posted by Joe Polk at 11:15 AM /
Monday's Mt. Lebanon school board meeting became a pep rally for Athletic Director John Grogan and high school swim coach Don Wagner, who defended themselves against complaints lodged against them at the June 18 board meeting.
The audience was filled Monday with swim team members and parents and other supporters of Mr. Grogan and Mr. Wagner and about 20 of them stood up to defend the men and the way they do their jobs.
Link: www.post-gazette.com/pg/07193/800986-55.stm
The audience was filled Monday with swim team members and parents and other supporters of Mr. Grogan and Mr. Wagner and about 20 of them stood up to defend the men and the way they do their jobs.
Link: www.post-gazette.com/pg/07193/800986-55.stm
Labels: athletic director, school board, school district, sports
8 Comments:
This article sounds more like a review of the June 18th meeting rather than the real story which is that the tale told by these three parents were based on half-truths and incomplete facts.
Not ONE person at the July 9th meeting supported the position of the complaining parents. And, where was Mr. Hart...interesting that he was absent for the other side of the story?
Mr Hart had said at the previous meeting that he wasn't going to be at this one. So it shouldn't have been a surprise.
Here's what I think, I think neither side thinks they are wrong. The parents who complained at the original meeting regarding this contract truly believed that they were in their right to take the course they did. They also were not wrong that Mr. Wagner was accused of sexual harassment at his old job. He admitted as much when he said that he got a letter from his former employer stating that he was cleared of all wrong doing. The parents at the meeting never did accuse Mr. Wagner of sexually harassing their own kids, just that he had been accused of such things in a former job and that they were concerned about it. That stuff is all true. Now the part where it gets tricky is whether or not Wagner retaliated against these parents for bringing this old news up. If Mr. Wagner sneezed in the wrong direction after this happened then these parents could conceivably think that was harassment- and the probably did.
The meeting on July 9th was a refreshing change from the mostly negative comments that are typically given at school board meetings. It was incredible to see so many people feel such a sense of togetherness/community/unity that they would come on one night to help support their friend, coach, neighbor, when they felt he was wrongfully under attack.
People talk about trying to see both sides of this debate. I think we clearly did.
While I do understand the concerns of the parents that spoke at the June meeting, I would still feel very comfortable putting my kids in the water with Mr. Wagner or having their AD be Mr. Grogan.
The final point I want to make is about that contract. It is my understanding that none of the other high-level administrators have any contract whatsoever. Not the finance director, not the director of facilities. Two of the people that voted against this AD contract cited the need for further discussion to determine whether the AD job should be a contract job or if it should move to be more like the other administrators. This further discussion never materialized so they felt compelled to vote against renewing the contract. That's the reason they gave anyway. I tend to believe them since they have said all along that they didn't want to approve any long term contracts until the new Super came on Board.
At least the new Super now knows what he walked himself into!
*CitizenA*
I agree with several things Citizen A said - wish I had more time to noodle on. I did not see the meeting on TV - so I am going with the PG's account. I was at the June meeting.
The question I have is: Is it true that Mr. Wagner and the District have "a letter from (his) former employer indicating (he) was exonerated" or did they just part "friends." I would have liked a confirmation from the District on this fact. Mr. Wagner put this in play - so it seems the District could have confirmed with his permission.
Secondly - The issue with the AD seemed to be not so much that he told the Coach about the questions/issues - but that he told the Coach who raised them. Having handled dozens of similar situations - it is always my practice to pledege confidentiality to the extent practical to prevent lots a bad things that can come from both valid and unfounded complaints. As well as the good that comes from folks knowing they have somewhere to turn. Depending on the situation confidentiality cannot always be preserved.
Further to Bill's observations:
When I was in the seventh grade, my science teacher was abusive to kids in the classroom: yelling at them, coercing them into doing menial stuff (fetching coffee, for example, from the teacher's lounge), and generally being incomprehensible. I learned nothing in my seventh grade science class.
The mother of one of my classmates complained to the head of the school - by writing a letter. The head of the school did an unbelievably stupid thing: He called the teacher into his office, and he handed over the letter with a request (I assume) to deal with this problem appropriately.
The teacher took the letter back to his classroom and read the letter aloud to his students. As I recall, he accompanied the reading with commentary about the student whose mother had complained on the student's behalf.
One school director said he was not going to say anything about fine arts and was accused of eliminating the band last year. Yet retaliation does not exist!
I watched Monday's (7/16) School Board meeting this evening. A resident asked if the District had received a letter indicated the gentleman had been "exonerated" as previously represented. The solicitor did not say "yes" - - but did indicate the District had received a letter indicating the matter had been "dismissed."
It was a pretty quiet meeting on Monday. A few more rude comments made to the people of presented, but that is nothing new.
The swim coach did show up to make a very brief comment. He said that he was verbally accused one time of sexual harassment but that the case went nowhere.
In my opinion he had already 'won' last week with the outpouring of support from the community and didn't need to say anything. But he felt it important to mention what happened. He clearly is not ashamed of it. That leads me even more to believe that he is on the up and up.
The Board did decide to put the AD contract under discussion with regards to it becoming an 'at-will' position as opposed to a contract position. I am sure this change would not occur until after the newly ratified 3-year contract is up.
*CitizenA*
Bob Williams, writer for the Almanac, published a fair and balanced story of this situation on page three of July 18, 2007 edition... more detail given than the censored televised school board meeting.
Post a Comment
<< Home