TEXT OF EMAIL TO BOARD PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT:

Heather and Tiffany,

As per Board policy B-2 which states:

“Any board member may request that a topic be placed on an upcoming meeting agenda by contacting the board president or vice president. In general, scheduling of topics is at the discretion of board leadership…”

I am requesting that you place the topic of “employee use of the title Dr.” on the November 1, 2016 – Board agenda.

It has come to my attention that several Administrators have received letters of Discipline due to the fact that they are using the title of Dr. subsequent to successfully defending their dissertation and prior to their Doctorate being noted on their transcript. I am also told that these Administrators are part of an ongoing appeal process within the District (proceeding).

The Board has received numerous testimonies from those in higher education advising us that this is the common practice at the University of Utah. The latest ceremony was from Dr. Coleman at our last Board meeting (see attached video).

I am also of the opinion, that newly appointed Superintendent Cunningham is in violation of several Board policies in her feeble attempt to intimidate school district administrators.

Superintendent Cunningham is in violation of Board Policy G-19 and its accompanying Procedure which in part states:

Expressly Prohibits Retaliation which is defined as:

“any form of sanction or adverse treatment, including but not limited to intimidation, reprisal, or harassment of any individual because he or she…has testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing related to a complaint…”

The G-19 procedure goes on to state:

“The district prohibits unlawful discrimination, harassment, and retaliation on all district premises, during district sponsored activities, in all aspects of employment with the district, and by all district students and employees…. Any request to stop the unlawful behavior outlined in these procedures must be complied with immediately. Individuals are encouraged to make such requests in order to resolve these situations if possible. Supervisors are responsible for taking prompt necessary steps, including appropriate disciplinary action, to ensure and maintain a working and educational environment free of intimidation, coercion, discrimination, harassment, and retaliation.”

Accordingly, I am requesting that this issue be placed on the Board’s November 1, 2016 agenda for discussion. The Superintendent is an appointee of the Board and we are therefore her supervisor. I am recommending that we take formal action and “request” that she discontinue her “unlawful behavior” that is having an adverse impact on our Administrators, teachers, and students alike. Surely, you can see that no good will come out of creating a hostile work environment for our school Principals. If a Principal feels under siege by the Superintendent, what impact do you think that is going to have on teachers? On students? On the life of the school?

The Board Handbook states:

“The board is empowered to make policy decisions for district schools. Board members act as trustees for the community; therefore, policies are often understood as expressions of the community’s aspirations for its public schools.”

In this case, the Board has no policy in place, outlining when an educator in the Doctoral program can use the title “Dr.” The standard for the University of Utah is that the title can be used following the successful defense of one’s dissertation.

In some circles, McKell Withers is considered the smartest person in the state of Utah when it comes to secondary education. McKell set the standard for this District; he used the title “Dr.” as early as 2003, yet did not receive his degree until December of 2005 (see attached video).

As one who has governing authority over this District, I cannot in good conscious remain silent and allow the current Superintendent to punish our current Administrators for following the custom of the day. Our current Board policies are silent on this issue. Placing this issue on the agenda will afford the Board and the public the opportunity to weigh in on this issue and make a determination if a standard should be expressed in the form of a policy.

Email in PDF Format

Dr. Coleman Speaking Truth to Power at the Board Meeting (YouTube)

When Did McKell Withers Receive His Doctorate? (YouTube )

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

SALT LAKE CITY BRANCH OF THE NAACP CALLS FOR AN AUDIT OF THE SALT LAKE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT

(Salt Lake City, Utah) – On Tuesday, October 18, 2016, at 5:00 p.m. at the Salt Lake City School District Offices located at 440 E. 100 S. in Salt Lake City, Utah. Ms. Jeanetta Williams, of the NAACP will join other Community Leaders in calling upon state Auditor John Dougall to conduct a performance and financial audit on the Salt Lake City School District.

“Over the past two years, the community has repeatedly called upon Board President, Heather Bennett, and Vice President Tiffany Sandberg to honor and respect the authority invested in the Salt Lake City Board of Education by not interfering with that public body’s responsibility to deliberate and take action publicly and openly.” Stated Ms. Jeanetta Williams. “The Board leadership continues to ignore the pleas of the community and in frustration; we now turn to the State Auditors Office.”

“The violations set forth in the report to State Auditor John Dougall will outline a pervasive pattern and practice wherein the Board leadership has abdicated the Board’s authority by NOT allowing the Board to deliberate and take action openly and transparently on matters of finances, employment, contracts, and state grants.” stated Utah Coalition of La Raza (UCLR) founder Archie Archuleta. * “Ms. Bennett (Board President) and Ms. Sandberg (Board Vice President) would have the District run as an autocracy where the school administration is permitted to maneuver in secrecy, operate by abuses of power, cronyism, nepotism and discrimination. We ask that Auditor John Dougall help our School Board reclaim its dignity and assume its rightful place as guardians of our children’s education.

“The call for this audit should in no way diminish the great work of our teachers and local school administrators who should be proud of what they are able to accomplish despite the failed leadership at the top. This request to Auditor John Dougall is about failed Board leadership which includes the top administrators in the District office.” Stated GOP Chair James Evans. *

“The community and leaders of the west side of Salt Lake City have been raising concerns of questionable practices and lack of transparency at the Salt Lake School District offices, for the last couple of years. The concerns of the community have been ignored; a need for an audit is timely and can provide specific recommendations.”  Stated State Senator Luz Escamilla. “Transparency and openness are critical in the efficiency and effectiveness of our Government.”

* Mr. Archuleta and Mr. Evans also sit on the Salt Lake City School District Equity Leadership Team

###

Founded in 1909, the NAACP is the nation’s oldest and largest civil rights organization. 

NAACP TUESDAY PRESS RELEASE FINAL

Supplemental Information

13 October 2016

DELIVERED VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Ms. Heather Bennett, Board President
℅ Salt Lake City Board of Education
440 East 100 South
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111

Re: Treatment of District Employees

Dear Ms. Bennett,

Many of us were disappointed with the outcome of Tuesday night’s 5-1 vote to uphold the unauthorized demotion of the District’s Chief Equity Officer, Dr. Kathleen Christy.[1] Following the meeting, a community leader gave me emails dated May 4, 2016,[2] wherein you and McKell Withers, Tiffany Sandberg and Kristi Swett are discussing Dr. Christy. In that exchange, you state:

“I don’t think she should sign correspondence PhD if she doesn’t have a doctorate…Discipline is      clearly warranted. I also question whether she can be effective in her current role given these breaches       of professional conduct”

Then Kristi Swett states:

“It’s unfortunate the actions of our Assistant Superintendent has put our district in an      awkward situation, with the disclosure of her questionable doctorate…I understand you are      continuing to investigate the doctorate process…should certainly be grounds for termination…”

Then Tiffany states:

“I am echoing Kristie’s thoughts…”

McKell Withers replies:

“The breaches of professional conduct are stunning.” [3]

BACKGROUND
In October 2015, McKell Withers who at the time was Superintendent, demoted Dr. Christy (African American) from Assistant Superintendent to Equity Plan Coordinator. He then elevated three Caucasian administrators and gave them the title of Chief with the rank of Associate Superintendent. [4]

Later that month, in response to an inquiry from me, the entire Board received an email from Business Administrator Janet Roberts advising us that Dr. Christy had a Masters degree and no Doctorate. [5]

In November of 2015, the community [6] and employees[7] alike protested the reorganization plan that was implemented without Board approval.

In December of 2015, I attended a community meeting where I heard people congratulate Dr. Christy incidental to having successfully defended her dissertation.

In January of 2016, the Board was presented with a revised plan of the District’s reorganization.[8]

“Dr. Withers presented the representative group of Equity Leadership Team and SLASA Board Members with a revised reorganization chart identifying four positions that directly report to the   Superintendent:
Assistant Superintendent (Kathleen Christy)
Chief Academic Officer (Barbara Kuehl)
Chief Improvement Officer (Brian Conley)
Chief Operations Officer (Larry Madden)

To date, some concerns regarding the reorganization have been addressed. Dr. Christy has been  added to the Superintendency as an equal assignment as the Chief Officers and responsibilities have been divided to reflect a balance in leadership, accountability, and authority. Concerns remain      regarding transparency, collaboration, and equity in access to district-level leadership positions for all  qualified district administrators…”  [9]

In February 2016, the Board issued a letter titled BOARD SUPPORT FOR EQUITY PRIOITIES:

“The Salt Lake City School District Board of Education recognizes that it serves a diverse   population: 56.9% of public school students in Salt Lake City identify as members of an ethnic or racial minority group. We acknowledge the need for more diversity among support staff,         teachers, and administrators….” [10]

In May of 2016, this “Dr.” accusation was first reported to the Board. We were told that an investigation would commence and the findings of the investigation would be brought back to the Board.

In reviewing my calendar, I see that the Board met on May 3, 2016. The minutes of the meeting show that the Board went into a closed meeting to discuss Character, Professional Competence…. It appears that I left the closed door meeting before it was over. [11] In all probability because someone was leveling false accusations against someone else as is the custom of those that run this District. Nevertheless, the day following that Board meeting it appears Board members were looking into the same issue. Clearly, we handle information differently; while you and your cohorts were exacting judgments on Dr. Christy and giving McKell commands to destroy her career via email,[12] I was up at the University of Utah learning the process that one goes through in order to earn a Doctorate degree. I discovered that there was the program phase and the dissertation phase. The typical phases of the program were as follows: Ph.D. Student, Ph.D. Candidate and then a Ph.D.

I also learned that upon a successful dissertation defense, it was common to refer to the student, as “Dr.” This is even before the student had submitted their final dissertation (already successfully defended) and before they had obtained their degree.

I thought nothing more of the accusation and had every confidence that I would share this information with fellow Board members if this issue came back to the Board. I foolishly thought that an investigation by District personnel would come to the same conclusion I had and recognize this as a non-issue. What I learned at the U matched the actions of Dr. Christy over the past few months.

In June 2016, on his last day on the job, McKell Withers once again demoted Dr. Christy. I suppose in anticipation of the Board conducting the meeting this past Tuesday in an open session, community leaders distributed a number of documents to those in the audience. One such document was a June 30, 2016, letter from McKell Withers to Dr. Christy:

            “…It is untenable that the district allow its licensed educators such as yourself who are statutorily mandated to be a role models for students, to falsify their credentials and perpetuate an appearance of    impropriety…use of titles and credentials for which you have not completed the process is not      acceptable until the granting institution awarded the degree and is…” [13]

In July 2016, the majority of the Board along with the community was shocked when we learned that McKell Withers demoted Dr. Christy as his final act as Superintendent. [14] I now realize that three of my fellow Board members were pretending to be equally shocked.

You, Ms. Sandberg, and Ms. Swett clearly didn’t see a need to come clean to the rest of the Board and tell us that Dr. Christy’s demotion was your own doing? More importantly, the findings of an investigation into Dr. Christy’s use of the title “Dr.” should have come back to the Board for our consideration. Dr. Christy has the rank of Associate Superintendent and in our District, that makes her a “direct report to the Board.”[15] As such, it was within the purview of the entire Board to weigh the findings of an investigation and approve a demotion if it was warranted. Clearly, taking this circuitous route back to the Board was done with the hope that the charges, investigation, and findings from the hearing would be so fractured and convoluted that the Board could not properly deliberate on the issue. To your credit, it worked.

At the July 5^th Board meeting, members of the community spoke against this unauthorized demotion (second time). The Tribune reported the following:

“The chairman of the Utah Republican Party joined the state NAACP leader and a           prominent Latino advocate Tuesday in criticizing Salt Lake City schools for taking what they            characterized as a misstep for civil rights. The trio spoke against recent changes in district     administration at the school board’s Tuesday evening meeting…

            Last week’s reassignment for the district’s main equity and diversity officer, Utah GOP Chairman             James Evans said, demonstrates that the treatment of minority and low ­income students is not a priority for district officials…” [16]

In that same meeting, NAACP President stated:

            “Making organizational changes at the midnight hour when you think no one is looking is the old way         of doing business. This is a new day, we have a new Superintendent, I admonish the new       Superintendent to leave the old dark ways behind and instead follow the recommendations and            wisdom of these young people, make organizational changes within the context of “Transparency and    collaboration…” as that allows for “establishing a trusting relationship between the School Board,    Superintendent, educational leaders, teachers, parents, students, and community leaders” [17]

Later that month the Tribune editorial board, not aware that three school board members initiated this scheme, stated the following:

“The week before — while nobody, including members of the school board, was looking — outgoing Superintendent McKell Withers rearranged his administrative box chart in such a way that the district official in charge of equity and diversity was kicked down a rung in official stature.” [18]

Due to your duplicitous nature, it should surprise no one that you made no effort to divulge the fact that you and two other Board members cleverly instigated the scheme to demote Dr. Christy.

The Tribune editorial board was correct when they declared:

“But to rearrange the lines of responsibility on the district’s administrative flow chart is not a  private  personnel decision. It is a policy choice, one that should have been more openly vetted, at least among board members…” [19]

In October 2016, The Board meeting on Tuesday night was held under a false pretense. [20] Not only was it held under false pretense, the Board was purposefully denied the transcript of the hearing and all of the exhibits associated with it. [21] We were only given a copy of the hearing officer’s determination wherein he engaged hyperbole in his recitation of the facts, he was extremely subjective in his characterizations, and he leveled numerous personal attacks. [22] I actually received more insights into the circumstances surrounding this demotion from documents that members of the community read while the Board was sequestered in the close door meeting.

WITHERS DOCTRATE TIMELINE
In December of 2002, the Deseret News reported the following:

“The Salt Lake City Board of Education has picked the new district superintendent of Salt Lake    City schools, McKell Withers, out of the ranks of neighboring Granite School District. Withers received his bachelor’s and master’s degrees from the University of Utah and completes a doctorate      degree in educational leadership and policy from the university this year.” [23]

In May 2003, McKell Withers finishes his course work. [24]

In August 2003, the minutes of Board meetings begin to reference McKell Withers as “Dr.” [25]

In November 2003, the District puts out a press release referencing “Dr. McKell Withers.”[26] I have multiple examples of McKell using “Dr.” prior to him receiving his degree and prior to the time that he successfully defended his dissertation. For purposes of this correspondence, I have included the minutes to Board meetings and the press release.

In April 2004, McKell Withers successfully defends his dissertation [27]

In July 2005, McKell Withers Dissertation is accepted in its final form [28]

In December 2005, McKell Withers awarded his Doctorate of Education Degree [29]

The minutes of Board meetings of that time also show that “Kristi Deveraux Swett” was serving as a member of the Board during this timeframe. [30] How is it that Kristi Swett didn’t claim that McKell Withers “put our district in an awkward situation, with the disclosure of [his] questionable doctorate…? [31] Moreover, I have numerous documents where it appears that McKell used the title “Dr.” even before he successfully defended his dissertation.[32]

Yet, when Dr. Christy follows the common practice of using the title “Dr.” following the successful defense of her dissertation, Ms. Swett declares that it “…should certainly be grounds for termination.” [33]

In hypocritical fashion, McKell Withers labels Dr. Christy’s actions “breaches of professional conduct” that he has the nerve to label as “stunning.” [34]

CONCLUSION
What I find “stunning” is that what I initially called a “rigged due process” [35] (for Dr. Christy) was even more insidious than what even I thought. This is yet another example where you have abdicated the authority of the Board and set in motion a very destructive path that inhibits this District’s ability to address the needs of our ethnic minority students (60% of the student body).

Why do you and McKell Withers believe that it is okay to hold Dr. Christy to a standard that is contrary to the custom of the day? How do you and McKell Withers think it is okay to hold Dr. Christy to a standard that not even McKell himself came close to abiding?

I of course recognize that you operate under the conditions of something akin to a moral inversion; you and McKell are blind to the injuries that the two of you have inflicted on employees of this District over the years. I would characterize what the two of you have organizationally orchestrated within this school district as EVIL:

 “Evil consists in intentionally behaving in ways that harm, abuse, demean, dehumanize or destroy innocent others—or using one’s authority and systemic power to encourage or permit others to do so on  your behalf.” [36]

I of course recognize your reluctance to acknowledge the administrative evil you have created and perpetuated within the Salt Lake City School District.  Your ethical blindness service to reinforce administrative evil’s continued influence and increases the possibility of future acts of dehumanization and destruction as long as you are here to lead the charge. The manner in which you orchestrated the demotion of Dr. Christy has shocked the conscious of all who witnessed this saga unfold. To be sure, only the likes of Wormwood would admire your handiwork. [37]

Whether you realize it or not, your acts of intrigue have a negative reverberating effect on the self-esteem of the educators within this District. They all must ask themselves: “Am I next?”

Only something akin to a democracy in action that allows for a deliberative process will change this organization. Since you have sabotaged any possibility of deliberations in Board meetings, this District’s only hope is that the citizens rise up and vote you out of office. Which is the one silver lining to the Board’s Tuesday night vote; it incentivized people to find out which members of the Board are up for re-election this month.[38] Someone mentioned that your opponent, Jason Stevenson, was just down the street from the District offices in the midst of a fundraiser hosted by Mayor Biskupski. In a flash, over half of the people left the building and quickly made their way to the fundraiser so that they could contribute to Jason’s campaign. That’s what I love about America!

I submit that the next 30 days are pivotal for this school district. I predict the critical and active citizenship we have seen at our last two Board meetings will continue to crescendo until the Board is restored to a place where a viable and deliberative democracy can be exercised.

Shalom,

J. Michael Clára
Board Member, District 2
Enclosures

cc:
President Wayne Niederhauser, Senate
Speaker Greg Hughes, House of Representatives
Senator Escamill
Representative Romero
Representative Hollins
Mr. John Dougall, State Auditor
Ms. Rickie McCandless, Mayor’s Designee on the Board
Ms. Susan McFarland, President –Salt Lake Education Association (SLEA)
Mr. Jared Wright, President – Salt Lake Association of School Administrators (SLASA)
Mrs. Teresa Organista, Salt Lake City School Board Candidate –District 1
Mr. Jason Stevenson, Salt Lake City School Board Candidate –District 5
Mr. Ryan Pleune, Salt Lake City School Board Candidate – District 7
Salt Lake City School District Equity Leadership Team
Salt Lake City Board of Education
Tribune Editorial Board

10 October 2016

DELIVERED VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Ms. Alexa Cunningham, Superintendent
℅ Salt Lake City School District
440 East 100 South
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111-1891

Re: Third Request for Full Transcript (un-redacted)

Dear Dr. Cunningham,

Acting under the authority of my elected office, and in my official capacity as a member of the Salt Lake City Board of Education, I submit the following request on behalf of the residents of Salt Lake City, District 2.  I am once again requesting a COMPLETE and un-redacted copy of the Dr. Christy’s Discipline Appeal Hearing that occurred and was arbitrated by Kirk G. McRae on August 25, 2016. I am also requesting copies of all un-redacted Exhibits associated with this hearing.

VIOLATION
I am sending a courtesy copy of this letter to a number of elected and appointed officials. In doing so, I am demonstrating the break down in local school Board governance as a result of your apparent disdain for my elected office; as evidence by the fact that you continue to deny my requests for information related to a matter that I am required to adjudicate. This letter will also serve to place you on notice that in refusing to provide me the documentation that I require to perform my duties, you are “restricting and impairing” my ability “to serve and represent the residents of my District”.

 Accordingly, your actions are in violation of §53-3-401 of Utah Code:

Notwithstanding a local school board’s status as a body corporate, an elected member of a local   school board serves and represents the residents of the local school board member’s district, and     that service and representation may not be restricted or impaired by the local school board           member’s membership on, or obligations to, the local school board.

BOARD MEETING
As you are aware, a Salt Lake City Board of Education meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, October 11, 2016. The action item on the agenda states:

Recommendation of Hearing Officer [1]

The exhibit attached to the agenda is a memo from you and in part states:

“Kirk G. McRae served as the hearing officer and has recommended to the board that the imposed discipline be upheld as it was “reasonable, appropriate, and sufficient.” As per Section II of the Employee Handbook, the hearing officer’s decision shall be subject to board approval.” [2]

GARRITSON MEMO

On October 3, 2016 – The Board received an email from Tina Hatch advising the following:

“I have attached the hearing officer’s report regarding the K. Christy matter, as well as the board letter         that will be submitted for approval in a public board meeting…” [3]

I could not open the links in the email and went to the District offices to obtain a copy of the hearing officer’s determination [4] with an accompanying memo by Human Resource Director, Byron Garritson, which in part states:

According to the Administrative Procedures for P-4 Discipline of District Employees, the recommendation     is submitted to the board.

            Section D. outlines the responsibilities and options of the Board of Education:

            1.The board will review the hearing officer’s recommendations and either accept them, or prepare its own      findings and conclusions based on the record of the hearing.

            2. In making its decision the board may, at its discretion, allow the employee and the district to submit        written or oral argument regarding the matter.

            3. The board may also reopen the hearing to receive additional evidence from the parties.

            4. The board’s decision shall be delivered in person or sent by certified mail to the employee and the district.

            5. The board’s decision is final. [5]

TRANSCRIPT REQUESTS
According to Procedures P-4 the Board is entitled to a record of the hearing, yet you refuse to provide me a copy of the Transcript.

On October 03, 2016 – I sent you an email requesting a copy of the Hearing Transcript and Exhibits, I stated the following: I picked up a hard copy of the “confidential personnel report”. My packet is missing the exhibits as well as the transcripts of the hearing. I can pick up a copy of the transcript of the hearing and the exhibits at tonight’s Board meeting as that will give me a week to review the material. [6]

On October 5, 2016 – I had not yet received a copy of the Transcript and Exhibits, I sent you another email asking for the status on my receiving the Transcript and Exhibits. [7] You replied:

            Mr. Clara, We are working on the exhibits and transcript and hope to have that ready to go by Friday.

            Lexi [8]

On October 7, 2016 – I received an email from your office advising me that the Transcript and Exhibit can be accessed via links in the email. [9] The links provided me did not work. I called your office to see if I could pick up the documents. They advised me that the documents were in the mail.

On October 8, 2016 – No documents arrived in the mail.

On October 09, 2016 – I sent you a second request for a copy of the Transcript. [10]

On October 10, 2016– You replied:

            Mr. Clara, Mrs. Hatch has the packet of documents that was emailed and mailed on Friday.  She will expect  you at 10.  Mr. Garriton was out of the office on Friday and today.  Tomorrow I will get the information for  your requests from Friday and Tuesday. Lexi [11]

I went to the District office and obtained the packet of information. To my disappointment I received 13 pages of the transcript and most of those pages were redacted. I also only received a few of the exhibits and many of those were redacted. I am now sending you this third request for the Transcripts and Exhibits.
HEARING OFFICER

As indicated in earlier correspondence, Procedure P-4 –States:

“…superintendent shall appoint an impartial hearing officer consistent with any applicable       written/negotiated agreement.” [12]

I am calling into question the level of “impartiality” exercised in selecting this hearing officer. In a previous correspondence in response to my inquiry of how this hearing officer was selected, I was advised as follows:

“…a list of qualified hearing officers that I rotate through; the hearing officers are individuals who are very familiar with employment law, both federal and state, and public education.” [13]

After looking through my records of the past four years, it appears that this hearing officer was used by the District to the exclusion of others on the list and it appears that he has done other work for the District.

That is not “rotating” and it decreases the changes that he will be “impartial”.

Surely you can understand that by using the same hearing officer repeatedly and hiring him for other work within the District breeds familiarity that could incentivize one to always rule in favor of the District. I have also received a report that this hearing officer is related to McKell Withers. These are issues I raised in my email to you this past Friday morning that you have not yet responded to. [14] 

DR. CHRISTY DUE PROCESS
Additionally, on Friday morning,[15] I sent you an email where I reminded you that back in July, I asked you what policy or law was the District following to uphold this demotion and subsequent appeal process. I stated the following:

            “I remain baffled as to what reasonable explanation you or anyone in your administration can offer as to why  Dr. Kathleen Christy has been treated so harshly by you and your predecessor. As a member of the Board, I am    frustrated and angry that every time I ask for clarification on her due process rights, I am given a different  explanation on what appeals procedure she needs to follow. I can accept that you are not responsible for the 11th hour actions of your predecessor. The part that I find unacceptable, is how a new Superintendent, new  HR Director and four attorneys cannot determine what due process rights Dr. Christy should follow in order to  address these false charges. That is not only inexcusable it is utterly ridiculous. Moreover, I believe it was wrong  of you to allow a demotion to stand prior to the yet to be determined appeal process to be fully understood or completed.” [16]

You never replied to my concerns raised in July of this year. On Friday, I again asked for clarification on Board policy and procedure on the this issue.[17] You have not yet responded. It appears that the District is operating under three separate statutes that in my reading of them are not applicable to Dr. Christy’s demotion and the manner in which it occurred. You or members of your administration have provided the following convoluted explanations:

1. The Garritson memo quotes Board Procedure P-4 as the authority under which the Board will review that hearing officer’s determination. My reading of the procedure states the Board will review appeals to dismissals not demotions.  [18] How does this procedure inform the Board’s actions on this issue?
2. The Cunningham memo that is in the exhibit for the Board’s agenda states: “As per Section II of the Employee Handbook, the hearing officer’s decision shall be subject to board approval.”. Yet, I am not seeing that reference in the Handbook. [19] How does that reference inform the Board’s actions on this issue?
3. The McRae decision states that he is holding the hearing “pursuant to negotiated policy and … §53A-8a-101 et. Seq. of the Utah Code.” When I read that section of the code it references appeals to a “dismissal” incidental to an “evaluation”. Dr. Christy was not dismissed. Moreover, on more than one occasion, you have advised the Board that administrators in the District office do not have evaluations on file. [20] How does this section of the Utah Code inform the Board’s actions in this issue?

MCKELL WITHERS PhD
On July 18, 2016 – I met with you, in your office and I informed you that on 10/29/15 the Board received an email from Janet Roberts advising us that Dr. Christy had a master’s degree at that time. [21] I also advised you that your predecessor, McKell Withers was not awarded his Doctorate until 12/16/2005.[22] Yet, he freely used the title of Dr. in 2003 [23] and in 2004. [24] I repeated these two facts to you in my July 31, 2016 correspondence. [25] I am interested to see how this matter could have progressed to this stage within the context of these two facts. I am hoping that the Transcript of the hearing will enlighten me.

CONCLUSION
As one who was elected to represent the interest of my community, all I can say is: SHAME ON YOU!

The manner in which you and your administration have manipulated and abused this appeal process is astonishing. It is clear to me and others, that it is your intent to deceive members of the Board by limiting the evidence surrounding this action. Your continued display of contempt for elected officials is a symbol of all the is wrong with public education in the state of Utah.  I can assure you, that your behavior is contrary to Utah values and will not go unchallenged.  

Shalom,

J. Michael Clára
Board Member, District 2

cc: Senator Wayne Niederhauser, President
Representative Greg Hughes, Speaker of the House of Representatives
Utah State Auditor John Dougall
Senator Luz Escamilla, Minority Assistant Whip
Representative Angela Romero
Representative Sandra Hollins
Select Members of Utah Legislative Education Committees
Ms. Rickie McCandless, Salt Lake City Mayor’s Designee

08 October 2016

DELIVERED VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Select Salt Lake City Legislators
℅ Utah State Capitol
350 North State Street
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111

Re: The Equity Director

Dear:  Senator Escamilla
Representative Chavez-Houck
Representative Romero
Representative Hollins

Acting in my official capacity as a member of the Salt Lake City Board of Education, I am extending an invitation for you to attend the Salt Lake City Board of Education meeting scheduled for:

Tuesday    October 11, 2016    6:00 p.m.

The official purpose of the meeting is for the Board to consider the:

“…recommendation of the hearing officer”. [1]

While not stated on the agenda, the Board will rule on the merits of Dr. Kathleen Christy’s demotion, imposed by former Superintendent McKell Withers during the final hours of his tenure. I am inviting you to attend because I believe that Dr. Christy’s due process rights have been abused throughout this process. Moreover, in order to affect Dr. Christy’s demotion, Board policies were broken and the standards of judgement applied to Dr. Christy were unreasonable, overreaching and harsh.

I submit, that a school district administration that is able to treat one of its long standing employees in this manner has no business managing the education of our children. In my opinion, the Salt Lake City School District has been hijacked by a handful of rouge administrators and will continue to erode the mission and purposes of the District if not stopped. Sadly, the majority of the current Board is complicit in the destruction of Salt Lake City’s education system. They do so by ensuring that transparency is clouded to the point where the current administration is accountable to no one. While local school boards are somewhat independent government agencies and exercise local control over children’s education, [2] we nevertheless are political subdivisions of the state.[3] It is for that reason I turn to you as state representatives. If left unchecked, the school administration’s disregard for Utah statutes will continue to have an exponential negative outcome on student achievement.

SUMMARY
It appears that the District is convening the Board meeting on Tuesday night, under the auspices of policies and handbooks that do not apply to this situation. Additionally, they are refusing to provide the Board with all the documentation associated with the initial hearing. To date, I have only received the hearing officer’s determination which includes his summation. I have not been given access to exhibits associated with the hearing officer’s ruling nor has the Superintendent provided me with the transcripts of the hearing. Board policy on this matter clearly states the following:

“…the board will review the hearing officer’s recommendations and either accept them, or prepare its own findings and conclusions based on the record of the hearing.” [4]

Furthermore, it appears that this hearing officer has consistently done work for the District and there is very little if any “rotation of hearing officers” occurring. Looking through my records, I found two instances where the Board was required to take a vote on a hearing officer’s determination. Both were by the same hearing officer that just ruled on Dr. Christy’s case. Additionally, it appears that the District has conducted other business with this man over the past few years.

As you can imagine, this kind of practice on the District’s part breeds familiarity and gives a regularly used hearing officer an incentive to continually rule in the District’s favor. I have also received a report that this hearing officer is related to McKell Withers. I sent an email to Superintendent Cunningham asking for clarification on these and other issues, it appears that she is not responding.

BACKGROUND
On November 17, 2015– The Board voted to elevate Dr. Christy’s position to the Associate level giving her the titled of Chief Equity Officer.[5]

On July 1, 2016 – I was notified by members in the community that Dr. Christy was demoted. I initially did not believe it because she has the rank of an Associate Superintendent and is a “direct report” to the Board of Education. [6]

On July 5, 2016 – The Board held its regularly scheduled meeting where Elders from our community attended and denounced the actions of the Superintendent. Ms. Jeanette Williams, President of the NAACP stated the following:

            “I respectfully demand that this Board stand tall by taking immediate action to undo this injustice!” [7]

Mr. James Evans, GOP Chair stated the following:

            “This demotion demonstrates that the treatment of minority and low-income students is not a priority for district         officials…it is clear that the Board has been reluctant to embrace this issue around equity.” [8]

Mr. Archie Archuleta, UCLR stated the following:

            “We want Kathleen Christy back, she is our Equity Director” [9]

On July 11, 2016- The Tribune editorial Board stated the following:

            “…while nobody, including members of the school board, was looking — outgoing Superintendent McKell Withers      rearranged his administrative box chart in such a way that the district official in charge of equity and diversity was            kicked down a rung in official stature...In this case, the seeming decision to downgrade the stature of the diversity          manager was seen by some interested people as a way to minimize the importance of the topic. And, given the fact that          it was all done without any public notice or input, that is an easy conclusion to jump to.

            That was the response of folks as diverse as the chairman of the Utah Republican Party and the president of the local NAACP, as well as members of the Utah Coalition of La Raza. Each of them told board members the other day          that the move is particularly discouraging in view of the fact that the district’s treatment of minority students — who   make up 60 percent of the total student body — has not been altogether exemplary in the past.” [10]

On July 31, 2016 – I sent an email to the Superintendent and I in part stated the following:

            “… I remain baffled as to what reasonable explanation you or anyone in your administration can offer as to why  Dr. Kathleen Christy has been treated so harshly by you and your predecessor. As a member of the Board, I am frustrated and angry that every time I ask for clarification on her due  process rights, I am given a different explanation on what appeals procedure she needs to follow. I can accept that you are not responsible for the 11th hour actions of   your predecessor. The part that I find unacceptable, is how a new Superintendent, new HR Director and four  attorneys cannot determine what due process rights Dr. Christy should follow in order to address these false charges.  That is not only inexcusable it is utterly ridiculous. Moreover, I believe it was wrong of you to allow a demotion to  stand prior to the yet to be determined appeal process to be fully understood or completed.” [11]

HEARING
On October 3, 2016 – The Board received an email from the Superintendent’s staff stating the following:

            “I have attached the hearing officer’s report … as well as the board letter that will be submitted for approval in a       public board meeting….” [12]

The links in the email would not open so I went down to the District office and obtained a copy of the hearing officer’s ruling as well as the “board letter” from Byron Garristson, Director of Human Services.

His memo in part states:

“Please find attached the submission of the recommendation of the hearing officer, Kirk McRae, Esq., who conducted    the appeal hearing for Ms. Kathleen Christy, an employee of the school district.   According to the Administrative         Procedures for P-4 Discipline of District Employees, the recommendation is submitted to the board…” [13]

On October 4, 2016 – I sent an email to Human Resource Director and stated the following:

“I picked up a hard copy of the “confidential personnel report”. My packet is missing the exhibits as well as the         transcripts of the hearing. I can pick up a copy of the transcript of the hearing and the exhibits at tonight’s Board    meeting as that will give me a week to review the material.

            Additionally, in your cover letter you state: “Ms. Christy and her legal counsel approved of the selection of Mr.           Kirk…as the hearing officer.”

            What does that mean? Where was he selected from? How was he selected? Who selected him?” [14]

Later that day Byron responded to my email by stating that:

            “I have a list of qualified hearing officers that I rotate through” [15]

The Human Resource Director did not however, respond to my request for the transcript of the hearing and the exhibits. I then sent an email asking for a copy of the list of hearing officers that he “rotates” through. He replied that he would refer that question to the Superintendent. The Superintendent did send me the list of hearing officers and she remained silent on my request for a transcript of the hearing and copies of the exhibits. I sent yet another email asking for an update on the exhibits and the transcript of the hearing.

On October 7, 2016 – I sent an email an email to Superintendent Cunningham and the Human Resource Director asking for clarification on a number of issue. They did not respond. [16] I did receive a call from the District office advising me that they mailed me a copy of exhibits and the parts of the transcripts that were quoted in the hearing officer’s decision.

On October 8, 2016– I did not receive the exhibits and parts of the transcript in the mail. As you can imagine, this places me at a distinct disadvantage as I will be forced to review this one day before the hearing. Which I believe is the intent of the administration.

CONCLUSION
The manner in which Dr. Christy has been treated over this past year is a manifestation of much greater problem. I believe that we all share reasonability for allowing this greater problem of unethical behavior to flourish within the school district’s main office. I know that each of you care about our students as much as I do. However, I believe that as a community we need to replace our ignorance with informed understanding of the tactics used by those that run this District. Perhaps that is a discussion for another day.

For today, I want to encourage you to attend the hearing on Tuesday night in support of Dr. Christy. It is my hope that the Board will act to rectify this situation for the benefit of our students. I am also hopeful that as instances of this type of foolishness continues to surface, it will encourage our communities to rise up and demand that the Superintendent and her administration be held accountable for their actions

Shalom

J. Michael Clára
Board Member, District 2