Mr. Bowen, Attorney for Sarasota School Board:
Please forward this request for public information to the Public Affairs office or whoever is in charge of sending out public information to citizens from the Sarasota County School Board:
I would like to have the address and telephone number of Ms. Mary Cropsy, third-grade teacher.
I request as well the address of the Sarasota Teachers' Union.
I request also these data if, be my information correct, Sarasota County has hired Dr. James Hamilton, first, as its lobbyist (he listed the position for Sarasota County schools on his Web page) and then the change to Mixon Associates when Dr. Hamilton went to work at that firm as a consultant. That would involve two positions that the board board has granted Dr. Hamilton. I would like to have this public information for both jobs:
1. The venues in which the board advertised these separate jobs and the dates the ads ran;
2. A copy of the applications of all the people who applied for the job in addition to Dr. Hamilton;
3. The salary of the first job of lobbyist awarded to Dr. Hamilton in his own lobbying firm; the monthly fee or other system of payment to Mixon and Associates for the lobbying consulting now done by Sarasota School Board with Dr. Hamilton as employee consultant to Mixon's firm and whether the understanding of Sarasota county with Mixon is that Dr. Hamilton will continue to handle its lobbying needs;
4. The school-board notes for the occasions on which it discussed and decided the award of the lobbying jobs to Dr. Hamilton and Mixon and Associates ;
5. A copy of all the Federal grants that Sarasota County schools now has;
6. A copy of the Sarasota schools' policy on equal-employment opportunity.
Thank you.
Respectfully,
(Ms.) Lee Drury De Cesare
15316 Gulf Boulevard 802
Madeira Beach, FL 33708
tdecesar@tampabay.rr.com
leedrurydecesarescasting-roomcouch.blogspot.com
Judge rules teacher should have kept job
Teacher Mary Cropsey lost her job after a dispute with the school district over policy.
By Tiffany Lankes
Published: Saturday, May 2, 2009 at 1:00 a.m.
Last Modified: Friday, May 1, 2009 at 11:29 p.m.
MANATEE COUNTY - Teacher Mary Cropsey's problems at Mills Elementary started the day she filed a formal complaint about the school's morning prayer meetings.
The next day she got a letter from Principal Mike Rio asking her to attend a meeting to discuss a "violation of FCAT procedures."
On the advice of her attorney, Cropsey skipped that meeting, and ultimately got fired for it.
Now, a judge has ruled that the Manatee County School Board should not have fired her, and that Cropsey deserves back pay under her contract. The District Court of Appeal ruling filed Friday could also bolster a civil lawsuit Cropsey filed against the school district.
"When I walked out of that courtroom, I knew that I was going to win this one," Cropsey said. "The school district's position just doesn't make any sense."
The ruling highlights concerns over a Manatee school district policy that prohibits teachers under investigation from bringing private attorneys to meetings. The district adopted the rule several years ago as part of a policy intended to crack down on teachers accused of misconduct.
At least one other teacher has challenged his termination under the policy, and two other state boards have said the rule violates fair labor practices.
Friday's decision comes almost three years after Cropsey started as a third-grade teacher at Mills in the 2006-2007 school year.
Almost immediately she started having problems. Cropsey said that Principal Mike Rio and other school employees treated her like an outcast. She suspected that was because she is older and did not participate in the prayer meetings.
Cropsey was working on a one-year contract, and in February 2007 Rio informed her that he was not going to renew it.
A month later Cropsey went to the school district and lodged a discrimination complaint against Rio. The next day she received the notice about the meeting to discuss FCAT violations.
The letter did not detail the specific allegations -- which later turned out to be test cheating, a misdemeanor crime -- or state that Cropsey was under a formal investigation.
It stated she could bring representation, but did not elaborate that the district policy would only allow her to bring a union officer, not a private attorney.
Cropsey was suspicious when she received the letter and contacted an attorney, who advised her not to attend, fearing she might incriminate herself.
Her lawyer, Charles Britt, also called School Board attorney John Bowen to let him know he had advised Cropsey not to come. Bowen asked him to put that in writing, but did not tell him that Cropsey could lose her job for not attending.
Several months later the Manatee County School Board found that there was no evidence Cropsey cheated on the FCAT. But it fired her anyway for not cooperating with the district's investigation.
It is not clear how widespread the implications of the ruling could be, but Bowen said it could impact public employers across Florida.
"They have basically said that an employee can, at the advice of an attorney, disobey what their employer tells them to do, which is a novel concept," Bowen said.
Bowen said the district can appeal the judge's decision to the state Supreme Court or ask for a rehearing in the second district. He said he needs to review the ruling before making a recommendation to the board.
Cropsey said she is ready to keep fighting if the district chooses to appeal.
"They're not going to wear me down," Cropsey said.
Cropsey said she had an extremely difficult time finding a job after the district accused her of FCAT cheating. Eventually, she found a job at a charter high school in Manatee County.
"Once you accuse someone of cheating on the FCAT, pretty much the only thing worse is accusing someone of molesting a child," Cropsey said.
comments from Sarasota readers:
Post a comment | View all comments on this topic.
1. mark says...
May 2, 2009 5:13:32 am
-- "They have basically said that an employee can, at the advice of an attorney, disobey what their (sic) employer tells them to do, which is a novel concept," Bowen said. --
No, Attorney Bowen, the novel concept is a public employer prohibiting an employee from utilizing private counsel at a disciplinary meeting. And the novel concept is a public employer retaliating against an employee for choosing not to participate in a flag prayer. And the novel concept is a public employer falsifying a claim against an employee. Those are all novel concepts, Mr. Bowen. The ironic aspect of the case is that the school board has ready access to an attorney, yet desires to deny the same for its employees. What a bunch of mind-boggling hypocrisy!
When Mary is awarded her judgment, perhaps the school board members themselves -- and Mr. Bowen himself, who is likely being handsomely paid -- should pay the judgment out of their own personal pockets, instead of the pockets of the taxpayers.
Report this post
2. jmsbeauchamp says...
May 2, 2009 5:37:23 am
A reminder, should we need one, as to why so many people home school their kids.
Report this post
3. lgs85 says...
May 2, 2009 6:07:14 am
Well said, Mark! This whole thing started when Ms. Cropsey refused to be bullied by Mike Rio into attending a prayer around the flagpole.
After that she was harrassed then accused of cheating by changing one student's (the child of one of the clerical staff -what a coincidence!) answer on the FCAT. First of all, ask any teacher the extent of protocols the schools go through to ensure the integrity of the test when it is turned in...furthermore, why would a teacher risk their entire professional career to change one test score?
The school board DID NOT find her guilty of any wrong-doing in regards to the FCAT. They fired her because she wanted to bring an attorney with her to meet with Rio. Keep in mind, she is allowed to have representation but she wanted to use her lawyer instead of the one supplied by the Union.
I have had experience with Rio...I am not an employee but a parent whose child attended the Manatee County Schools when Rio was the Principal at Palmetto Elementary. I wouldn't want to be in the same room with him alone. He is a nasty, vindictive man if you dare to cross him or diagree with him.
Congratulations, Ms. Cropsey!
Report this post
4. digibella says...
May 2, 2009 7:21:12 am
Well said Mark. Congratulations to Ms. Cropsey! Too bad the taxpayers have to foot the legal bills to defend such indefensible acts and policies.
Report this post
5. 25andawakeup says...
May 2, 2009 7:23:28 am
not really sure what you meant by that...
why do people home-school their kids?
Report this post
6. don says...
May 2, 2009 8:06:41 am
The attorney advised her to skip the meeting to avoid "incriminating" herself...that is what we need - anytime an employee (especially) on a one-year contract doesn't want to do something - check with an attorney and then "skip the meeting" - she knew that she going to be found out. She needed to avoid admitting to whatever she did.
How stupid, "she was an outcast because she was older" - has you seen most of the teachers in Manatee county? Ummm, you are young compared to many. That is lame...I don't get along well with others and nobody likes me - it must be because I am old?
I agree that if you don't want to go to a prayer meeting don't go...ummmm, they didn't fire you for that....
You are probably divorced (couldn't get along with you husband), your kids don't like you (if you even have any) and you hate any type of authority figure...especially if it is a male.
You learned these behaviors from your divorce attorney. If you don't like something - get an attorney to prevent you from "incriminating" yourself.
Good luck with that lawsuit...
Report this post
7. joebloe says...
May 2, 2009 9:35:36 am
The article is wrong in saying a single judge made the ruling. In fact, it was a 3-judge panel, which ruled unanimously. Also, the article doesn't say how much back pay was awarded, and it appears to be only for the remainder of the 1-year (2006-7) contract. The actual decision is at: Link.
Report this post
8. pathalinecampbell says...
May 2, 2009 9:42:53 am
Congratulations Mary!
Report this post
9. pathalinecampbell says...
May 2, 2009 9:59:14 am
Mary, again congrats! Your case has helped a lot of teachers who may face these "Meetings" and individuals who have NO legal Authority to have people they accuse of POSSIBLE crimes waive their rights to plead the 5th. It is my opinion the School Board should leave matters of this kind to the "Legal Authorities" it would save a lot of time and cost for everyone. From what I gather or understand, the School Board may request the presences of an employee in these MEETINGS, but can't force them to "Self-Incriminate"; they can't make you speak. This is just my opinion regarding the article... The school board can't make people address matters they can possibly twist when the teacher doesn't have an attorney present. That would be a complete "set-up". The investigation unit comes off as if they are trying to be the Law and this is where they failed in this case. Again, this is just my opinion regarding this article.... Teachers...know your rights when you go to a "Meeting" they want to call an "Investigation".
Report this post
No comments:
Post a Comment