Ralph Haynes findings of fact

BEFORE THE BOARD OF SCHOOL TRUSTEES LAWRENCEBURG COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION IN THE MATTER OF THE CANCELLATION OF THE TEACHING CONTRACT OF RALPH HAYNES PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Come now the parties, the Superintendent of Lawrenceburg Community School Corporation, Karl Galey, in person and with counsel Douglas C. Wilson, and Ralph Haynes, principal of Central Elementary School, in person and with counsel John H. Watson, and appear before the Board of School Trustees of the Lawrenceburg Community School Corporation, for private conference pursuant to I.C. 20-28-7.5 and 20-28-8, regarding the Superintendent's recommendation to cancel the teaching contract of Ralph Haynes; and the parties having presented testimony and documentary evidence to the Board, the Board hereby makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: FINDINGS OF FACT 1Mr. Haynes, Haynes,served as principal of Central Elementary School, CES,at all relevant times at issue herein.

2On or about March 14, 2011, Haynes was involved in an incident in the CES cafeteria with two students who were apparently talking or engaging in other activities not permitted at the time. According to administration witness Aimee Clark, the two students had frequently been in violation of school rules and were regularly subject to discipline at the school.

3According to Clark, Haynes had his hand on one of the students, but not in “any threatening way.” She stated Haynes confronted the student or students, “but not in any way that was over the top.”

4The matter was reported by custodian Douglas Brookbank to the superintendent.

However, Mr. Brookbank stated he could not remember the incident well. Mr. Brookbank stated that, although he could not remember the incident well, he had seen Mr. Haynes angrily accost children at the school and hit various children in the head with his hand, all incidents he never reported to any school authority. Brookbank was involved in a disciplinary proceeding at the time, his testimony was contradictory, and the Board attaches no weight to it, as the testimony was not credible.

5The superintendent issued a memorandum to Mr. Haynes file, dated March 17, 2011, in which he documented speaking to Haynes about the matter and advising Haynes to evaluate and balance the sternnesshe employed in disciplining students. No further action was taken.

6On April 29, 2011, Mr. Haynes sought to discipline another student in the cafeteria during Friday school. Witnesses Christelle Middendorf and Samantha Walter stated that Mr. Haynes was upset with the student, who had a difficult disciplinary and academic

record, because he fell asleep during ISTEP testing. Mr. Haynes put his hand on the student's arm and took him to another part of the cafeteria, turned him against the wall and put his hands on either side of the wall while addressing the student in a loud manner.

At some point, Haynes head contacted the student's head. Haynes acknowledged the contact and conceded the head to head contact, though accidental, was inappropriate.

7Mr. Haynes was placed on probation as a result of this incident and required, among other things, to complete an anger management course at his own expense; assigned to a mentor administrator, Bill Snyder, Lawrenceburg High School principal, and directed to keep a written log of his daily/weekly school related activities; and was directed not to “place his hands� on any other student, all as set forth in a memorandum written by the superintendent to Haynes on May 4, 2011, and received in evidence by this Board.

8Haynes completed the anger management course, kept regular contact with Snyder and had no further incidents for the remainder of the school year. In November, 2011, Haynes did physically restrain a student engaged in very serious misbehavior which could have resulted in injury to the student or others. The police were called to deal with the child in this incident. The matter was fully reported at the time and the superintendent took no action, apparently feeling that this direct, physical contact with a student was appropriate. There were no other activities which could have implicated the terms of the Probationary Plan in fall semester, 2011, or at the beginning of 2012. Snyder stated Haynes was doing well on the program and showing improvement.

9Nonetheless, the superintendent initially recommended the non-renewal of Haynes contract in December, 2011. Haynes issued a response to the recommendation, and the superintendent changed his recommendation while putting Haynes on an improvement plan which essentially encompassed the original terms of probation regarding the mentor, daily logs, and prohibition against touching, while adding other administrative directives, unrelated to the matters at issue herein. The Board received the improvement plan in evidence as an attachment to the December 11, 2011 evaluation.

10On February 9, 2012, Haynes was approached by instructional assistants Laura Pruitt and Erin Edwards after a third grade, high-functioning autistic child turned on a faucet while traversing the kitchen on his way to lunch in the cafeteria. The IAs were concerned because they felt the child's safety might be compromised if the behavior was not addressed immediately and asked Mr. Haynes to address the situation.

11Mr. Haynes gave direction regarding the disciplinary action to be taken (a demerit) in a calm conversational tone and went to the child's table to speak with him about the incident. Erin Edwards, who was in the immediate vicinity, watched Haynes approach the student because she felt the matter needed to be addressed immediately.

12 Haynes did not appear to be angry, approached the boy in a calm manner, placed his hand on the child and prepared to remove the child from the cafeteria to talk with him about the issue.

13Neither witness was able to tell exactly what happened, but the child fell. Edwards, who had looked away briefly when distracted by another child, saw Mr. Haynes, holding the boys wrist, and helping him up. Edwards, who had been working with the child since kindergarten, stated the child did not appear to be hurt.

14The child was led outside the cafeteria for a brief time, returned and apologized to kitchen staff, led back to his table and finished his lunch. At no time did he appear to be

injured, cry, or exhibit any other signs of distress. There was no shouting or loud language.

15The administration identified four witnesses who saw the incident. None reported it or stated they felt it warranted any kind of report. Edwards stated in effect that the matter seemed so routine to her that there was nothing to report. The incident was, however, reported to the superintendent by the superintendent's wife, who was apparently volunteering, or at least was present, in the cafeteria.

16Haynes did not consider at the time that his contact with this student was a violation of the prohibition against putting his hands on any student. He did not log the incident, stating that it was a busy day, he was scheduled to leave town on Friday, did not complete his log until Sunday and simply forgot to include the incident.

17 The superintendent met with Snyder and Haynes the following Monday, February 13, 2012, and asked Haynes about the incident. He disclosed it immediately. In response, the superintendent placed Haynes on suspension, by letter dated the same day, and handed to Haynes at the meeting. Only after suspending Haynes did the superintendent travel to Central to interview staff members who had witnessed the incident.

18 The superintendent did not testify, but he apparently felt Mr. Haynes contact with the student in this instance and the omission of the incident from the log amounted to insubordination and/or neglect of duty, and warranted the initiation of proceedings to cancel Haynes contract.

19The February 13, 2012, letter also contained a blanket prohibition against Haynes contacting any employee of Lawrenceburg Community Schools, except through the superintendent. Central Elementary Employees and/or other LCS employees were also directed to have no contact with Haynes. The superintendent told the employees that even cards which some might wish to send to Haynes expressing well-wishes would need to be passed to him, open, for delivery to Haynes.

20In contravention of this ruling, Haynes did in fact attempt to contact two administrators by text messages or failed cellular telephone calls on February 21, 2012, and February 27, 2012. At a private conference with the superintendent, Mr. Haynes denied attempting to contact the administrators although he had done so. Haynes stated he did not know whether the administrators had reported the contact and did not want to get them in trouble with the administration by disclosing the contact.

21Six professional teachers employed at Central Elementary School, of varying experience and teaching in different capacities at the school, testified that they have observed Haynes and his interaction with children on a daily basis. All stated they had no concerns about Haynes ability to manage children in an appropriate manner and strongly attested to his excellent relationship with all of the children. Witnesses called by the administration also stated categorically they do not feel Haynes engages in inappropriate discipline and that they have no concerns about safety of children or the implementation of inappropriate discipline by Mr. Haynes. These witnesses interact with the students and other staff of CES on a daily basis and observe Haynes in the performance of his duties regularly and at first hand.

22The Superintendent seeks cancellation of the Haynes contract for insubordination, neglect of duty, and other just cause, arising from Haynes violation of his probation and improvement plan stemming from the February 9, 2012, incident. The Superintendent also seeks cancellation of Haynes contract stemming from Haynes attempted contact with

other administrators in contravention of the Superintendent's directives in his February 13, 2012, memorandum to Haynes.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1I.C. 20-28-7.5-1(e)(1) defines insubordination as willful refusal to obey the state school laws or reasonable rules adopted for the governance of the school building or school corporation. Similarly, Lawrenceburg Community School Corporation By-Laws, at Section 3139 paragraph 2(C) defines Insubordination as the willful refusal to follow established rules or standards for the conduct of professional employees.The Superintendent must prove that Haynes was insubordinate by a preponderance of evidence.

2There is insufficient evidence to support a finding that Haynes willfully refused to follow the established rules of the Superintendent in connection with the February 9, 2012, incident. Although Haynes clearly touched the student, he did so on request of staff on the scene and only for the purpose of helping insure the child in question did not expose himself to further danger. The child was not injured, no angry, loud or abusive words were used, and there is no evidence that, other than touching the child, Haynes acted inappropriately. Significantly, it is clear that not all touching of students was felt to be prohibited by the Superintendent's imposed probation and improvement plans. In the November, 2011, incident, Haynes had to act to physically restrain an out of control student to prevent injury to himself or others. This matter was fully reported. No action was taken against Haynes. In the February 9 incident, Haynes was merely redirecting the child in order to lessen the risk of injury to the child. It is unfortunate the child fell, but the Board finds that no angry intent was involved and that there is no evidence that the touching in question was rough or otherwise inappropriate.

3Similarly, Haynesfailure to log the matter does not rise to the level of willful refusal to abide by school rules. No other professional staff felt the matter worth reporting to anyone. The statement of Erin Edwards, who is well acquainted with the child, has training in the area of dealing with such children, and, indeed, has a child or children suffering from a similar malady, is persuasive on this point. She was clearly very concerned for the child's welfare and actually initiated Haynes involvement in the matter.

She stated, in effect, that she saw nothing out of the ordinary in Haynes behavior and felt there was nothing to report.

4Haynes attempted contact with two administrators was a violation of the Superintendent directives, but these conditions do not seem reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances of the case. Haynes was precluded from talking to witnesses to the incident on February 9 while the Superintendent had full access to the same witnesses and did in fact interview them all prior to the private conference authorized by statute with the Superintendent. Thus, the Superintendent controlled Haynes means of defending himself at that level and of possibly avoiding a continuation of the matter to this Board. This would seem to violation Haynes right to due process throughout the proceeding. Moreover, the Superintendent, who did not testify, made no showing that this action was really necessary to protect confidentiality. Moreover, no contact was ever actually made with the administrators and Haynes made no further attempts to contact the

administrators after realizing that they wished to have no contact. These matters do not form a sufficient basis for terminating Haynes.

5For the same reasons, the Board finds no basis for the Superintendent's charge of neglect of duty in connection with the February 9 incident or the subsequent attempted contact with the other administrators.

6Finally, having found that Haynes was not insubordinate, nor that he neglected his duty with respect to these matters, the Board finds no other just cause for his termination at this time.

7The recommendation for cancellation of the Haynes contract is therefore DENIED and Haynes is returned to duty under the same terms and conditions that existed as of February 9, 2012.

SO ORDERED this 14th day of March, 2012.

John Watson, Attorney at Law