Ruth Foster Update

It’s been a long time coming, but it’s ALL good news!

Many of you have heard that over the course of most of this school year, there has been a protracted conflict between Ruth Foster and the administration at LHS, as well as administration at central office, including the board. LNEA and KNEA have been with Ruth every step of the way.

In a nutshell, district administration placed in Ruth Foster’s personnel file two disciplinary memos. The first one was for something she allegedly said about unnecessary mowing of the football field while walking the track on the morning of August 3, 2006. The second was a reprimand for over-spending her department budget, behaving inappropriately with colleagues, and allegedly slamming a door. The first memo will be referred to as the “mowing memo,” and the second memo we’ll call the “summary memo,” as it lists several behaviors administration felt were unprofessional.

In early September Ruth filed a grievance to have both memos removed from her file. She requested the mowing memo be removed under the premise that administration has no right to reprimand her for behavior that occurred at a time she was not performing any duties associated with her contract. She contended that the summary memo was inconsequential and/or inaccurate, and that it did not constitute events serious enough to warrant reprimand - this issue is generally referred to as “good cause.”

The grievance procedure, as negotiated by LNEA, provides for hearings at the building (if applicable), superintendent, and board levels. The agreement allows for a hearing before an arbitrator if the grievant and LNEA are not satisfied with rulings at lower levels. By contract, the ruling of the arbitrator is binding.

In this case, LNEA’s contentions were denied at the building, superintendent and board levels, and the matter was taken to arbitration in late January. After a 6-hour hearing and a little over 2 months of waiting, the ruling came down in Ruth’s favor on all counts.

Here’s what the arbitrator said, and what it means for us:

As regards the mowing memo, the arbitrator noted that in certain limited cases, off-duty behavior that is particularly egregious could indeed be subject to district discipline; BUT he said that the mowing incident did not rise to that type of behavior, and ruled that LHS administration had no right to reprimand her for what was allegedly said on the track that morning in August. He ordered the memo be removed from her file and that it not be used in any future action against her. What this means for us is that USD #453 indeed DOES NOT have the right to tell you what to do 24/7, 365 days per year. When you are not performing the duties outlined in your contract, you are not subject to discipline by district administration. The exceptions to that are behaviors that constitute a felony offense, anything that would result in a loss of licensure, or some other act that would significantly and negatively impact the district’s well-being.

Regarding the summary memo, the district argued that they are not obligated to prove “good cause” in any disciplinary action other than suspension, and that therefore the summary memo should stand as a reprimand and that Ruth’s only right is to provide a written response to it. The arbitrator, in his ruling, noted that most of the items addressed in the that memo dealt with behavior subject to district supervision, but the arbitrator determined that those behaviors either were so minor that they didn’t warrant written reprimand (“good cause”), or they were simply inaccurate and/or untrue. He ruled that the district’s contention that the only recourse to a reprimand is a written response is incorrect, and that under this negotiated agreement, a teacher does indeed have the right to grieve, and request the reprimand be removed from the teacher’s personnel file. He further ordered that the summary memo be removed from Ruth’s file and that it not be used in any future action against her. What this means for us is that an administrator in USD #453 does not have free rein to give written reprimands for minor or insignificant issues, and that regardless of the severity of a reprimand, you have the right not only to respond to that reprimand, you also have the right to grieve it. This ruling should serve as a deterrent to petty and/or retaliatory reprimands. If you are the recipient of any kind of reprimand, contact Linda Schukman or Janet Renkoski, your LNEA teacher rights representatives, immediately. There is a 10-day window for filing a grievance.

This is not the only conflict that has beleaguered Ruth for these many months. She was reprimanded for sending a prank e-mail in October, and was suspended for 10 days with pay for refusing to agree to the terms of the district’s Acceptable Use Policy (AUP). To make a long story short, Ruth freely admits to sending the prank e-mail, and all parties involved took it as the joke it was intended to be. Regardless of that fact, in addition to the reprimand, access to e-mail and internet was denied. Because she didn’t have access to e-mail and internet, she did not sign the AUP - as it was presented to the high school staff, that was the only consequence for not agreeing to its terms. Shortly after refusing to agree with the terms of the AUP, Ruth was suspended. Superintendent Aytes contended that without access to computers, she was not able to perform a significant portion of her duties. Obviously district-level interpretation of the AUP differed dramatically from building level administration’s interpretation. In retaliation for exercising her right to appeal the suspension, criminal computer trespass charges related to the e-mail prank were filed against Ruth in late December.

As a result of these incidents, two more grievances were filed - one claiming that the disciplinary action concerning the e-mail prank was a gross over-reaction to the incident, and one claiming that the suspension was purely retaliatory because of previous grievances filed. Although the suspension had already been served, the remedy for the grievance was to have all records of the suspension purged from Ruth’s file, so that it could not be used in future disciplinary action. LNEA failed in the first three levels of the e-mail grievance, and the request for arbitration was submitted in mid-January. The suspension grievance was denied at the superintendent’s level (building administration was not involved in the suspension), and the board level hearing was held in early April.

Just days before the board level hearing for the suspension was to be held, the arbitration ruling for the mowing and summary memos was delivered. The ruling was a sobering one for district administration and the board, and the cost was significant - district financial records, which are a matter of public record, show that the district’s attorney fees in handling this arbitration were $7,044.00 In addition to that bill, LNEA and the district split the arbitrator’s fee, which came in at just over $3,800.

Consequently, at the board level suspension grievance hearing, LNEA proposed a “deal.” Rather than proceeding with two more arbitrations, which obviously are time consuming and expensive for both parties, LNEA proposed that Ruth would drop the pending request for arbitration on the e-mail grievance, and drop the suspension grievance, thus avoiding a potential third arbitration if the board would see that the criminal complaint was withdrawn and purge her personnel file of all records of the suspension. School board and KNEA lawyers hammered out an agreement, and it was finally signed by all parties in early May.

As a result, Ruth Foster’s personnel file is cleared of all records of the mowing incident, the summary memo and the suspension, her e-mail and internet access have been re-established, and the criminal computer trespass charges have been dropped. The attempt by administration to build a paper trail that could potentially have been used for termination at some time in the future was a costly one. It has been aborted, and justice has been served. LNEA and KNEA determined that it was monumentally important to establish boundaries for discipline in this district, and thus paid for all costs incurred through these proceedings.

What this means for us is that in USD #453, LNEA and KNEA will stand by its members when administration behaves inappropriately, and the only cost is your membership dues.

All teachers in this district, whether members of LNEA or not, owe Ruth Foster a huge “thank you.” She has endured 8 months of heartache and retaliation, and she did it to establish the fact that teachers in this district will not be subject to petty and inappropriate disciplinary action by any building level administrator, the superintendent or by board action.

If you appreciate these results, please do three things:

1) let Ruth know that her tenacity is appreciated;
2) keep paying your LNEA dues; and
3) take the time to talk to a non-member about the benefits of belonging to LNEA.

If you have any questions or comments, send them to lneanews@gmail.com