ARE YOU being targeted
and threatened with removal from your teaching position with the School District
? STOP!
With teachers being targeted and removed from
their teaching positions with the Moreno Valley Unified School District (MVUSD)
on trumped up charges without even basic constitutional guarantees of due
process of law and in complete derogation of their rights as clearly laid out
in applicable legal precedent, it is important that teachers so targeted seize
the initiative, while not passively submitting to this witch hunt. To that end,
the following document should be used to put MVUSD on notice, when they move
for your illegal removal from you teaching position. Putting the district on
notice like this will be the first step in a battle where you will frame the
conversation for a change, while recapturing your status as an adult,
professional, and well educated teacher who will not go quietly into the night
(WHICH EXACTLY WHAT THEY REALLY WANT).
Originally published on Perdail.com
Edited by I, Praetorian
Form Letter for "Skelly" meetings
I have been directed to attend a meeting on _______ to discuss my
"possible dismissal". I have also been informed that this is my
"opportunity to be heard".
I am a permanent, certificated employee. Under the California and United States
Constitutions and I have a protected property interest in my continued
employment and licensing as a California teacher. I also have a
constitutionally protected liberty interest in preserving my reputation.
Since you are threatening me with immediate, unpaid suspension, it is my
understanding that this meeting would be a pre-disciplinary proceeding that is
required under California law. I also understand that under California law: (a)
I am entitled to know all of the legal reasons or grounds that support the
District's belief that I should be dismissed before the meeting, (b) I am
entitled to review all of the evidence that the District contends to support
the legal grounds for my dismissal before the meeting, (c) the meeting must
provide a meaningful opportunity to respond to the allegations, and (d) the
meeting must be fair and impartial.
I have also been given the option to offer a
written response. However, unless I am provided with the above information, I
cannot meaningfully respond to unspecified charges based on evidence I am not
permitted to review before the meeting whether orally or in writing. Also,
without an opportunity to review the evidence supporting the charges, I am
unable to respond to the evidence.
I shall be pleased to respond to any and all written charges that are presented
to me. However, in order to do so, I request that the District provide me with
copies of all of the evidence that is being offered against me. Therefore,
please re-schedule the meeting to provide me with at least five (5) working
days for me to review the charges and evidence.
I have received a copy of this letter on ___________.
Signed
____________________________________school person
NAME PRINTED______________________________
If mailed: Send certified mail, return receipt
requested. Enclose a return envelope and copy of letter and add sentence:
Please date and sign one copy of this letter and return it to me in the postage
paid envelope provided for your convenience.
BEWARE OF THE FOLLOWING TO RULES THAT ABSOLUTELY APPLY TO YOU:
A Lybarger admonishment derives its name from Lybarger v.
City of Los Angeles 40 Cal. 3d 822 (1985). In interpreting Government Code
Section 3303(e) and (h) the California Supreme Court determined that whenever a
supervisor/manager interrogates an employee and (a) it appears that the
employee may be charged with a criminal offense as a result of his misconduct,
or (b) the worker refuses to answer questions on the ground that the answers
may be criminally self-incriminating, the questioning must be
preceded by a “Lybarger admonishment.” As such, The employee must also be
told the following:
• Among other things, that although the
employee has the right to remain silent and not incriminate himself
(1) his silence could be deemed
insubordination, leading to administrative discipline, and
(2) any statement made under the compulsion of
the threat of such discipline (i.e., incriminating statements) could not be
used again him in any subsequent criminal proceeding.
Remaining silent:
• If the employee continues to stand on his
Fifth Amendment right to remain silent in the face of the above admonition, he
risks disciplinary action for his refusal to answer. If the worker agrees to
answer questions after the above admonition, management can use his answers for
administrative purposes ONLY including discipline– but not criminal prosecution.
Remember, before any meeting with a supervisor
where the employee reasonably believes discipline may result, a union
representative should be consulted, and the right to have one present is
guaranteed under the Weingarten rule.
The employee must also be told the following:
• Among other things, that although the employee has the right to remain silent
and not incriminate himself
(1) his silence could be deemed
insubordination, leading to administrative discipline, and
(2) any statement made under the compulsion of
the threat of such discipline (i.e., incriminating statements) cannot be used
against him in any subsequent criminal proceeding.
Remaining silent:
• If the employee continues to stand on his Fifth Amendment right to remain
silent in the face of the above admonition, he risks disciplinary
action for his refusal to answer. If the worker agrees to answer
questions after the above admonition, management can use his answers for
administrative purposes ONLY (THOUGH THIS MAY INCLUDE USE FOR DISCIPLINE ,
SUSPENSION, OR DISMISALL)– BUT not criminal prosecution.
HOWEVER, before any meeting with a supervisor where the employee reasonably
believes discipline may result, a union representative should be
consulted, and the right to have one present is guaranteed under the Weingarten
rule.You should ask for the local president or senior member of the cabinet to
represent you.
The Garrity Rule:
However, An employee statement obtained under threat of removal from
office cannot be used in subsequent criminal proceedings.
|
WHAT IS INSUBORDINATION?
When you refuse to carry out a direct order,
it is called insubordination. Most of
the time, the
union cannot protect a worker who refuses a direct order - even
if the
order is against your
rights under the contract or law. Workers have
to follow the order and then
file a grievance. This is called “obey now,
grieve later.”
WHAT MUST MANAGEMENT SHOW?
To discipline an employee for
insubordination, management has to show that:
· The supervisor/manager told the worker that it was a
director order; AND,
· The supervisor/manager told the worker what would
happen if he/she
disobeyed the order.
When can you refuse a direct order?
There are two reasons that you can refuse a
direct order:
1.YOU REASONABLY BELIEVED THAT YOU WERE TOLD TO DO SOMETHING
ILLEGAL;
OR,
2. YOU REASONABLY BELIEVED THAT YOU
WOULD BE IN IMMEDIATE DANGER.
“OBEY NOW – GRIEVE LATER”
“Obey
now, grieve later” can be very frustrating and unfair. It can take a long
time to settle
a grievance, even if you win. All the time you are fighting to win
the grievance, you
are supposed to go along with management’s unfair order.
Talk to the union
to see if there is a way to speed up the grievance.
Also,
talk with your co-workers and the union representative
to figure out ways
to pressure management to wait for the grievance to be settled before
making anyone follow the
rule.
If you or someone you know has been targeted
and are in the process of
being dismissedand need legal defense, get in touch:
Lenny@perdaily.com OR
R. Alexander Bright
|
|
Art of Setting Limits Setting limits is one of the most powerful tools that professionals have to promote positive behavior change for their clients, students, residents, patients, etc. Knowing there are limits on their behavior helps the individuals in your charge to feel safe. It also helps them learn to make appropriate choices.
The prospects for healthcare reform may be chillier than DC weather, but Democrats in the House and Senate are turning their attention to another warmer but still significant national issue: the increasing number of runaway and throwaway youth who are being forced into prostitution. In response to the growing concerns that desperate, runaway teens will be forced into prostitution in a sluggish economy, Congress is pushing several bills to improve how runaway kids are tracked by the police, fund crucial social services, and prevent teens from being caught in sex trafficking. Here's the gist of what the new legislation is trying to accomplish:
