ARE YOU being targeted and threatened with removal from your teaching position with the School District ? STOP!

ARE YOU being targeted and threatened with removal from your teaching position with the School District ? STOP!

Labels: Board Trustees that Lie, bought and sold, civil rights for the rich and connected

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

By Lenny@perdaily.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