 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| CVESD and SDCOE lawyers know that the decision is illegal, yet they have aggressively worked to continue violating the law. |
| Why does OAH staff counsel Margaret Farrow refuse to advise the OAH to clean up its act? |
San Diego Education Report
| Page 23 |
mauralarkins.com
 |
| |
 |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
MAURA LARKINS’ REFUSAL ON OCTOBER 5, 2001 TO REPORT TO
WORK WAS A SINGLE ACT, NOT “PERSISTENT” REFUSAL
During the seven months after October 5, 2001, the
district never asked Petitioner to come back to work.
There was no persistent refusal to a district order. The District asked
once, Petitioner refused once. The Superintendent never offered to
have a conference with Mrs. Larkins to discuss the reasons for her
transfer, as required by the contract, and no investigation was ever
conducted.
The threshold which must be reached in order to dismiss a teacher for
violation of Board rules and regulations, or failure to perform regular
assignments, was addressed in Governing Board of the Oakdale Union
School District V. Seaman (1972) 28 Cal. App..3d 77. The
COMMISSION cites Seaman in legal conclusion 5, but
misconstrues the case egregiously.
Seaman applies very pertinently to this case, but
supports a decision contrary to the one made by the
COMMISSION. The Court in Seaman states, “… respondent
argues, merely, that each day of appellant’s absence was a separate
violation of the school board’s regulations, and hence that the violation
in this case met the “persistent” requirement of subdivision (g) of
section 13403…The argument is specious. This is not a case where it
is reasonable to say that Mrs. Seaman’s absence, by its very duration,
amounted to a “persistent” [28 Cal.App.3d 83] violation of the
governing board’s rules. Nor can it be fairly said from the evidence
presented that the teacher was motivated by an attitude of continuous
insubordination. Mrs. Seaman had been employed by the district for
eight years, and there is no evidence in the record to prove that she
ever violated a school law or regulation of the governing board prior to
the incident in question.”
The district and the COMMISSION make the same specious
argument as the respondent in Seaman.
The COMMISSION misconstrues the case law by ignoring that a
particular act rarely constitutes unfitness for service, and certainly
does not do so in this case. Petitioner was ready and willing to come
back to work as soon as it was safe.
The case law has insisted that one “particular act” rarely constitutes
“evident unfitness for service” and certainly not a “persistent violation
of or refusal to obey prescribed rules and regulations.
The particular act in this case was when Mrs. Larkins told the District
immediately on October 5, 2001, which was the first and only occasion
in which the District mentioned a specific school site, that she did
not feel safe until an investigation had been done and
obviously false allegations retracted. No student was
forced to spend a single day without his regular teacher
because of her decision. The district had willfully and
continually refused to protect her from arbitrary actions
due to slanders.
The COMMISSION also ignored the court’s definition of
“persistent violation” in Seaman by failing to give proper weight to
the words “continuing, especially in the face of opposition…constantly
repeated.” The COMMISSION should have noted that there was no
opposition to Petitioner’s not reporting to work after October 5, 2001.
There was never a letter or fax or phone call asking her to report to
work other than October 5, 2001. You notice that not even the
November 14, 2001 letter threatening dismissal (Exhibit
42) directs her to report to any assignment. It was
made clear at the November 21, 2001 meetings with
Mrs. Larkins and her attorney that the District wanted
Mrs. Larkins to quit.
WORK WAS A SINGLE ACT, NOT “PERSISTENT” REFUSAL
During the seven months after October 5, 2001, the
district never asked Petitioner to come back to work.
There was no persistent refusal to a district order. The District asked
once, Petitioner refused once. The Superintendent never offered to
have a conference with Mrs. Larkins to discuss the reasons for her
transfer, as required by the contract, and no investigation was ever
conducted.
The threshold which must be reached in order to dismiss a teacher for
violation of Board rules and regulations, or failure to perform regular
assignments, was addressed in Governing Board of the Oakdale Union
School District V. Seaman (1972) 28 Cal. App..3d 77. The
COMMISSION cites Seaman in legal conclusion 5, but
misconstrues the case egregiously.
Seaman applies very pertinently to this case, but
supports a decision contrary to the one made by the
COMMISSION. The Court in Seaman states, “… respondent
argues, merely, that each day of appellant’s absence was a separate
violation of the school board’s regulations, and hence that the violation
in this case met the “persistent” requirement of subdivision (g) of
section 13403…The argument is specious. This is not a case where it
is reasonable to say that Mrs. Seaman’s absence, by its very duration,
amounted to a “persistent” [28 Cal.App.3d 83] violation of the
governing board’s rules. Nor can it be fairly said from the evidence
presented that the teacher was motivated by an attitude of continuous
insubordination. Mrs. Seaman had been employed by the district for
eight years, and there is no evidence in the record to prove that she
ever violated a school law or regulation of the governing board prior to
the incident in question.”
The district and the COMMISSION make the same specious
argument as the respondent in Seaman.
The COMMISSION misconstrues the case law by ignoring that a
particular act rarely constitutes unfitness for service, and certainly
does not do so in this case. Petitioner was ready and willing to come
back to work as soon as it was safe.
The case law has insisted that one “particular act” rarely constitutes
“evident unfitness for service” and certainly not a “persistent violation
of or refusal to obey prescribed rules and regulations.
The particular act in this case was when Mrs. Larkins told the District
immediately on October 5, 2001, which was the first and only occasion
in which the District mentioned a specific school site, that she did
not feel safe until an investigation had been done and
obviously false allegations retracted. No student was
forced to spend a single day without his regular teacher
because of her decision. The district had willfully and
continually refused to protect her from arbitrary actions
due to slanders.
The COMMISSION also ignored the court’s definition of
“persistent violation” in Seaman by failing to give proper weight to
the words “continuing, especially in the face of opposition…constantly
repeated.” The COMMISSION should have noted that there was no
opposition to Petitioner’s not reporting to work after October 5, 2001.
There was never a letter or fax or phone call asking her to report to
work other than October 5, 2001. You notice that not even the
November 14, 2001 letter threatening dismissal (Exhibit
42) directs her to report to any assignment. It was
made clear at the November 21, 2001 meetings with
Mrs. Larkins and her attorney that the District wanted
Mrs. Larkins to quit.
Illegal OAH
Decision
Page 23
Decision
Page 23
The Office of Administrative Hearings tried to cover up the
wrongdoing of the district by conducting a bizarre trial of its
own, during which the judge jumped up and called the two
panelists into the side chamber while the court reporter and
everyone else sat and waited.
The hearing was not recessed, but the court reporter could
not hear or record what was said.
Maura Larkins was sitting at the witness stand, and was able
to hear the judge's words--UNTIL HE CLOSED THE DOOR TO
KEEP THE DISCUSSION SECRET!
wrongdoing of the district by conducting a bizarre trial of its
own, during which the judge jumped up and called the two
panelists into the side chamber while the court reporter and
everyone else sat and waited.
The hearing was not recessed, but the court reporter could
not hear or record what was said.
Maura Larkins was sitting at the witness stand, and was able
to hear the judge's words--UNTIL HE CLOSED THE DOOR TO
KEEP THE DISCUSSION SECRET!
| Judge Ahler is not the problem. When he leaves, those in power will likely find someone who is even more prone to rubber stamping any action, no matter how illegal, of individuals who have managed, by hook or by crook, to obtain control of public entities. |
| The judge jumped up and called the two panelists into the side chamber while the court reporter and everyone else sat and waited. |
| The CVESD school board turned the district into a place not suitable for learning. |
| turned the district into a place not suitable for learning. They created a frenzy by egging on a clique of teachers who had lost all sense of reality, decency, and respect. |
| The CVESD school board, controlled by Patrick Judd, Pamela Smith and Larry Cunningham |
| Maura Larkins could not feel safe until an investigation had been done and false allegations retracted. No student was forced to spend a single day without his regular teacher because of her decision. The district had willfully and continually refused to protect her from the hostile and arbitrary actions of Richard Werlin. |
| The Office of Administrative Hearings helped Libia Gil, Rick Werlin and the school board turned Chula Vista into Salem-by-the-Sea, with an enormous number of similarities to Salem, Massachusetts in the 1600's, complete with shaking, shivering witnesses. |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |