So as I’ve stated before multiple times in many school board
meetings, I think the board needs a better process for ensuring that decisions
that come from our delegated hearing officers are not defective. Under the current protocol, the status quo,
we are told we can do nothing to challenge a hearing officer’s written
order. I reject that notion. Hearing officers are humans, and like judges,
hearing officers sometimes make mistakes.
Unlike judges that routinely have their defective decisions overturned
by a vibrant and fair appeals process, however, our hearing officers are
apparently beyond reproach; their decisions, even if defective, MUST only
be “accepted”—is what we are told.
This mindset is garbage.
I reject this logic totally. I
mean, what happens when we get a hearing officer who comes back with an order
stipulating the “sky is green!” Are we
to blindly genuflect and accept something just as blatantly wrong as it
pertains to student discipline? I say no
way.
Simpletons that refuse to accept the reality of this problem
will be dismissive and say things such as “This is the way this process has
always been conducted here.”
The problem with this line of thought is that with no
appeals mechanism in place to challenge a hearing officer’s defective order,
justice is not served for victims or perpetrators --be they guilty or innocent.
Here is the thing: I have no problem adopting a hearing officer’s
recommended order---even if I disagree—so long as the hearing was conducted
appropriately, Board Policy was followed, and there are not blatant legal
problems with the order. I have accepted
and have voted for many of these orders throughout my time on the school board.
But when even a Blind Man could see problems with an
order---I will NEVER simply vote to accept such a flawed product.
Example 1: If the
hearing officer finds, to the preponderance of the evidence, that a student
committed what would be the textbook definition of a battery, yet such a
hearing officer fails to
appropriately categorize this battery as what it is-- a
battery------ this is a legal problem that must be challenged. This just
happened, by the way.
Example 2: If Johnny
says he did not have the marijuana on his person and yet he was expelled for
having marijuana –by all means, yes, let’s have a hearing. And if the hearing officer determines from
the evidence presented in the hearing that Johnny did not have the
marijuana and so therefore the penalty is wrong----I’ll always accept that
outcome if the hearing was conducted properly.
On the other hand, if the hearing officer finds that Johnny did have the
pot, but the hearing officer decides independently to exceed his/her authority
and give a lesser sentence than what is mandated in board policy—THAT IS
WRONG. In real life, judges have minimum
mandatory sentencing requirements for some offenses, and even if such a judge
wants to give a lesser sentence, this is not permitted. In the school system three years ago, we used
to have a penalty with teeth for bringing marijuana on campus---it was a one
(1) year minimum removal from school for that infraction. We actually had a hearing officer blatantly
defy that Board Mandate, and even though “Johnny” was found guilty of bringing
pot to school, this hearing officer gave a sentence of six months. That actually happened, it was an abuse of
discretion and it was wrong. I voted against that order as well. (The
board, over my objection, has since moved to water down the penalty for
contraband possession at school and has removed the one (1) year minimum
removal policy for drug infractions)
So what do we do when a hearing officer gets it wrong? Should we just accept defective orders, shrug
our shoulders, grit our teeth, hold our noses and do nothing? No way, not if we are leaders we won’t.
Here is my solution:
We need to have a mechanism that allows us to act in an appellate
capacity for circumstances when our hearing officers make mistakes or when
these hearing officers do not follow board policy with fidelity. Contrary to what some might say or
think---It is not about “disagreeing” with decisions we don’t like. It is all about accepting the reality, the known fact of truth, that humans make mistakes. And such errors combined with the potential for abusing discretion to the detriment of some students and not currently having a
clear mechanism to correct these situations is problematic. So why not fix this? Really, why not?
Only the status quo wins when we shrug our shoulders and
fail to act to fix a blatantly defective process.
No comments:
Post a Comment