 Jennifer HemmingsenI'm an op-ed columnist and member of The Gazette's editorial board, writing primarily about Iowa politics, social issues, public safety [...] |
|
Email the author
Eisenbarth investigation was the right thing to do
Photo of the birthday paddle Mount Vernon Principal Terry Eisenbarth used for his birthday taps. The photo was given to parents last month with a letter about the birthday spankings from Eisenbarth.
Former Washington Elementary School Principal Terry Eisenbarth’s name was cleared Friday, when the state Board of Educational Examiners accepted a judge’s dismissal of ethics and abuse complaints against him.
That should close the books on an acrimonious chapter in the Mount Vernon School District, where opinions still are divided about Eisenbarth’s controversial birthday celebrations.
Eisenbarth resigned from his post a year ago, when tempers still were boiling hot.
Some will argue the ruling in his favor proves the case never should have been brought to the board’s attention in the first place.
But the fact is, the system worked exactly as it should have. And now that Iowa law requires districts to report more allegations of misconduct to state licensers, let’s hope that letting investigators and examiners do their jobs will stop seeming so heavy-handed and bizarre.
Two families filed complaints with the Board of Educational Examiners last year after they learned that Eisenbarth had been using a padded hockey stick to swat students on the backside on their birthdays. It was all in fun, Eisenbarth said, but the board found cause enough to investigate those claims.
After hearing the evidence, an administrative law judge disagreed that Eisenbarth’s swats were abusive, or that he failed to conduct himself professionally or protect student health and safety.
The judge dismissed the charges, which means, barring any appeal, Eisenbarth can keep his teaching license and move on with a clear conscience and a clean slate.
Some parents still will disagree that the “whaps” were appropriate, but the ruling clearly found Eisenbarth’s behavior did not violate professional standards.
That will prompt others to say the whole process was just about dragging Eisenbarth through the mud. They’re wrong.
Imagine trying to apply that same argument to a doctor accused of malpractice, an attorney accused of incompetence, a therapist accused of unethical behavior. We wouldn’t stand for it.
It’s only right that our trusted public school employees are held to the same standard, rather than letting allegations fester while we close our eyes and wait for them to go away.
Only when due process is followed can parents rest assured educators will be held accountable for their unethical or abusive actions, and rest easy when the facts show there were none.
And that’s a whole lot better for everyone than trying to sweep the whole unpleasant business under the rug.
Comments: (319) 339-3154;
jennifer.hemmingsen@sourcemedia.net
-u20042.png?1366232523)
Iowa Legislature 2013 adjournment in sight, leaders say
Suspected abductor of Webster County girls found dead; search on for missing girl
Oklahoma tornado death toll currently 24, not 51, medical examiner says
Iowa City debates whether police officers belong in schools
Linn County casino campaign cost $3.43 million, final figures reveal
Jennifer, when you started this campaign you wanted to use Eisenbarth as an example.
You were upset because Benton Community School, and probably many other school systems, had received complaints of misconduct but suspended investigations when the employee voluntarily resigned. Then the accused employee was able to get a job in another district, just transferring the problem from district to district.
You were advocating for mandatory reporting to the BoEE of all accusations because you didn’t want the district “trying to sweep the whole unpleasant business under the rug,” as you felt BCSD did.
(By the way, the BoEE does exactly as the BCSD did. If someone agrees to give up his/her license, the BoEE ceases its investigation)
You continued to pursue the Eisenbarth situation, but this had none of the characteristics of the situation that originally enraged you.
Eisenbarth did not resign to stop any investigations. The police had already completed their investigation, and found there was no issue. The district had completed their investigation and found no professional misconduct. No, Eisenbarth resigned because the board said the publicity and such made it impossible for him to do his job effectively.
You advocated that it is OK to report all accusations to the BoEE because it is confidential. It appeared not to have been in this case. You had it in the newspaper several times.
I have been in education a long time. I have seen too many times when publicizing unfounded accusations ruined someone’s career. “Professional misconduct”, “sexual harassment”, “sexual assault”. How do you unring that bell?
You bring up doctors, lawyers,…
Quick, without research, name a lawyer that was charged with misconduct that was unfounded.
The solution was simple, but this was not it.
Your dogged pursuit of this just helped turn an educator’s career into nightmare.
Carlos: You’re misrepresenting a couple key points here.
First, Eisenbarth offered his resignation before the board acted on the investigation: http://thegazette.com/2011/06/22/mount-vernon-principals-resignation-isnt-the-end-of-the-story/
Second, the parents’ reports to the BOEE were confidential. It was when the BOEE investigation found what they considered evidence enough to sanction Eisenbarth that the board’s findings became public. Eisenbarth asked for a hearing and the administrative law judge dismissed the complaints.
I also disagree that allowing someone to give up their teaching license rather than revoking it is the same as allowing an educator to resign with no record of the event — license intact. The first is more akin to allowing someone to plead guilty to a charge in criminal court. The second is telling them to get out of town without even bringing the charge.
I still see this series of checks and balances as a perfect example of how the reporting process should work.
Mmmmm… I try to be as objective as possible, but can one ever really be completely unbiased. Let’s evaluate some of the issues you brought up.
May to June 17 – MVCSD begins an investigation that goes into June (http://thegazette.com/2011/07/21/mount-vernon-school-board-releases-statement-on-principals-resignation/)
June 17 – The MVCSD Board members go into closed session to receive the results of the investigation and to review the future employment of Eisenbarth.(http://thegazette.com/2011/06/18/mount-vernon-school-board-accepts-washington-elementary-school-principal%E2%80%99s-resignation)
June 17 – the investigation is returned in the negative. All bodies so far come to the same conclusion: no criminal or unprofessional conduct. But yet…
June 17 – The BOARD decided ‘that Mr. Eisenbarth could no longer be as effective in the principal’s position as the Board expected. In effect, enough damage had occurred that it detrimentally affected Mr. Eisenbarth’s ability to be a building leader’; leaving no real choice except to resign or be fired. Remember, he is in his second year of principal with the district. He is still probationary and an at-will employee. If they vote to terminate he has no real recourse and they have already decided he can not be effective. So he resigns. (http://thegazette.com/2011/07/21/mount-vernon-school-board-releases-statement-on-principals-resignation/)
July – I read in your article that he has been referred to the BoEE;
December – the BoEE dockets a hearing of probable cause for the complaint…….wait… that can’t be right… you said everything is confidential till then. No one should have known this till December. You said it was ok because it is all confidential……It appears not.
Please, tell me where my timeline is wrong.
Jennifer, I am disappointed in your backtracking. I had expected arguments about nothing is perfect and some may have to fall on their sword for the greater good of student safety. Instead I got an attempt at subterfuge.
WRT the BoEE stopping investigations if one gives up their license… I feel, just as I do with a district’s actions, that if probable cause is determined (remember probable cause is not the same as founded), the investigation should be completed regardless of change in status of employment or licensure. There IS a responsibility to the students, not just to the first district but to all districts; and not just to Iowa kids, but to all kids. So, to me, giving up your Iowa license is not enough if one is guilty of some grievous act. But, that is another topic for another day….
I need to make a correction.
Eisenbarth was just completing his first year. He was even more probationary than I thought…
Jennifer, over thirty years in education, with extensive experience with contract negotiations and teacher rights. These activities often times lend themselves to become adversarial in nature. This is the first time I have been accused of misrepresenting facts. I take that personally. You have had about a week to double check my timeline. Do you see any discrepancy?
No comment??
I’ll assume my statements did not misrepresent any key points.??