we can chew and it can get more complicated.
Mrs. Hyneman: Would that also hold true for the person, or say the administration, that they are not held to be quiet either?
Ms. Williams: Well, the administration comes under different rules and responsibilities and policies. So, no, it wouldn’t necessarily translate over to them.
Mrs. Hyneman: So, is that in their policy?
Mrs. Vaughn: They’ve got a confidentiality. I mean because of their…
Mrs. Hyneman: So the administration can’t talk or discuss it. The person that’s committing the grievance can?
Mrs. Vaughn: Certainly. Just like in a criminal situation. Absolutely. That’s the law and if you want to buy yourself a lawsuit, you can. But I wouldn’t do this for a constitutional issue and violate someone’s constitutional rights and have EEOC down our backs. I mean, I didn’t know about this until this very minute and I am just shocked that we’ve got that in there.
Board of Trustees Meeting
Page 3 of 9
Ms. Williams: Oh, that’s right. You didn’t get the packet.
Mrs. Vaughn: No, I just got here a few minutes ago.
Mr. Hill: Well, we were under the impression that you had seen it. But you are telling us…
Amy Ford: I had looked over it (inaudible) got it last week…
Mr. Hill: You were telling us that this part ….
Amy Ford: I can agree that there are issues with that statement, but knowing the intent of the statement it didn’t, I didn’t think any further than knowing why the reason they wanted it in there, to cut down on the amount of discussion among the witnesses and among the party so that stories weren’t, whether or not the testimony was going to be accurate to the extent. With the issue of the EEOC compliance and the issue of freedom of speech, I think that if you carrying it to the level of, you know, criminal (inaudible) to the same standards, then you would want to leave it out.
Mr. Hill: Are there certain aspects of a grievance that’s done maybe in an executive session that would not be …. No part of it?
Mr. Tolbert: No.
Ms. Williams: Not that I know of.
Mr. Hill: What I’m hearing you say and you say is that we’re extending ourselves for legal action.
(Voices agreeing with Mr. Hill’s statement)
Mr. Hill: I’m with you, I don’t want to…
Mrs. Vaughn: It’s not worth it.
Ms. Williams: And it also goes to Page 2 and that sort of thing, that I think needs to be looked at. On Page 3, you have five (5) calendar days of the notification of action issued and I’m wondering why calendar days and not working days. In other instances, you’re using working days.
Dr. Dalla Rosa: It probably should say five working days. I think before it was 5 days, so there wasn’t a definition of days.
Ms. Williams: So, I think we should do that. Page 4 at the top and, just for clarification, it says: if the decision of the superintendent overturns the disciplinary action causing the grievance, such decision shall be final and binding, and so on. Does that also mean, the last time we had an issue about the recommendations that were added, even though it was overturned, there was an issue about the recommendation as well. So, I think that probably needs to be clarified a little bit more. I have an issue with Step 3 that is not highlighted and the fourth line where it says ‘the board chairman will have final decision if a grievance is to be heard in the closed session’. I don’t think, or I would hope that it wouldn’t be left up to the board chairman to make that decision. To me the grievant, if they want it heard in open session, then we should comply. The board should comply because the school never wants to be put in a situation where it looks like they don’t want information heard, of hiding anything, and that sort of thing. So, I really think that needs to be looked at as well.
Board of Trustees Meeting
Page 4 of 9
Mr. Tolbert: The statement prior to that, the sentence prior to that, ‘the grievant and superintendent shall agree to have the grievance heard in open session’. So that means both have to agree?
Ms. Williams: Yes, and if they don’t …
(Inaudible voices)
Dr. Dalla Rosa: If we didn’t agree, then it would go to the chair, and the chair….
Ms. Williams: Then it goes to the chair?
Mr. Tolbert: So at this juncture, right now as we speak, the grievant does not have, normally, of course I don’t know, in the regular world of education we always ask if you want it open or closed. It’s their choice and if they open, we open it. If they say close, we close it. So why do we not just give them the option since they’re the grievant and let it…
(Voices agreeing).
Ms. Williams: I think so too.
Amy Ford: This came about because of the involvement of a public board and an administrative process which by, in all other agencies, it is confidential and it is closed until it is finished. But that is why we needed to put the step in there because if, under the state guidelines for grievance procedure, under DF&A rules, it is confidential all the way through. But because the board is involved and the board is a public agency, your discussions, you can’t hear grievance as a board in whole in executive. So if they wanted for it to be confidential, you setting this process for one member of the board who hears it and reports back in executive session, or closed session. Otherwise, the grievant is giving up their right to privacy by coming there before the board. So that’s why we, you know, we wrote in there that the grievant could request it, but there may be issues that the board deems that this needs to be continued in a confidential manner. Once the grievance is finished, it will be subject to the information being released. So that….
Mr. Tolbert: So this is a standard practice with most state boards?
Amy Ford: Well, yes it would have to be. If a board is involved in a grievance matter, it has to be done in public if the whole board hears it.
Mr. Tolbert: Okay. Given that rationale, you know, I don’t have a problem with it if that’s the way it works.
Amy Ford: And the idea is that it would be up to the board chair. If the grievant has requested an open hearing then it, I would say that any board chair would want to go with what the grievant wants.
Ms. Williams: Right.
Amy Ford: And could continue in that mode.
Ms. Williams: And that’s the way I feel about it. As chairman at this point in time, if I know that a grievant wants an open hearing, then I’m going to have it because I think they have that right to have their day in court so to speak. Now, they realize once they do that, that it is open to the public and everything else. So, they come with that knowledge and if they still choose to do so, then …
Board of Trustees Meeting
Page 5 of 9
Mrs. Vaughn: Can it be more likely written that if it goes to the full board, then it is, it may be, I mean, it will be open to the public? So it doesn’t depend on, why would a chairman decide it if it’s a board decision and it’s got to be open because any board decisions, I mean I don’t know in personnel issues you can discuss employment and problems. But a grievance, if it’s open to the public, if it goes before full board, why does the chairman decide? What happens if the chairman decides it is not open?
Amy Ford: Because the state process says that grievances are confidential and, therefore, while the grievant may request that it be in open session, it’s still the policy that grievances are confidential.
Mrs. Vaughn: Then why would you ever have, I mean why wouldn’t it be left then to the person to decide whether they wanted it open or not. I guess I’m not gathering what you’re saying. If it’s either open or it’s not. I mean if it goes to the full board and it is open, then that’s the policy because it goes to the full board. Then why is it left to the board chairman?
Amy Ford: It’s state policy that they be closed. And there may still be issues within the grievance that need to be, even though the grievant wants it open, there may be issues that need to be resolved confidentially until it is completely resolved in order to preserve the issue that is going to be decided.
Mrs. Hyneman:
If it’s a state decision, that’s the way it should be.
Mr. Tolbert: Amy, are you telling us that this in the state policy?
Amy Ford: In the state policy.
Ms. Williams: Okay.
Amy Ford: Prior to this coming into affect, grievances went from the superintendent to the SEGAP panel or committee and then the board determined that they wanted to be involved in it, so we had to work a way to meet the requirements of the freedom of information act and the privacy rights that were guaranteed in the grievance policy.
Ms. Williams: Okay. Well, we can leave that. But as far as, those were my concerns. I don’t know if anyone else has any others. So, I really think those other two areas, well I think it was three, need to be relooked at before we vote on it. Right?
Dr. Dalla Rosa: I think there was one area to work on, on Page 4.
Ms. Williams: Oh, about the recommendation part. So, one, two, three, four; those four areas.
Dr. Dalla Rosa: Okay.
Leave Policy
Ms. Williams: Does anyone have any questions for discussion abut that. Okay, on Page 5 at the top where it starts talking about misuse of sick leave and that, especially D, about the witnesses and that sort of thing. Again, I think we are opening up, you know, a lot of things that will have flaws in it. You know, in other words, you’re going to be using witnesses to kind of help determine if you think that individual could have had the ability
Board of Trustees Meeting
Page 6 of 9
to work and that sort of thing. So, I don’t know. That bothers me. I don’t know if anyone else has any concerns about that, you know, that part as well. From a legal standpoint, Amy, what are your thought s from that, on this misuse. Well, it really starts with the whole highlighted area.
Amy Ford: That is done, and that is done in many state agencies that someone is observed outside their employment and witnesses may come and testify that yes I saw them out there on the day they were on sick leave, that they were out swimming and whatever, you know, in engaging activities, which seem to indicate they were not unable to perform their job duties. That’s something that any agency, now it may not be set out in all policies, but that’s something that would be utilized.
Ms. Williams: Well, okay. If a witness comes and then further investigation with that employee will be done to really ascertain. Because, you know, I look at myself. I have high blood pressure. Sometimes in the morning, I am headachey and not, you know, I can’t function until I get my blood pressure down, which may only take two or three hours and then I’m fit to go. Well, if I have to call in that morning, so does that mean that I would have to stay at home and not be seen out? You know, so I just really think, and there are times when I have allergic reactions and don’t have some Benadryl and I’ll go to Wal-Mart and pay for my Benadryl and take it and finish shopping, you know, while it’s working. I just think it can be a problem area.
Amy Ford: And it goes to credibility of the witness and whether or not the grievant, or the person who is being disciplined, can bring evidence of that and whether or not the school finds it necessary, or the agency finds it necessary to say but you were able to come back to work at noon that day and so, but you took a…. Whether they want to go to that extent. But the use of witnesses that see someone who they believe is abusing the sick leave, that’s, you know, that’s just credibility and the weight of the evidence for the decision maker.
Ms. Williams: So you would do further investigation to, you know, to verify all of this and that sort of thing.
Amy Ford: That would be up to the agency itself.
Mrs. Hyneman: That is sort of understood.
Ms. Williams: Well, it needs to be in writing.
Mr. Hill: Two people making a statement; one saying you did and one saying you didn’t is just…
Mrs. Vaughn: You don’t win.
Amy Ford: Well, I was going to say, and it’s talking about the evidence of misuse of sick leave, how it’s going to be identified. Whether it’s witnesses, it’s still up to the credibility of that witness and the response made by the person ….
Ms. Williams: They could be a very credible witness but may not have all of the facts and details that are needed.
Amy Ford: And that’s when the disciplined, the grievant, would come forward.
Board of Trustees Meeting
Page 7 of 9
Mrs. Vaughn: The grievant would come back.
Ms. Williams: Okay.
Ms. Gray: If the witness saw somebody, you know, oh I saw Beth at Wal-Mart shopping when she called in sick that day, blah, blah, blah and then, of course, you have to go back and investigate that and, you know, say…
Amy Ford: The last time this came up in any agency, in another agency that I was working with, the person that was complaining about someone had misuse of sick leave, their evidence was, well, when they were leaving the building, they were smiling when they walked down the stairs. I dare say the agency didn’t take that as misuse of a sick day. There are some things that the agency has to have the ability to..
Ms. Williams: I just want to make sure there is further, you know, investigation as to what all of this is saying. Page 10, the eight (8) hours leave during the one calendar year and I wondered if it should be school year, or if that’s a state policy, or just what.
Mr. Tolbert: I would say it’s state policy.
Amy Ford: I think that’s state policy (inaudible).
Ms. Williams: I didn’t know. That’s why I was asking. Okay, that was all. That one then appears to be okay.
Catastrophic Leave Application
There were no questions or discussion from the board.
Catastrophic Leave Policy
There were no questions or discussion from the board.
Employee Conduct Standards
There were no questions or discussion from the board.
08-J-009 Motion to Approve
Leave Policy, Catastrophic Leave Application, Catastrophic Leave
Policy, and Employee Conduct Standards for
and
Ms. Williams asked for a motion to approve the Leave Policy, the Catastrophic Leave Application, the Catastrophic Leave Policy, and the Employee Conduct Standards. Ms. Gray made the motion and Mr. Tolbert seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Board of Trustees Meeting
Page 8 of 9
There being no further business of Joint nature, the meeting
moved to the Agenda for the
_____________________________________
Henrietta Williams, Chairperson
____________________________________
Beth Gray, Secretary
Board of Trustees Meeting
Page 9 of 9