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
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.
|
