WEAC Policy: What every teacher should know!

As an educator who went through a grueling arbitration case, I have learned much about the process of arbitration and the policies that Wisconsin Education Association Council (WEAC) follows when and if an arbitrators makes a “wrong” award. One issue is that the teachers and support staff are not so fortunate before entering their hearing of knowing WEAC policies and the “rights” of an arbitrator..I hope to educate the Wisconsin educators about WEAC policies and procedures.

According to Steve Pieroni, the attorney who handled my case (MA-13090), arbitrators come up with the correct award “90% of the time” and that “is something that we have to accept”. Pieroni goes on to express that when you go to arbitration “right or wrong, you get what you bargained for and that is what you have to live with.” WEAC believes this is best policy for teachers and does not want to review it. WEAC believes binding arbitration is more efficient than the court system. As one of the 10 percent, I disagree. If your mechanic fixes brakes and one of ten times they don’t work is that acceptable? Is educating 9 of 10 students acceptable? Only if you are one of the 9 according to WEAC.

For you people that are in the classrooms and have the expectation of not leaving any student behind, you now can use the same standard that your union dues are paying for, a 90% success rate by WEAC standards. As educators, we would never think that a 90% success rate is acceptable. We are a proud hard working group that want only the best for all students.

While WEAC never challenges an arbitrators award, school boards are challenging the arbitrators ruling and having them vacated or reversed.(Cedarburg School District)

Looking at arbitrators awards in education one should also be reminded that in the history of WEAC not one case has ever been appealed while school districts are stepping up and challenging the arbitration awards (Cedarburg Education Association v. The Cedarburg Board of Education)

While WEAC has followed the unwritten, unknown, long standing policy not to appeal arbitration awards, even when they feel the arbitrator is wrong, because they believe that 90% success is acceptable, school districts are appealing and vacating awards while WEAC sits on your dues not willing to challenge arbitration awards. According to WEAC “arbitrators can be wrong in a case when it deals with the facts or with respect to the law” but we don’t feel the courts will vacate the award. If an arbitrator doesn’t have to use facts or laws in making the award then why go to arbitration at all? While WEAC has maintained their policy your union dues are allowing 1 out of 10 teachers going to arbitration are receiving the wrong award. Perhaps we need to look at the whole arbitration system. Are we giving arbitrators too much power with no checks and balances?

WEAC also comments that arbitrators, who are supposed to follow the seven steps of just cause principles in every state of the union, do not have to adhere to these standards in Wisconsin. If you are a teacher in Wisconsin read the case (MA-13090) and ask yourself as I have asked WEAC, did he really use these same standards in the case?

As false accusations against teachers are on the rise, I hope to remind each and everyone of you that if it happens to you 9 out of 10 times an arbitrator will get it right. WEAC policy, that you will never see, will not let you have an attorney represent you in the appeal to the board (according to policy from Stan Johnson (former president) and Dan Burkholter. You will be allowed 15 minutes to present your case and then be escorted to the door while WEAC attorneys tell the Board about WEAC policy, that you will also never see, because the minimal “chances of reversing an arbitrators award”.

I also need to remind educators that the same law firm that represents a high number of school districts (Lathrup & Clark) are advising the same school district that will be trying to get rid of you. While Lathrup & Clark are pocketing thousands of dollars advising schools on the proper procedures to follow in just cause cases they will quickly turn around and represent the same school that didn’t follow the policies they expect each school to follow.

As teachers, we have been typically trusting of WEAC. We have not questioned because our primary goal is the children. That’s why we are here. Most of us never got involved in any of the politics of teaching. We have left that to the few. And even those have not questioned as long as it has worked for them. It is time to get our heads out of the sand and question. You cannot help me, but I hope I can help you. What happened to me, can happen to you tomorrow.

It is time for the teachers and support staff in the state of Wisconsin to make their thoughts known and WEAC to review its unwritten policies. It was policy that did not allow women to vote but on August 26, 1920 it was changed. What was wrong with the way it was done before? Were we wrong to change with the times? We ended the long policy of segregation in our schools on May 17, 1954. Were we wrong to question this policy as well?

It is time for WEAC to realize that arbitrators are being bought off, are biased and just don’t follow the code of ethics that they are required to adhere to by the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission. Stanley Michelstetter didn’t but WEAC doesn’t challenge an arbitrator.

George Kintzer-How can you sleep?

Well as time rolls by and I find myself losing more and more sleep wondering if I will ever get the call to return back into the classroom. After over 200 aplications the past two years I wonder what the man upstairs has planned for me. I wonder how the people responsible are sleeping. Maybe that is why I am losing sleep.

As I review my notes the most amazing thing that I can't understand is how a assistant principal that relied on me to "help" with his discipline issue actually make a statement when asked who was more credible between a student (Cassidee Domstrich) and myself and he replied the student. Now one might say that a person could understand that since maybe, just maybe, he had never had any "issues" with this young lady before.

History shows that this was the student a year earlier that was stealing items form other students and then not being honest when questioned about her thefts. The teacher spoke about these issues to George Kintzer and finally she was called to the office to talk about this behavior. She returned with a reward not a punishment. Is this behavior modification that the rest of the people in education don't know about?

The arbitrator ruled that this student was not telling the truth and could not be valued for what she claimed happens because she invents stories and attempted to convince others that it was true. It was also noted that she attempted to have others go along with her accusation. Seems rather strange but if this is true, which it is, how did Stanley Michelstetter, rule against me? I think it was on the same thought process that "Cassidee Domstrich is more reliable than me" when asked about who he would believe.

I will continue to report the two worst administrators in the history of Wisconsin Public Schools. Does anyone wonder why both George Kintzer and Dana Breed resigned after the arbitration hearing? Maybe Barbara Wolfe bought them out with an excellent "retirement package".

So I ask "George Kintzer, How can you sleep?"

As I run for school board in the community of Poynette, Wisconsin I will attempt to keep up to date on this race to the finish line. The theme will be accountability!

Dana Breed-Shows Her Biased Approach

In the final day of arbitration it was clear how biased the investigation was after a student named Kim Falk had mentioned 2 other students that were supposedly standing right next to her when she saw me walk right next to her and her friends in the girls locker room. The other students were questioned right after Kim Falk and both of them said that "nothing unusual happened". Seems to me that would cause a "trained investigator" to revisit and clarify exactly what happened. Did George Kintzer and Dana Breed re interview any of these students? Oh course not. In fact only 5 students were re-interviewed and 3 of the 5 said nothing happened while the other two that were questioned again had very conflicting stories compared to their first interview and no one in their class supported their accusation. In fact one of the students re interviewed told the investgators that Cassidee Domstrich (one of the 2 accusers) was being dishonest and not telling the truth.

So under question how would Dana Breed explain any of this? Here is an example:

WEAC Attorney: Do you recall if that caused you to doubt Kim Falk's observation?

Dana Breed: To doubt her observation?

WEAC Attorney: Uh-huh.

Dan Breed: To question it, not to doubt it.

WEAC Attorney: Okay. And when you say---

Arbitrator: Wait a second. What is the difference?

WEAC Attorney: I was---

Dana Breed: To me "doubt" means you don't believe. "Question" to me means what does she believe happened. And we need to question clearly to ourselves, is what she believed happened?

If you ask a kindergarten student if there is a man on the moon they will probably tell you that they do. Since they "believe" it it must be true! Or do we let the facts speak out and use the evidence to tell us what really happened.

The final straw happened on May 16, 2005 when Rachel Quamme was asked to make a map expressing what she saw and she cracked and told the truth. Breed told her she was disappointed in her rather than thanking her for telling the truth. One would think that that would cause the "trained investigators" to re-examine their summary report and re-interview the students that used Quamme as a supporting cast member. Does anyone really think that Breed or Kintzer went back and did anything like that? That would mean they would have to admit that they were wrong and apologize to me for false accusations. Then Jim Carelli and Alan Chittick would have to come forward and admit that they didn't really check all the lines of sight that they claimed to have done (Before they had maps).

Finally when Emma Falk claimed to have seen me in the locker room while she was showering with 4 other students (Belay, Reidell, Rylander and Garske) Breed was questioned why she never went back and asked the 4 others why Falk made this accusation and none of the others did. Her response, "at the same time, I don't think the girls would have been clued onto him the whole time or they would be busy washing their hair, talking. They could have easily been distracted and not have seen it".

Tell me what you were really trying to do? IS there more? Too many for me to write about so I will move forward in the next few Blogs to her partner in crime, George Kintzer.

Dana Breed- How can you defend your innocence?

As you can already see when a person is innocent and the "investigators" have already determined you are guilty the playing field is a difficult one to compete on. As we entered arbitration day 3 we found more evidence that was not presented to the Poynette School Board when Dana Breed and George Kintzner wrote in their summary report that "all lines of sight had been verified." When Wisconsin Education Association Council wrote a letter dated April 25, 2005 questioning the "inherit improbability" of these eye witnesses and their lines of sight Breed responded that she "verified" and "Did that" when asked to compare the lines of sight and dates that the police liaison officer Gary Napralla had taken in his 2 hour investigation. Then there was Jim Carelli and Alan Chittick that wrote on May 5, 2005 that "not only did we read the summary report we physically went into the locker room to review the facility, reviewed all "lines of sight," and carefully discussed the findings with administrative investigators. Sounds pretty good doesn't it?

How did they review all lines of sight before they had maps from the student witnesses? Since many of these witnesses (8) didn't have maps until May 16. Of the 8 students who gave maps 6 of them did not give the same "diagram" as the verbal summary statement taken by "district investigators. Finally, I will let you the public decide if lines of sight were really verified by the diagram below.

Unless you are Clark Kent, you can not see through a concrete wall and not one person, including the arbitrator could find how any person could say they "verified all lines of sight." In fact if a person were to use the actual dimensions of the doorway there is less than 6 feet between the walls and a smaller window for any one to see anything. Since this person, Nicole Prey, claimed to have seen me "peeking around the corner" initially.

Think there is a case here? Now that I have realized you can put up these maps I can place more and more evidence of a biased investigation and let you make your own decision on who the guilty party really is.

Dana Breed- A non-biased approach?

Since the last Blog I am confident that if you have read the past Blogs you don't find any of this a big surprise. As I sat in Day 1 of the arbitration hearing and Dana Breed swears herself in and vows to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth I realized as the day progressed that as a friend of mine always said, "Or what?" So the journey began and one of the most surprising things happened to me during the first two days. I actually felt sorry for Dana Breed and how pathetic she made herself appear.

First, she came in and claimed to have all this "training" in interviewing students from her masters degree in educational administration through Marian College (University) in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin. This was the exact same masters program that I have, taken during the exact same time frame and I never took one class that included how to interview students as a neutral investigator. Was I sleeping that day or did I miss that classroom session? When we compared the classes taken they were the exact same classes. Was Dana Breed telling the truth or was she trying to make herself look better than what she really was? Then she went on to talk about all the in-service training she had experienced through our curriculum and special needs coordinator Alan Chittick. Of course his training was the same as hers and mine so I'm not sure what made him an expert in interviewing witnesses. Then again I sat in on these in-service training sessions and I didn't recall any such training. I know that I thought many of these in-service training sessions were a waste of time but I think I would have remembered an incompetent man standing up in front of 80+ teachers telling them how to interview students. Maybe, just maybe, there was no such in-service training but wouldn't that mean that Dana breed would be lying again?

As Mrs. Breed began her opening she presented a "summary" of her findings. What I didn't (don't) understand is if you interview 34 students and more than half of them say "nothing happened" and not one of the other students stories corroborate with each other wouldn't you have some doubts to their story? In other words if Sally said that I saw him standing right there on March 3 and so did Jean and Becky and Becky said "no, I didn't see that but I did see this on March 8 (even though nobody else makes this statement) and Jean said nothing happened a normal unbiased person would at least go back and re interview and cross reference their notes. At least that is what you would think, wouldn't you?

As I continue to write and explain this case let me assure you that Mrs. Breed and George Kintzer re interviewed only 5 students before they made their determination of guilt. Of those 5, 3 said nothing happened and of the other 2 both changed their story so dramatically that it could not be explained. In fact both of them made accusations of March 2, 2005 a day that I was at a funeral in Minnesota. How was that explained by Dana Breed? She wasn't able to explain that and never really thought about it. The final kicker on the opening days of arbitration was when it was asked by the union for the administrators to read the police report when students were interviewed 2 days after the initial accusation, Dana Breed and George Kintzer answered that they skimmed over it and noticed the different dates but felt the officer Gary Napralla made errors in his report. No they didn't ask or make any attempt to clear up the mess. Why? When you are looking for guilt you can always find it, even if you have to make it up.

Arbitration Hearing Day 3 & 4 to follow.....