If there was one apparent during the recent emergency meeting of the CSD Board of Education, it's that, despite being joined on stage by its legal counsel, the board itself has no formal, or rather legal, definition of "harassment."
harassment (either harris-meant or huh-rass-meant) n. the act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of one party or a group, including threats and demands. The purposes may vary, including racial prejudice, personal malice, an attempt to force someone to quit a job or grant sexual favors, apply illegal pressure to collect a bill, or merely gain sadistic pleasure from making someone fearful or anxious. Such activities may be the basis for a lawsuit if due to discrimination based on race or sex, a violation on the statutory limitations on collection agencies, involve revenge by an ex-spouse, or be shown to be a form of blackmail ("I'll stop bothering you, if you'll go to bed with me"). The victim may file a petition for a "stay away" (restraining) order, intended to prevent contact by the offensive party. A systematic pattern of harassment by an employee against another worker may subject the employer to a lawsuit for failure to protect the worker. (See: harass, sexual harassment)
Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved. - http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/harassment
Last Tuesday, the BOE condemned one of its own for alleged "harassment."
It has been brought to the attention of the Board of Education that Board Member Shirley Sutton-Saffer is alleged to have engaged in inappropriate behavior by harassing a District employee and engaging in an unsafe act. The Board has not conducted an independent investigation to determine the veracity of the allegations. The Board disapproves of any such alleged actions and does not condone any such alleged actions by any member of this board or any employee of the Christina School District.The limited evidence relied solely on the hearsay of the board president and vice president. They alleged to have viewed a recording of fellow board member Shirley Sutton-Saffer allegedly walking around a school bus from the door to the driver's window. Additionally, the board president claimed to be able to hear Mrs. Sutton-Saffer identify herself by name and as a member of the Board of Education. Yet, despite being pressed repeatedly by other board members, the recording was not made available to the board at-large or the public. (My legal eagles assure me that the recording is perfectly FOIA-able, should one want to request to view it.)
In all events, even if the conduct as alleged is true, the Board lacks the authority to remove a board member under Article XV, Section 6 of the Delaware Constitution.
The evening, and I witnessed it in person, had all the makings of political drama, from the president who claimed that he "accepted (viewing the recording) as a burden" on behalf of his board-mates to the infamous esquire who despite allegedly sleeping through most of the 90 minutes of debate, still managed to extoll the last word, a sermon from the pulpit if you will, rambling on about how the "supreme court does not wait (for investigations or evidence, when it) dispenses an order." Which anyone who is mildly familiar with 8th grade history knows is a perfectly erroneous and ironic statement to have come from a member of the bar. Allegedly.
0 comments:
Post a Comment
Word Verification May Be Case Sensitive