BRASSO Posted August 30, 2018 Share Posted August 30, 2018 (edited) 3 hours 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.) Lets not get lost in the weeds here.. on semantics, or verbal gymnastics. Bottom line : He had his license suspended for 5 years for having unlawful sexual contacts in his home with an underage minor from the school system he was employed at. If he believed the unlawful incidents that would lead to his removal and subsequent suspension did not occur as listed and depicted in the Board's Findings, he had the option to go ahead with a Hearing to dispute the facts and evidence the Board believed they had before them. He declined a full hearing. The natural conclusion that MOST people will conclude from this is that the incidents that led to his removal and 5 years suspension with the Iowa Board of Education, incidents in which the Board described to him in writing, were unassailable, and accurate. Edited August 30, 2018 by BRASSO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rpbobcat Posted August 30, 2018 Share Posted August 30, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, cixelsyd said: Exactly. He agreed with the requirements set forth in the stipulations... not the stipulations in their entirety. Stipulations 1-5 establish the facts of the case against the Respondent. Stipulation 6 sets forth the penalties. Are you saying that his signature,as the named Respondent only applies to Stipulation #6 The first paragraph of the Order says "Respondent's conduct constitutes clear violations of the Code of Professional Ethics governing the teaching profession". I presume he and his attorney read this document before agreeing to it. Seems odd,he would allow the Order to go forward if he didn't agree/admit the accusactions are true. Edited August 30, 2018 by rpbobcat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spatzzz Posted August 30, 2018 Share Posted August 30, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, cixelsyd said: Exactly. He agreed with the requirements set forth in the stipulations... not the stipulations in their entirety. LOL....why are you defending the guy? Does an innocent person agree with a 5 year suspension on his career and livelihood just because? I assume he is a buddy of yours? Care to come clean here. Edited August 30, 2018 by Spatzzz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MusicManNJ Posted August 30, 2018 Share Posted August 30, 2018 3 hours ago, JimF-LowBari said: So if it was PA he would not show up on standard background checks... hmmmm.. We have a similar issue here in NJ. Because of districts allowing bad employees to voluntarily leave they do not make visible information about wrong doing. The new law is lovingly referred to as the "Pass the Trash" law to require districts to inform other districts if someone has been removed for poor behavior (stuff with students etc). The activity could benefit from a similar approach or as BRASSO I believe mentioned a "do not hire" list. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted August 30, 2018 Share Posted August 30, 2018 8 minutes ago, Spatzzz said: LOL....why are you defending the guy? Does an innocent person agree with a 5 year suspension on his career and livelihood just because? I assume he is a buddy of yours? Care to come clean here. Wow. Ever consider caffeine-free beverages? No, I have no interest in defending the guy. I do not know him. I did not even know his name, much less his history, until the recent Reddit storm. I am interested in defending accuracy, though. Details matter, if we want this to ever stop. One of those details is that this guy did not confess, admit guilt, go to trial/hearing, or in any other way go on permanent record as an offender. Right now, as far as I can tell, there is no mechanism to stop someone like that from getting a corps job, or even to ensure people get to make an informed decision. We will never solve that if people refuse to read the document, and get a grasp on that detail. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted August 30, 2018 Share Posted August 30, 2018 28 minutes ago, rpbobcat said: Stipulations 1-5 establish the facts of the case against the Respondent. Stipulation 6 sets forth the penalties. Are you saying that his signature,as the named Respondent only applies to Stipulation #6 Yes. Quote Seems odd,he would allow the Order to go forward if he didn't agree/admit the accusactions are true. That happens all the time. Lawyers advise their clients based on their odds of winning, not their true innocence or guilt. If his case was shaky, and an attractive plea bargain could be had, then stuff like this happens. As I read deeper, I see mention in the press of his charges getting reduced/deferred and his record being expunged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluzes Posted August 30, 2018 Share Posted August 30, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, MusicManNJ said: We have a similar issue here in NJ. Why are we still laboring over all this it's a mute point. Long gone are the days one can just expunge a few court documents and think everything is hunky-dory. Take a baggaged (know its not a word just play along) staff member that dci didn't vet. Then why should the Coca-Cola Company who paid Google for his search history know more about them than dci? Your digital footprint isn't protected speech. Properly vet someone with an expunged past and they will eliminate themselves . Your digital footprint is a big green glowing Walmart scan of your life. All put together from all sources (FG, Email, twitter) so these large corporations can use cloud computing to slice and dice up your life. Run of mill the big data processes. There are things I can't disclose but can tell you FB has put together folders on folks that don't have FB one only perceives they are living under the radar, in public or private there are less & less places for perps to hide. Dci by not getting on board with proper vetting procedures is doing noting more than hanging out a neon sign saying perps are welcome. Dci could easily strike a deal for Google's widgets all kinds of goodies shows up. Problem solved Really don't want Crown's hammer coming at me any more today and say I say this with great caution. WE ARE ALL TRACKED LIKE ANIMALS like it or not. Edited August 30, 2018 by Bluzes typo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rpbobcat Posted August 30, 2018 Share Posted August 30, 2018 15 minutes ago, cixelsyd said: Yes. That happens all the time. Lawyers advise their clients based on their odds of winning, not their true innocence or guilt. If his case was shaky, and an attractive plea bargain could be had, then stuff like this happens. As I read deeper, I see mention in the press of his charges getting reduced/deferred and his record being expunged. Maybe this will settle this. I'm not a lawyer,but I asked a friend of mine who is, to look at the "Stipulation and Order". He said, in his opinion, the way the document is written,all the stipulations apply to the document,as signed,especially since it was signed as "Respondent" As far as a plea bargain,the document identifies what were agreed to by both parties as the facts against the Respondent and penalties imposed by the Board. There is no way to know, from that document ,if he may have been accused of additional transgressions, or if the Board may have wanted more severe penalties. All we know is that this is what both sides agreed to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluzes Posted August 30, 2018 Share Posted August 30, 2018 18 minutes ago, Bluzes said: We have a similar issue here in NJ. Mr Music Man your wonderful. NJ is the place all issues start, begin, have origins thought you were gonna pull a fast one did you, I am FROM NJ. Know about things we shouldn't discuss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MusicManNJ Posted August 30, 2018 Share Posted August 30, 2018 7 minutes ago, Bluzes said: Mr Music Man your wonderful. NJ is the place all issues start, begin, have origins thought you were gonna pull a fast one did you, I am FROM NJ. Know about things we shouldn't discuss. Not sure what your point is but here is the law I am referring to. Notice the url: https://www.nj.com/education/2018/04/gov_phil_murphy_signs_historic_pass_the_trash_legi.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts