Beginning May 12, 2009 three major events took place. Two were to turn out to be positive, one for me and the other for GLBT students, but the first in the series was negative and, if it hadn’t been for the second, would have collapse my world around me.
As this is the 10th anniversary, I am going to relate each event on the actual anniversary of each.
I had written a letter to the new superintendent of The Oklahoma City Public schools. In the letter I had questioned such things as the number of teachers who were suddenly deemed failures, most put on Plans for Improvement, but who had been responsible for the important test scores that had the school meeting all federal requirements while allowing the principal to claim ours was the best school on the planet; and why some teachers who were suddenly receiving negative documents in their files were told these would be removed if they were to transfer to another school or another school district beginning the following year.
So when I was called to a meeting with the superintendent, I was surprised that the Regional Area Director and my principal had been asked to be there. The meeting had nothing to do with my letter, but was for him to express his concerns about my poor performance and lack of professionalism as attested to by those at the meeting other than myself and the union attorney. It was clear he had accepted as indisputable what he had been told by those with a vested interest in removing me, and he clearly was not interested in anything that could contradict this, as when offered the chance to look at evidence in my favor, he refused to. I resented that once again the tactic of blind-siding a teacher was being used, and I was more than curious why all these other people were there. Clearly they knew why they were there while I did not.
I did my best to explain myself and answer his concerns, but it seemed this meeting was simply pro-forma as a prelude to an action yet to be taken. That action, when taken, was to recommend to the School Board that in light of what the others at the meeting had told him, and without his looking at anything that might have contradicted this, my contract should not be renewed at the end of the year and I was to be dismissed.
I had been advocating to make the inclusion of GLBT students in the district’s policies on bullying. Harassment, and nondiscrimination clear by having sexual orientation added to existing language, but, as this was uncomfortable for the administration in the Buckle of the Bible Belt, it was obvious that eliminating the messenger would silence the message,
Within a few days I received notification that there would be an emergency meeting of the School Board at which a date would be set for a hearing before the Board. As one member of the Board pointed out, it seemed suspicious that in order to non-renew a teacher who had been in the system for fifteen years a special meeting had to be called merely to set a date for the actual hearing when it was obvious I was most likely not going anywhere in a hurry. But, regardless, a date was set for a little less than two months from this meeting.
In preparation for this important meeting I had a number of meetings with not only my Union attorney, but a private attorney I had asked to help with my case in the event there was a possibility of a charge against the district beyond “Wrongful Termination”. Although it would be up to the Union to show much of what had been deemed negative about me was fabricated as a way to arrive at a predetermined conclusion, the private attorney would hold that the action of these administrators accepted first by the superintendent and then the Board began when I criticized the Regional Area Director for her interference during the meeting back in 2006 which kept two students from my school from addressing the Board after the words “Sexual Orientation” which had surprisingly been added the online version of the student and parent handbook were suddenly removed from the on line version of the district‘s Student and Parent Handbook without explanation.
The Hearing Officer, who was supposed to be neutral, ruled in pre-hearing meetings with attorneys for the union and for the administration, ruled that much of my evidence would not be allowed because it was contradictory to the charges. What videos I had could not be used if any students could be seen, and this effectively eliminated the union‘s ability to show that a charge of not involving and engaging my students was simply not true. As it was to turn out this was an important exclusion as a major charge was just that, and the Board admitted I had not shown any evidence to counter that at the non-renewal meeting.
It was also decided by the Hearing Officer appointed by the administration that in accordance with the established procedure both sides would have only sixty minutes to present its case, but with the Union having to do its complete presentation in one sixty minute block, while the administration could divide its time in two parts, the length of each to be determined by them without my side having any opportunity to rebut what they might bring up during the second half of their presentation which sandwiched ours. She also ruled that, rather than being the aggrieved, I was merely a witness to events, and if the Board members had any questions after the Union presentations, I could not answer them. This was to make the Union‘s defense look weak as obviously they could not answer some of the very pointed questions which I could have easily answered.
These rulings by the Hearing Officer seemed to make a predetermined outcome obvious and unavoidable.
A number of people were present at the dismissal hearing, and although many were there to support me, it seemed odd that there were some teachers present in support of the administration when teachers usually did not attend meetings of this nature. I was not surprised by who they were.
Although this “emergency meeting” was called specifically for the hearing, oddly there was an item on the agenda that was scheduled for a short duration before my meeting, but with questions and speakers to the item this took over two hours. Why another matter had been scheduled for the same meeting was interesting to say the least.
Once this was completed, and after a few minutes break my non-renewal hearing began. Much of what the administration brought up to support the superintendent‘s recommendation for my non-renewal was a rehashing of all the previous charges many of which were based on fabrication. The administration began with a twenty minute presentation leaving themselves an additional forty minutes after the union‘s presentation to, as they did, present additional allegation to which the Union could not respond.
When both sides were done, various members of the Board asked my Union Attorney questions, which, as I have stated, could not be addressed to me. The Hearing Officer had also ruled that my attorneys could not consult with me in order to answer questions if I had information that could be useful. Many questions, therefore, had to go unanswered. It had also been ruled that no new material was to be brought up or documents consulted in order to answer any question, nor was anyone but the attorney to have input into the answers. The Hearing Officer stopped the Union attorney at the least sign he might consult me or bring up a document to answer a question. However, this did not apply to the administration‘s attorney who freely consulted constantly with the administrators to answer questions and who freely introduced material to which my attorneys could not respond as they had only been allowed that one sixty minute block to present anything.
Toward the end of the meeting and prior to a decision, one of the School Board members, knowing full well I was not allowed to answer any questions, asked a number of questions directly and in rapid fire, and then, as the whole situation was high profile, when interviewed by the media claimed the proof of my having been properly charged was that I did not respond to his questions with any answers.
http://amerikabulteni.com/2012/01/26/a-cartoonist-view-us-flag-could-be-like-this-at-the-presidency-of-newt-gingrich/ viagra cialis generic Placing the order online requires very few efforts and extremely short time. One of the most important benefits to tadalafil online india order Kamagra jelly online, this will save a lot time and money. Sex is like pharmacy cialis a charm and spice of life and helps prevent injury, pain, and dysfunction. Is it a certified and approved course: if it is not an aphrodisiac that means it will not increase the effectiveness of the tablets but will more likely make you ill. probe cialis generika Finishing their questions the Board adjourned to an Executive Session to discuss and return with a public vote. After fifteen minutes they returned and it was announced that one member who had stayed for the two hours of the first agenda item, the approximately two hours of my hearing, and then the fifteen minute Executive Session, would not be present for the vote, which took all of five minutes, because she had complained of not feeling well and had left. Three members voted to support the superintendent‘s recommendation, while two voted against it, with one member abstaining.
The member who abstained explained her action by saying that neither side had presented a compelling case, which ignored the statute holding that in dismissal hearings the “Burden Of Proof” was with the administration. If neither side had a compelling case, with the teacher not required to have one while the administration was, then her vote should have been cast in favor of the teacher and against the superintendent‘s recommendation.
Both Board members who voted against non-renewal were clear on the reasons they voted as they did, while the President of the Board stated to a member of the press the next day,
“I think that it is important that the Oklahoma City Public Schools to identify teachers who are not doing well in meeting the needs of our students. I did not believe based on the evidence presented that Joe Quigley fell in that category.”
Things, however, as bad as it seemed at that moment, were not final.
The Union‘s next step was to file for a Trial De Novo which called for a trial in District Court at which we could challenge the dismissal as a wrongful termination, and at which every piece of evidence I had could be presented without any control exercised by the school district or its obviously partial neutral Hearing Officers.
The Union attorney was clear in his reasons for objecting to the Board‘s decision and the action taken because, as he stated,
“[the administration] had singled him out, applied a double standard, micro-managed him, and instituted a relentless scorched earth policy to get rid of him.”
My personal attorney was also very clear,
“The attempt to fire Mr. Quigley, a career teacher with a stellar record, appears to be driven by a vendetta against Mr. Quigley after he advocated for better protections for Gay and Lesbian students. Mr. Quigley will be pursuing this at the next level, which is Trial de Novo in the Oklahoma County District Court. Mr. Quigley and I will also be considering other legal avenues including the potential filing of a discrimination case in federal Court.”
In any event, as a result of the vote, I was expected to go quietly away with my contract at an end with all monies owed to me paid out and any contributions to retirement or health care stopped as of the last day of June. In the meantime, as I had not been suspended, it was expected that I would report to school for the remainder of the school year as if nothing had happened and all was as before.
With over 250 sick days still on my account, and with the district only expected to buy off 120 of these at a minimum amount, I decided that rather than save the district the money that would be needed to pay for a substitute while I waited out the year, they would have to spend it anyway. And, so, I took a few days off from school. Not only was this because any motivation I might have had was certainly killed off, but I did not want the administration to be able to claim, no matter how untrue, that I had used class time on a captured audience to discuss my situation both then and in future plans. I could not have such a discussion if I was not present to have it.
However, by filing for a Trial de Novo the district was obligated to pay my salary, benefits, and retirement contributions until the decision of the District Court was handed down. This could be for a number of months, virtually constituting a paid vacation. I was not adverse to this.
Some people chose to summarize the mess as my being let go because I was Gay and open about it. In reality my sexual orientation might have been an undercurrent, but the main reason for the superintendent‘s action promoted by certain administrators was that I had openly advocated for Gay students and did not back down when I was expected to. This could have happened to any teacher regardless of his or her sexual orientation, and if left unchallenged could have a chilling effect on any teacher who might see such advocacy as necessary, but may be fearful of losing their career, certification and livelihood.
The expected response of the Board’s decision was for me to just go quietly away, as every teacher who had faced this Kangaroo Court procedure had done in the past, but with the need to have GLBT students protected, this went beyond me so that was not going to happen this time.
https://www.amazon.com/EDGERINE-PROJECT-GETTING-OKLAHOMA-STUDENTS-ebook/dp/B00U36BDZM/ref=sr_1_4?crid=SJI3FKNTBGBW&keywords=joe+quigley&qid=1557642880&s=gateway&sprefix=joe+quigl%2Caps%2C217&sr=8-4