 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| Mr. Werlin himself was chosen by Superintendent Libia Gil to investigate Mrs. Larkins’ claims of his own dishonesty and violations of the contract! The District failed to supervise the supervisor. |
| "Mrs. Larkins...was never given a chance to hear and respond to allegations..." |
Mr. Werlin never put his March 27 story on the record until
after Mrs. Larkins filed suit. Mr. Werlin failed to keep his
promises to Mrs. Larkins’ attorney that there would be an
investigation. On page 761 of the Court Reporter’s
transcript Mr. Werlin states: “And we agreed that we would
continue at future meetings to attempt to get other teachers
to come in and to have dialogue so that there was no
misunderstanding of what Ms. Larkins was being accused
of.” On page 768, Mr. Werlin: “I’m not sure about the
specific time lines, but I did make a commitment to her that
I would attempt to get the teachers to both meet with Ms.
Larkins, and also, if necessary, to try to get some written
statements from them.”
Mr. Werlin agreed that Petitioner would respond after she
had heard all the allegations.
The only allegations she heard were Al Smith’s
(Exhibit R-24)
The District did not take all steps necessary to return Mrs.
Larkins to work. Mr. Werlin never completed investigation
as he had agreed.
after Mrs. Larkins filed suit. Mr. Werlin failed to keep his
promises to Mrs. Larkins’ attorney that there would be an
investigation. On page 761 of the Court Reporter’s
transcript Mr. Werlin states: “And we agreed that we would
continue at future meetings to attempt to get other teachers
to come in and to have dialogue so that there was no
misunderstanding of what Ms. Larkins was being accused
of.” On page 768, Mr. Werlin: “I’m not sure about the
specific time lines, but I did make a commitment to her that
I would attempt to get the teachers to both meet with Ms.
Larkins, and also, if necessary, to try to get some written
statements from them.”
Mr. Werlin agreed that Petitioner would respond after she
had heard all the allegations.
The only allegations she heard were Al Smith’s
(Exhibit R-24)
The District did not take all steps necessary to return Mrs.
Larkins to work. Mr. Werlin never completed investigation
as he had agreed.
| at CVESD page 8 |
| The fact that district administrator s asked Maura Larkins back without investigation after each set of allegations indicates they did not believe the allegations themselves. |
| Petition for Writ of Mandate |
| No Investigation |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| SAN DIEGO EDUCATION REPORT |
| mauralarkins.com |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
JUNE 2001
AT THE REQUEST OF PETITIONER’S ATTORNEY, ASSISTANT
SUPERINTENDENT WERLIN AGREED TO INVESTIGATE
ALLEGATIONS AGAINST PETITIONER.
One of the most significant problems in this case is that the
district never heard Mrs. Larkins' story—she was
never given a chance to hear and
respond to allegations—although the
fact that she was asked back after each
set of allegations indicates they didn’t
believe the allegations themselves.
The district encouraged teachers to come up with allegations
by frightening them, and making sure they knew they wouldn’
t have to face the person accused.
AT THE REQUEST OF PETITIONER’S ATTORNEY, ASSISTANT
SUPERINTENDENT WERLIN AGREED TO INVESTIGATE
ALLEGATIONS AGAINST PETITIONER.
One of the most significant problems in this case is that the
district never heard Mrs. Larkins' story—she was
never given a chance to hear and
respond to allegations—although the
fact that she was asked back after each
set of allegations indicates they didn’t
believe the allegations themselves.
The district encouraged teachers to come up with allegations
by frightening them, and making sure they knew they wouldn’
t have to face the person accused.