Wow...what could this guy have said?

[OutlawwithaSnipeSniper]

Jan 9, 2015 20:54:36 GMT -6 willy said:

If he's a bully within the building that's a problem for the district. If he's a bully at his union meetings, that's a problem for the union to take care of. If he got into a fight at a union meeting, then that probably would become a civil matter. I just don't believe they would be firing him for something he said at a union meeting.

Unless he was the guy leading the charge for a vote of no confidence in the Superintendent, which he did.

I doubt this one is over, the School Board had better be able to cash the checks they just wrote.........

[toshiko]

Shouldn't what he said at union meeting be private?. Makes me wonder, what teacher went out and told what he said. I am still curious about the 20K donation. And since when, is a comment about one's hair, harrassment and/or ground to be fired. Bravo to Duffy, for standing proud and standing alone. willy, if you watch the video, until the end, the teacher was fired. And, many folks in Ottawa are not happy. Conflict of interest, is what I have been told over and over.

[toshiko]

Reminds me of money talks.

[ironeagle]

"In the approximately 70 different school districts where teachers are represented by my office, only seven Notice to Remedy letters have been issued," she said. "Five of those seven were to Ottawa High School teachers and were written by Matt Winchester. Every time I read or hear comments from this superintendent or this board regarding their denial or confusion of why teachers here are afraid to speak up, I think of those five Notice to Remedy letters. This is from the Times article that was in the online section. When 65% of a type of letter are being Written by ONE Person that is named Matt Winchester you think he might be the Problem.


I asked a few friends that have kids in OTHS helps knowing people in Grand Ridge. They all tell me the Same thing that all the Teachers in OTHS are Scared to DEATH of Winchester for one reason if he does not like you he will find a way to get rid of you. They have heard rumors that is why Building Trades in Ottawa got cut because the Teacher was a Target of Winchester.

[Deleted]

They're afraid of him because he does his job and isn't afraid of their union. Rumors, rumors, rumors...the fact remains that this guy (the one fired) had 4 disciplinary actions plus slandering another teacher at the November 6 union meeting, and then lying about it to Winchester at a "sit down", going against him.

[toshiko]

Are you sure it was slander? It was never proven, and Windchester did his own investigation, kinda like the Ferguson prosecutor. Could it be that someone related to one on the board, reported said behaviour, at the union meeting? I'd say that would be a conflict of interest. I am also, interested in the 20K, donated, to same man, that was referred to as 'little guy' and w/ whom Burgass had words. lolololol ironeagle, you are spot on!!!! I find it odd, that Windchester has such a heavy hand w/ Remedy letters. And if you do not, you are blind. He is a bully and the board is cowards. Bravo to Mr. Duffy. Sad day, for the students of OHS!

[Deleted]

Jan 10, 2015 14:52:05 GMT -6 toshiko said:

Are you sure it was slander? It was never proven, and Windchester did his own investigation, kinda like the Ferguson prosecutor. Could it be that someone related to one on the board, reported said behaviour, at the union meeting? I'd say that would be a conflict of interest. I am also, interested in the 20K, donated, to same man, that was referred to as 'little guy' and w/ whom Burgass had words. lolololol ironeagle, you are spot on!!!! I find it odd, that Windchester has such a heavy hand w/ Remedy letters. And if you do not, you are blind. He is a bully and the board is cowards. Bravo to Mr. Duffy. Sad day, for the students of OHS!

Did it ever occur to you that this OTHS staff may be made up of many individuals that require Winchester to be firm? Your memory is pretty short concerning their last strike and the harm it caused to the students due to the cancellations of many games, events, etc.

If I'm a teacher sitting in that union meeting room and that jerk accused me of messing around with under-age children in front of witnesses...I'd sue his a$$.

Save your breath about that "angelic" teaching staff and their loudmouth anti-hero.

[roman]

The key legal issue is whether the school has the authority to discipline a teacher for comments he made in a non-school setting. A union meeting not a Back to School Night function or a PTA function. Could the school discipline someone for comments made at Chamber of Commerce meeting or a K of C function?

[ironeagle]

Free Speech is that Free Speech. He did Not Put it on his Facebook or on a School Social Media Page as far as anyone Knows. His Civil Rights where Violated here. Or as an Ex-OTR Driver he basically got DACED by his Employer. What we call being Dacced is when your soon to be Ex-Employer comes up with all kinds of crap that you did not do and sends it into a Clearing house that is used for Companies to Screw Drivers over. By doing this they are free to do it to all the Drivers they can and also NOT be sued.

[roman]

The Ottawa school board is lucky that it is dealing with the IEA. In contrast to the IFT, the IEA lawyers are "staff" lawyers, often with limited experience in litigation.  For many years, the IFT has used the firm of Cornfield and Feldman. cornfieldandfeldman.com/practice.html
Over the years, I must have had over twenty cases (federal civil rights suits, labor board cases, arbitrations and appellate court cases.) with this firm. They are very good.

[Deleted]

Jan 10, 2015 14:52:05 GMT -6 toshiko said:

Are you sure it was slander? It was never proven, and Windchester did his own investigation, kinda like the Ferguson prosecutor. Could it be that someone related to one on the board, reported said behaviour, at the union meeting? I'd say that would be a conflict of interest. I am also, interested in the 20K, donated, to same man, that was referred to as 'little guy' and w/ whom Burgass had words. lolololol ironeagle, you are spot on!!!! I find it odd, that Windchester has such a heavy hand w/ Remedy letters. And if you do not, you are blind. He is a bully and the board is cowards. Bravo to Mr. Duffy. Sad day, for the students of OHS!

   Care to say you were wrong about this guy and the loudmouth, Duffy?

An examination of the resolution passed by the Ottawa Township High School Board's Jan. 9 firing of teacher and coach Tim Burgess reveals more than what was read aloud by Board President Tim Creedon.

The resolution was recently provided to The Times.

Beyond Creedon’s abridged and sometimes paraphrased version are additional details about Burgess’ prior disciplinary actions spanning multiple administrations and alleged interactions with two other teachers.

Additionally, the resolution shows Burgess was not fired outright but is on suspension without pay until his right to a hearing is exhausted. His request must be filed within 17 days of his receipt of the notice of charges. Burgess has declined comment on his attorney's advice.

The Times initially made an informal email request for the full resolution the same morning the board acted.

Thursday, a formal Freedom of Information Act request was made for the full resolution, which was provided early Friday morning.

The document read by Creedon actually was a “bill of particulars” exhibit to the resolution.

The resolution presented the findings that Burgess had engaged in “(a) communicating with other staff members in an unprofessional and disparaging manner, (b) being insubordinate and (c) being dishonest.”

The resolution termed Burgess’ conduct as “incompetent, immoral, insubordinate and negligent conduct which is substantially detrimental to the best interests of the district and which is irremediable and constitutes cause for his dismissal.”

Voting for the dismissal of Burgess, an OTHS faculty member for 26 years, were Creedon, Karen Fisher, Don Harris and Anita Kopko, who participated by telephone. Gene Duffy voted against, Bill Byczynski abstained and George Shanley left before the vote to attend a funeral.

Text of the annotated exhibit is below.





Notice of Charges and Bill of Particulars for Dismissal of Tim Burgess
Editor's Notes:
1. Besides the name of Tim Burgess, the names of two other teachers are included in Exhibit A of the resolution. The Times has decided to refer to these two teachers as Teacher One and Teacher Two.
2. The parts of Exhibit A of the resolution read by Board President Tim Creedon is indicated in bold type. Additional verbage he added is in bold type in parentheses.


Exhibit A
Notice of Charges and Bill of Particulars for Dismissal of Tim Burgess by the Board of Education of Ottawa Township High School District 140


Mr. Tim Burgess has engaged in incompetent, immoral, insubordinate and negligent conduct, as described herein, which is substantially detrimental to the best interests of the district and which is irremediable and constitutes cause for his dismissal in accordance with Section 10-22.4 of the School Code (105 ILCS 5/10-22.4).

Background

The board will note

1. Mr. Tim Burgess is employed as a teacher by the Board of Education of Ottawa Township High School District 140.

(That) 2. On Dec. 8, 1993, while (Mr. Tim) Burgess was employed by the Board as a teacher he was issued a memorandum by then Superintendent Clinch regarding “communication difficulties” between himself and a fellow coach. Through this memorandum, Mr. Burgess was directed not to engage in “unacceptable” incidents with other staff members.

3. On Oct. 4, 2002, while (Mr.) Burgess was employed by the board as a teacher he was issued a memorandum by then Principal John Harrison regarding his interaction with another teacher. The basis of this memorandum was a conversation that he had with another teacher which (This interaction) was “unprofessional and unacceptable.” (Mr.) Burgess was directed to “maintain (his) your professionalism and refrain from losing (his) your temper in the presence of students.” He was (told) further advised that, “should this conduct continue (he would) you will be subject to further disciplinary action.”

4. On Sept. 19, 2003, while (Mr.) Burgess was employed by the board as teacher he was issued a memorandum by then Principal John Harrison regarding his interactions with a parent. The basis of the memorandum was was an unprovoked (as the result of the) verbal exchange that (Mr.) Burgess engaged in with a parent on the street about his removal as the basketball coach. Mr. Harrison informed Mr. Burgess (He was told) that he was expected to act as a role model for students on campus and off campus and to act professionally. He was further advised that he was expected to display conflict resolution skills. Mr. Burgess was warned that he would “need to remedy this type of behavior by not engaging in confrontations of this nature in school or public” and that a failure to follow the directives would lead to disciplinary action.

5. On Dec. 22, 2009, while (Mr.) Burgess was employed by the Board as a teacher he was issued a Notice to Remedy. The Notice to Remedy was issued based on (Mr.) Burgess’ inappropriate and unprofessional communications towards the board and superintendent. The Notice to Remedy directed (Mr.) Burgess to: (a) cease and desist from any further displays of anger in front of staff, parents, students, members of the board of education, or the public with regard to any matter having a nexus to the school district, (b) cease and desist from referring to staff, parents, students or members of the board of education in a derogatory, inappropriate or unprofessional manner, (c) conduct (himself) yourself in a profession manner at all times; and (d) conduct (himself) yourself as a role model for OTHS students at all times.”

(Recently Mr. Burgess engaged in)

I. Inappropriate and Unprofessional Communication Towards Staff Members and Harassment (when, one, he made an unprofessional and derogatory comment to a teacher)

6. On or about Sept. 28, 2014, Burgess was present on the grounds of Ottawa Township High School.

7. On or about Sept. 28, 2014, Burgess began an argument with another staff member, Teacher One, and displayed anger towards Teacher One.

8. During the argument set forth above, Burgess made a derogatory comment about Teacher One’s hairstyle and made suggestions about his hairstyle (and its interference with hearing.)

9. A third staff member ultimately had to step in between Burgess and Teacher One. At this time Burgess stated words to the effect that he (Burgess) would “slap” him (Teacher One) upside the head.

(Number two, made a threatening and unprofessional comment to the effect that he should slap on the head on or about Sept. 28, 2014. Number three, referred to another teacher in an unprofessional and)

10. Another staff member, Teacher Two stood up to attempt to calm the situation between Burgess and Teacher One. At this time, Burgess told Teacher Two to “sit down” and referred to him derogatively (manner) as (a) “little man” or (a) “little guy.” (on or about Sept. 28, 2014.)

11. Burgess’ conduct as described in paragraphs 7 through 10 was unprofessional, inappropriate and derogatory.

12. Burgess’ conduct as described in paragraphs 7 through 10 was not in conformity with his status as a role model.

13. Burgess’ conduct as described in paragraphs 7 through 10 is cause for his dismissal as a tenured teacher.

14. On or about Nov. 6, 2014, (Mr.) Burgess acted in an (unprofessional and inappropriate manner and used words to the effect he knew a teacher, quotation marks, was,) present on the grounds of Ottawa Township High School.

15. On or about Nov. 6, 2014, Burgess was leaving a meeting and began communicating in a hostile and angry manner towards Teacher Two.

16. During this communication, Burgess told Teacher Two words to the effect that “you better not be posting this on social media, little man.” Teacher Two replied to Burgess to the effect of “yeah, I’m all over social media.” Mr. Burgess responded by saying words to the effect that, “yeah, I know all about you and how you’re all over underage (girls, closed quotation marks) females.” (D, Violated the terms of his prior disciplinary writeups and the Notice to Remedy issued to him by the board based upon his conduct described above. And, he also engaged in dishonesty.)

17. Burgess’ conduct as described in paragraphs 15 and 16 was unprofessional, inappropriate and derogatory.

18. Burgess’ conduct as described in paragraphs 15 and 16 was not in conformity with his status as a role model.

19. Burgess’ conduct as described in paragraphs 15 and 16 is cause for his dismissal as a tenured teacher.

II. Insubordination and Violation of a Notice to Remedy

20. The directives and/or instructions issued to Burgess as described in paragraphs 2-5 were reasonable and lawful.

21. Burgess’ conduct as described in paragraphs 7-10 and 15-16 is a willful violation of the written warnings that he received regarding his interaction and communication with other persons as set forth in paragraphs 2-4.

22. Burgess’ conduct as described in paragraphs 7-10 and 15-16 is a willful violation of the directives set forth in the Notice to Remedy issued by the board of education as described in paragraph 5.

23. Burgess’ refusal to follow the reasonable and explicit instructions given to him by the administration and the board of education is insubordination.

24. Burgess’ insubordination is cause for his dismissal as a tenured teacher.

III. Insubordination and Dishonesty,

25. On Dec. 8, 2014, Burgess was interviewed about his inappropriate communication with other staff members by the board’s attorney and superintendent.

26. At the beginning of the interview on Dec. 8, 2014, Burgess was specifically advised that he was to answer any and all questions posed to him honestly and completely.

27. During the interview of Dec. 8, 2014, Burgess denied ever referring to Teacher Two as “little man” or “little guy” while in Teacher Two’s presence.

28. Burgess’ denial of making these statements towards Teacher Two was false and dishonest.

29. During the interview on Dec. 8, 2014, Burgess stated that Teacher Two told him (Burgess) after the Nov. 6, 2014 meeting words to the effect that he (Burgess) better not “dare to put this on social media.”

30. Burgess’ statement as set forth in paragraph 29 was false and dishonest.

31. During the interview on Dec. 8, 2014, Burgess stated that he never made any statement to Teacher Two regarding his (Teacher Two’s) interaction with underage females.

32. Burgess’ denial as set forth in paragraph 31 was false and dishonest.

33. During the interview on Dec. 8, 2014, Burgess denied that he was visibly angry and disrespectful towards Teacher Two during the Nov. 6, 2014 interaction.

34. Burgess’ denial as set forth in paragraph 33 was false and dishonest.

35. During the interview on Dec. 8, 2014, Burgess stated that he could not recall whether he made any derogatory remarks about Teacher One’s hair.

36. Burgess’ statement of a lack of recollection regarding his statements regarding Teacher One’s hair was false and dishonest.

37. During the interview on Dec. 8, 2014, Burgess stated that he could not recall whether he made any remark about striking Teacher One.

38. Burgess’ statement of a lack of recollection regarding his statement that he would slap Teacher One in the head was false and dishonest.

39. During the interview on Dec. 8, 2014, Burgess stated that he could not recall whether he had gotten into an argument with Teacher One.

40. Burgess’ statement of a lack of recollection about the argument he got into with Teacher One was false and dishonest.

41. The administration’s direction to answer questions honestly and in a forthright manner was reasonable and lawful.

42. Burgess’ repeated dishonesty during an investigation and after being specifically directed to be truthful is insubordinate.

43. Burgess’ conduct in engaging in repeated dishonesty during a district investigation is cause for his dismissal.

(information is included explaining how a hearing may be requested within 17 days.)

Mr. Burgess is hereby suspended without pay commencing Jan. 9, 2015. During the period of suspension, Mr. Burgess shall not be present on school grounds without the superintendent's express permission and he should return all district property forthwith. Should Mr. Burgess fail to request a hearing in the timeframe set forth above, his dismissal shall become effective forthwith.

[roman]

If that was a Bill of Particulars, it was a very poor job.  It was supposed to detail exactly what the guy did; instead it consists largely of a laundry list of undefined charges  like "unprofessional," "unacceptable," "unprofessional," etc.  The guy may deserve to be fired, but the District's administrators have done a very poor job of wording their evaluations, directives, and warnings.

Too bad that they did not read my book, and too bad that they didn't read Knapp v. Whitaker and Pickering v. Board of Education.  As I said earlier, the Board is lucky that they will be dealing with "staff lawyers" from the IEA.  The IFT would have this case in federal court seeking actual and punitive damages.

[helencrump]

It states he threatened to slap another teacher in the head. In a heated argument that required intervention of that 3rd party.

It shouldnt matter what 'Wording' was used in the rest. Thats whats wrong with lawyers. Give the guy a pass because it shouldve been more wordy. Regardless that the guys a thug. No wonder kids are bullies. They see teachers exhibit the same behavior, and fools in the public stand up for them, without listening to what they did. Or not caring what they did. And even go as far as to place the burden on the victims of the altercations.

[Deleted]

Jan 17, 2015 18:14:53 GMT -6 roman said:

If that was a Bill of Particulars, it was a very poor job.  It was supposed to detail exactly what the guy did; instead it consists largely of a laundry list of undefined charges  like "unprofessional," "unacceptable," "unprofessional," etc.  The guy may deserve to be fired, but the District's administrators have done a very poor job of wording their evaluations, directives, and warnings.

Too bad that they did not read my book, and too bad that they didn't read Knapp v. Whitaker and Pickering v. Board of Education.  As I said earlier, the Board is lucky that they will be dealing with "staff lawyers" from the IEA.  The IFT would have this case in federal court seeking actual and punitive damages.

   For what?

[roman]

Jan 18, 2015 5:48:19 GMT -6 butterbean said:

Jan 17, 2015 18:14:53 GMT -6 roman said:

If that was a Bill of Particulars, it was a very poor job.  It was supposed to detail exactly what the guy did; instead it consists largely of a laundry list of undefined charges  like "unprofessional," "unacceptable," "unprofessional," etc.  The guy may deserve to be fired, but the District's administrators have done a very poor job of wording their evaluations, directives, and warnings.

Too bad that they did not read my book, and too bad that they didn't read Knapp v. Whitaker and Pickering v. Board of Education.  As I said earlier, the Board is lucky that they will be dealing with "staff lawyers" from the IEA.  The IFT would have this case in federal court seeking actual and punitive damages.

   For what?

Look up the two cases I mentioned above.  Both of them are probably on the net.  Next, read the following language in light of those two cases.

"On Dec. 22, 2009, while (Mr.) Burgess was employed by the Board as a teacher he was issued a Notice to Remedy. The Notice to Remedy was issued based on (Mr.) Burgess’ inappropriate and unprofessional communications towards the board and superintendent. The Notice to Remedy directed (Mr.) Burgess to: (a) cease and desist from any further displays of anger in front of staff, parents, students, members of the board of education, or the public with regard to any matter having a nexus to the school district, (b) cease and desist from referring to staff, parents, students or members of the board of education in a derogatory, inappropriate or unprofessional manner... ."