Response to Dr. Libia Gil
Maura Larkins' Responses to Dr. Gil's statements in October 5, 2001 letter
When a teacher is not allowed to go to
her classroom, and she is not being
paid, what possible status can she have
other than suspension without pay?   

Even if we ignore for a moment the illegality of the October
5 directive, it is certainly clear that my position before that
date was at Castle Park, and that I was not allowed to set
foot at Castle Park
After his meeting with Werlin on September 12, Tim O'Neill
wrote: "I raised the question of a meeting with the
Superintendent, per the requirements of Article 33.5 of the
Agreement.  He said that there is no problem in setting up
such a meeting, once it is determined what your assignment
is to be, which requires discussion with you."

Whom does he think he's kidding?  A conference with the
superintendent after a teacher has been forced to pick a
new assignment does not satisfy the contract.  Transferring
me involuntarily requires discussion with the
superintendent.  No amount of discussion with Werlin would
have made me agree to transfer voluntarily.  Werlin could
not transfer me, he could only threaten and abuse me, and
perhaps call the police again, and possibly make a false
accusation about what transpired at the meeting.  

After having been reminded of the Article 33.5 requirement
on September 12, the district still did not attempt to
arrange a meeting with the superintendent.  

I wrote to Libby and offered to meet with her, but her
assistant called and said she would not be available.  It
certainly seems that the district was trying to FORCE ME to
transfer VOLUNTARILY!  I wrack my brain, but I can't
figure out how such a thing would be logically possible.
"You have been in an unpaid status because you have
chosen to be absent from duty while not qualifying for any
approved form of paid leave."
On August 13, Werlin made it clear that I not only
qualified for administrative leave, but had no choice in the
matter.  It has been made clear over and over again that I
am banned from my classroom.  I did not choose to be
taken out of my classroom.

I chose to be absent from meetings with Rick Werlin, not
to be absent from duty.  This idea that I should "report for
duty" TO WERLIN IN HIS OFFICE is both odd and ominous,
for three reasons:
"You are not and have not been
suspended without pay,
so Article 38 of the
District/CVE agreement does not apply."
To go back to Did CVESD
violate EERA
To go back to page 12
Apr 3 01  to Werlin
Apr 4 01  from Werlin
Letter to Gil Werlin behavior
Offer to meet with Dr. Gil
To Dr. Gil regarding ban
To Werlin regaring ban
Return to Page 12
Events at CVESD
Rick Werlin's false accusations and calls to the police put
me at risk of physical harm.  Fortunately, the contract
clearly states that the district may not require me to put
myself in harm's way.
I believed (and still believe) that Werlin's meetings were
designed to intimidate me through further verbal abuse and
threats to my safety, and were possibly another set-up to
allow him to slander me again.
Dr. Gil:
"I remind you that you have ignored numerous directives
since late August, 2001 requiring you to report for duty."
Regarding Werlin's "numerous" directives ("numerous" is
a profoundly apt description of Werlin's directives [not to
mention abusive, illegal and intimidating]), please refer to
my responses above.  

I reported to the only meeting which
Dr. Gil directed me to attend.
I would also like to remind you, Dr. Gil,
that you have ignored requests that
Werlin's actions be investigated by
someone other than Werlin himself,
that my report of threats to my safety be investigated.  I
working with and through.  

Your disregard for my safety is extremely ironic, since I
was first taken out of my classroom nine months ago
immediately after two teachers called Werlin
on a
Saturday night and made the bizarre
claim that they feared I might kill them.  

Those reports were acted on without any investigation.

Intensifying the irony of this situation is the fact that on the
very day you wrote this October 5
letter, EIGHT MONTHS after those
charges were first made, and even
though those charges STILL HAD NOT
D, you acted again on those
preposterous charges by trying to transfer me, while at the
same time ignoring my written requests that my safety be

Surely this district can be run in a more professional
Superintendent Liba Gil ignored requests
that Werlin's behavior be investigated by
someone other than Werlin himself.
superintendent's finding and conference to make Werlin's
office the position to which I must report for duty.