 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
Grievance Report Form Level 1
To be used only after informal conference has been held and grievance is not resolved,
or in cases where the grievance is initiated at Level II.
Type Only
or in cases where the grievance is initiated at Level II.
Type Only
Last Name First Name M.I. Date
Larkins Maura H. Nov. 13, 2001
Larkins Maura H. Nov. 13, 2001
School/Department Position__
Castle Park teacher
Castle Park teacher
Principal/Supervisor
Rick Werlin
Rick Werlin
Grievance regarding Article 33--Transfer
On October 5, 2001, Rick Werlin, with the obvious approval of Libia
Gil, gave me an illegal directive which, if obeyed, would not only
have put me in danger, but would have involuntarily transferred me
from my position at Castle Park without a superintendent's
conference.
My dictionary describes a conference as a "formal interchange of
views or "a meeting of two or more persons for discussing matters
of common concern."
I had no conference with Dr. Gil on October 5 or any other time.
She gave me no reason at all for the transfer, even when asked to
do so. Gil and Werlin may someday reveal their reasons for
wanting me at Loma Verde even though I am still banned from all
other district property due to Werlin's claim of fear for the "safety"
of other people, but they did not reveal those reasons on October 5.
A superintendent's conference is required by Article 33 of the
contract (Section 33.5 in particular) in order to involuntarily
transfer a teacher who was not notified of the transfer before the
deadline during the previous school year. This case does not
involve unforeseen circumstances since the events involved
occurred on or before April 20.
On October 5, 2001, Rick Werlin, with the obvious approval of Libia
Gil, gave me an illegal directive which, if obeyed, would not only
have put me in danger, but would have involuntarily transferred me
from my position at Castle Park without a superintendent's
conference.
My dictionary describes a conference as a "formal interchange of
views or "a meeting of two or more persons for discussing matters
of common concern."
I had no conference with Dr. Gil on October 5 or any other time.
She gave me no reason at all for the transfer, even when asked to
do so. Gil and Werlin may someday reveal their reasons for
wanting me at Loma Verde even though I am still banned from all
other district property due to Werlin's claim of fear for the "safety"
of other people, but they did not reveal those reasons on October 5.
A superintendent's conference is required by Article 33 of the
contract (Section 33.5 in particular) in order to involuntarily
transfer a teacher who was not notified of the transfer before the
deadline during the previous school year. This case does not
involve unforeseen circumstances since the events involved
occurred on or before April 20.
I discussed this with my principal/supervisor on
October 5, 2001
Date Signature of grievant
CVE/Level 1 Grievance
October 5, 2001
Date Signature of grievant
CVE/Level 1 Grievance
| EXHIBITS ATTACHED TO GRIEVANCES |
My lawyer said, "We have to resolve the underlying issues," and "She feels
unsafe to continue working in the district until she has a chance to respond"
to accusations.
Werlin and Libby ignored her words. Werlin said only, "We need to know if
she is going to comply."
There was no interchange of views or discussion with either Gil or Werlin.
Parenthetically, on August 13 and again on October 5, Werlin suggested that
I might not have shared all my district correspondence with my lawyer. I'm
not as imprudent as Werlin would like to think. It is a very foolish client who
hides information from his lawyer. One wonders why this theme keeps
popping up in Werlin's mind. I recall that in the four-page letter which the
district's law firm sent on September 25, it seemed that attorney Mark
Bresee was arguing a completely different case. He seemed to know very
little about the facts of this case.
unsafe to continue working in the district until she has a chance to respond"
to accusations.
Werlin and Libby ignored her words. Werlin said only, "We need to know if
she is going to comply."
There was no interchange of views or discussion with either Gil or Werlin.
Parenthetically, on August 13 and again on October 5, Werlin suggested that
I might not have shared all my district correspondence with my lawyer. I'm
not as imprudent as Werlin would like to think. It is a very foolish client who
hides information from his lawyer. One wonders why this theme keeps
popping up in Werlin's mind. I recall that in the four-page letter which the
district's law firm sent on September 25, it seemed that attorney Mark
Bresee was arguing a completely different case. He seemed to know very
little about the facts of this case.
Proposed remedy to grievance:
Gil's and Werlin's illegal directives of October 5 should be retracted. I
should be returned to administrative leave and full pay until:
1) The investigation of charges against me has been completed;
2) A written report has been produced by the district;
3) I have been allowed to respond to the charges;
4) My responses have been fairly and carefully considered by an
objective party;
5) Appropriate action has been taken.
I suggest that an investigator be hired from outside the district.
I believe the full evidentiary hearing regarding my suspension without
pay will help advance this investigation considerably.
Gil's and Werlin's illegal directives of October 5 should be retracted. I
should be returned to administrative leave and full pay until:
1) The investigation of charges against me has been completed;
2) A written report has been produced by the district;
3) I have been allowed to respond to the charges;
4) My responses have been fairly and carefully considered by an
objective party;
5) Appropriate action has been taken.
I suggest that an investigator be hired from outside the district.
I believe the full evidentiary hearing regarding my suspension without
pay will help advance this investigation considerably.
Also, Dr. Gil did not claim, much less explain, any determination of
reasonable necessity. A determination by the Superintendent that "an
involuntary administrative transfer is reasonably necessary" is required by
Article 33 of the contract (Section 33.5 in particular). The transfer is not
reasonable.
It is arbitrary and capricious.
Charges that were made against me NINE MONTHS AGO have still not been
investigated. The transfer is only "necessary" in order to cover up illegal
actions by teachers and administrators.
Libby's actions during the meeting, which was not a conference, were
limited to the following:
Dr. Gil told me to come in and to sit where I liked, and from then on, she
said very little except to very briefly address the following five issues:
1) Libby announced that two things would be discussed in the meeting: my
administrative transfer, and the return of my belongings.
2) (Startled, I replied that both her letter (October 3) and Rick Werlin's
letters (Sept. 26 and 27) had indicated that the investigation of the charges
against me would be on the agenda.)
Libby acknowledged, "There is a third thing mentioned that will not be
discussed since you filed a claim."
(My lawyer explained to Werlin and Libby that I had not filed a claim, just
given notice of intent since such notice is required by law.)
Libby said, "Our response will be the same."
3) Libby gave me an envelope with two diskettes containing some
computer files.
4) Libby gave me a booklet intended for parents and community members.
5) Libby said, "I'm turning the meeting over to Rick Werlin."
Werlin said I was being involuntarily transferred, and gave me a directive
to report to Loma Verde School on October 8, but he did not give any reason
for the transfer. Libby herself, in a letter dated October 5 and received by
me on October 19, gave the same illegal directive.
That letter is enclosed.
reasonable necessity. A determination by the Superintendent that "an
involuntary administrative transfer is reasonably necessary" is required by
Article 33 of the contract (Section 33.5 in particular). The transfer is not
reasonable.
It is arbitrary and capricious.
Charges that were made against me NINE MONTHS AGO have still not been
investigated. The transfer is only "necessary" in order to cover up illegal
actions by teachers and administrators.
Libby's actions during the meeting, which was not a conference, were
limited to the following:
Dr. Gil told me to come in and to sit where I liked, and from then on, she
said very little except to very briefly address the following five issues:
1) Libby announced that two things would be discussed in the meeting: my
administrative transfer, and the return of my belongings.
2) (Startled, I replied that both her letter (October 3) and Rick Werlin's
letters (Sept. 26 and 27) had indicated that the investigation of the charges
against me would be on the agenda.)
Libby acknowledged, "There is a third thing mentioned that will not be
discussed since you filed a claim."
(My lawyer explained to Werlin and Libby that I had not filed a claim, just
given notice of intent since such notice is required by law.)
Libby said, "Our response will be the same."
3) Libby gave me an envelope with two diskettes containing some
computer files.
4) Libby gave me a booklet intended for parents and community members.
5) Libby said, "I'm turning the meeting over to Rick Werlin."
Werlin said I was being involuntarily transferred, and gave me a directive
to report to Loma Verde School on October 8, but he did not give any reason
for the transfer. Libby herself, in a letter dated October 5 and received by
me on October 19, gave the same illegal directive.
That letter is enclosed.
| GRIEVANCES |
| Maura Larkins' Transfer Grievance |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| SAN DIEGO EDUCATION REPORT |
| mauralarkins.com |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| Richard Werlin sent Maura Larkins a letter threatening her with dismissal. This was clearly a violation of California Labor Code 1102.5 and EERA which forbids retaliation for filing grievances. California Teachers Association supported this violation of law since the union was as desperate as the school district to cover up wrongdoing by a group of teachers at Castle Park Elementary. However CTA sang a different tune three years later when five teachers were transferred out of the same school. |