Grievance Vote 2/22/2022

(Click to enlarge)

At the 2/22/2022 board meeting a grievance submitted by Gus Philpott was on the agenda for both the executive session and the open session.

At Item 8.2 Trustee Agostini made a motion to postpone the grievance and grant a hearing to me.

Trustee Scott seconded the motion and also spoke in support of allowing the Grievant (me) to speak, saying it is fair. It is also the first time in her ten years on the board that a community member had filed a grievance.

What was the vote?

The Core Four, as expected, voted as a bloc. All four (the majority on the board) voted No.

Gee, why didn't the superintendent hop on the Equity train and speak about the importance of equity, diversity, and inclusion and tell the board that it would have only been fair to hear from me.

Manning revealed, improperly, that there had been 143 pages of documentation from people on both sides of the "equation". No, James; there was no "equation". There was an ISSUE.

Plus he had just heard one of the speakers in Public Participation say that no one had been closer to the two people involved (at first), Pamela Davis and Gus Philpott, and that NO ONE HAD CONTACTED HIM.

So much for fairness.

After Trustee Agostini's motion was defeated, trustee-elect McKie made a motion "to uphold the Administration's recommendation to deny the grievance." (2:05:10) Seconded loudly by Caution-Parker (of course). During discussion, Trustee Agostini referred to stories that were inconsistent that were told (in the documentation).

Then McKie hopped in, completely unnecessarily, to state that executive session items cannot be discussed on the floor. Funny how she didn't challenge Manning when he referred to the 143 pages of documentation.

Regarding McKie's Motion, just who in the "Administration" recommended to deny the grievance? The superintendent, who IS the Administration? He should not have had any voice in the matter, because his wife and he were right in the thick of the disruption on January 25.

The District should have appointed an independent hearing officer. But even that would not have changed the vote of the bloc. The Core Four would have stuck together, no matter how the motion was worded.