L. SEPTEMBER 26, 2001
MAURA LARKINS' PAY WAS STOPPED; SHE REQUESTED A
FULL EVIDENTIARY HEARING TO WHICH SHE WAS
ENTITLED BY THE CONTRACT REGARDING HER
SUSPENSION WITHOUT PAY; THE DISTRICT REFUSED.
Only after he placed her on suspension without pay did Mr. Werlin
offer to allow other administrators to be present at a meeting with
Mrs. Larkins.
Mrs. Larkins asked to meet with the Superintendent. She was entitled to a full
evidentiary hearing. The DISTRICT refused to give her the hearing, claiming
falsely that she was not suspended without pay. (She was not allowed to set
foot at any school on September 26, and she wasn’t paid—she was clearly
suspended without pay.)
The district never made any determination as to whether the charges against
Mrs. Larkins were true.
Two things are possible:
1) the District took a completely innocent person out of her classroom twice,
and destroyed her reputation, and never investigated or retracted the
accusations.
2) The other possibility is that the District took a potential mass murderer out
of her classroom twice—but then asked her to come back again and again
without ever investigating! Either way, they failed grievously in their
obligation as holder of a public trust, and they violated Mrs. Larkins rights, and
are not justified in dismissing an employee whom they admit is highly qualified
and has no mental or physical problems.
MAURA LARKINS' PAY WAS STOPPED; SHE REQUESTED A
FULL EVIDENTIARY HEARING TO WHICH SHE WAS
ENTITLED BY THE CONTRACT REGARDING HER
SUSPENSION WITHOUT PAY; THE DISTRICT REFUSED.
Only after he placed her on suspension without pay did Mr. Werlin
offer to allow other administrators to be present at a meeting with
Mrs. Larkins.
Mrs. Larkins asked to meet with the Superintendent. She was entitled to a full
evidentiary hearing. The DISTRICT refused to give her the hearing, claiming
falsely that she was not suspended without pay. (She was not allowed to set
foot at any school on September 26, and she wasn’t paid—she was clearly
suspended without pay.)
The district never made any determination as to whether the charges against
Mrs. Larkins were true.
Two things are possible:
1) the District took a completely innocent person out of her classroom twice,
and destroyed her reputation, and never investigated or retracted the
accusations.
2) The other possibility is that the District took a potential mass murderer out
of her classroom twice—but then asked her to come back again and again
without ever investigating! Either way, they failed grievously in their
obligation as holder of a public trust, and they violated Mrs. Larkins rights, and
are not justified in dismissing an employee whom they admit is highly qualified
and has no mental or physical problems.
What happened at CVESD?
Page 11
Page 11
| Page 11 |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
mauralarkins.com
San Diego Education Report
| Maura Larkins requested the full evidentiary hearing to which she was entitled by the contract...The district refused. The California Teachers Association and Chula Vista Educators looked the other way. |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |