rpbobcat Posted August 30, 2018 Share Posted August 30, 2018 (edited) 49 minutes ago, cixelsyd said: You do realize there was no admission of guilt in the document this guy signed, right? The "stipulations" in the agreement state what he did. He signed it. How is that not an "admission of guilt" Also ,in a plea bargain, you do admit guilt. It just may not be to everything you were accused of/charged with. i would also presume,since there's no reference to criminal charges, that the student wasn't a minor. Edited August 30, 2018 by rpbobcat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted August 30, 2018 Share Posted August 30, 2018 48 minutes ago, rpbobcat said: The "stipulations" in the agreement state what he did. He signed it. How is that not an "admission of guilt" Also ,in a plea bargain, you do admit guilt. It just may not be to everything you were accused of/charged with. i would also presume,since there's no reference to criminal charges, that the student wasn't a minor. Read it again. There is no admission of guilt in that document. There are no stipulations to what he "did", only to what he was accused/charged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted August 30, 2018 Author Share Posted August 30, 2018 1 hour ago, BigW said: In other words, this was a plea bargain deal between the school district and teacher? Also used to keep it more quiet and out of the papers to save embarrassment and bad PR? Had an uncle who taugh at a well known UK university. Legend was he was messing with coed(s). He was called in and told “the university has a good rep and so do you. Now we all want to keep that good rep.... so if you just sign these retirement (effective NOW) papers that will be the end of it”. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted August 30, 2018 Share Posted August 30, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, cixelsyd said: You do realize there was no admission of guilt in the document this guy signed, right? He was not asked about his " guilt", nor his " innocence " .You do realize this was not a Court of Law, right ? He signed thIs Education Board's Findings. He agreed with the depiction of the the events depicted in their Findings that led to his 5 year suspension. He agreed with their terms of their Suspension. His signature confirms the events as depicted, as well as their Decision for the Suspension of his License. Its unambiguous. Edited August 30, 2018 by BRASSO 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted August 30, 2018 Share Posted August 30, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, cixelsyd said: He accepted a five-year license suspension to avoid a hearing on the case. Correct. Had the episodes not happened as depicted in the Board's Findings, presumably he would have demanded a Hearing, and not agreed to have signed the Findings that depicted the offenses and the Board's decision for a Suspension of his license for the 5 years for those Offenses with the Minor. Edited August 30, 2018 by BRASSO 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted August 30, 2018 Share Posted August 30, 2018 28 minutes ago, BRASSO said: He was not asked about his " guilt", nor his " innocence " .You do realize this was not a Court of Law, right ? He signed thIs Education Board's Findings. He agreed with the depiction of the the events depicted in their Findings that led to his 5 year suspension. He agreed with their terms of their Suspension. His signature confirms the events as depicted, as well as their Decision for the Suspension of his License. Its unambiguous. No, he signed the part titled "Licensee Declaration". Read that part again. Yes, it means he agreed to the suspension and terms. But no, he did not agree to the depiction of events. (If he had, there would be no second chances for him, and we would not be having this discussion.) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted August 30, 2018 Author Share Posted August 30, 2018 So if it was PA he would not show up on standard background checks... hmmmm.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rpbobcat Posted August 30, 2018 Share Posted August 30, 2018 (edited) 42 minutes ago, cixelsyd said: No, he signed the part titled "Licensee Declaration". Read that part again. Yes, it means he agreed to the suspension and terms. But no, he did not agree to the depiction of events. (If he had, there would be no second chances for him, and we would not be having this discussion.) The "Licensee Declaration " he signed states in part "I agree to comply with the requirements set forth in the stipulations . . . ". The document is entitled "Stipulation and Order". The stipulations identify a "Respondent". Stipulation #4 identifies the Respondent's inappropriate behavior. He signed as the "Respondent". He didn't take any exceptions to any of the stipulations. The Board signed the "Order". Seems pretty straight forward. Edited August 30, 2018 by rpbobcat 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted August 30, 2018 Share Posted August 30, 2018 58 minutes ago, rpbobcat said: The "Licensee Declaration " he signed states in part "I agree to comply with the requirements set forth in the stipulations . . . ". Exactly. He agreed with the requirements set forth in the stipulations... not the stipulations in their entirety. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluzes Posted August 30, 2018 Share Posted August 30, 2018 (edited) Genesis had a time and place to save face. When the Crossmen situation was handled, actions were taken and the future was set in stone, zero tolerance. A time to hang out your past ills to dry. What just a tee-shirt and no tightly-whites, you guess who didn't have any? Genesis set themselves up to be therapy, an example of something not to be, nothing to aspire to and let down the MMs, parents (most important entities) and the rest of us. Dci is looking for management advice, how wonderful. What advise are they seeking? We all had jobs selling/fixing some kinds of widgets. Someone that is screwing up the widgets under enhanced direction, supervision on the dayshift isn't transferred to the nightshift. You don't need Six Sigma to tell you that. Is this all a game or a serious business? Edited August 30, 2018 by Bluzes typo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts