Monday, January 31, 2011

Error Correction and (Public) Apology

In an earlier post I wrote about the non-termination of Marianne Pearson. 

I have learned that one of my earlier statements was not accurate. 

One particular charge against Pearson fell under federal law and thus mandated the district to report it to the Ohio Department of Education.  However, a "Consent Agreement" was negotiated between Pearson and the ODE whereby Pearson agreed to accept a 30 day suspension of her teaching license without admission of any wrongdoing.  

Therefore, my earlier posting was not accurate with regard to her license suspension, and I hereby (publicly) apologize for that error. 

(I have also corrected the original posting.)  

1 comment:

C Irmen said...

An attorney is paid to work for his/her client, and should do all that is (legally) in her power to obtain the best outcome for said client. To maintain the integrity of the profession, however, the attorney should never stoop to prevarication. It gives all attorneys a bad name when one of their number stretches the truth beyond recognition.

Case in point: the Letter to the Editor on behalf of Pearson by her attorney, Christine Reardon. She states Pearson's "only recourse" was to request a hearing. If that were truly the case, then the multiple half-hearted offers by Pearson to resign for the nine months prior to the hearing itself had no merit. You simply can't have it both ways - either she had "no recourse" or she did. I submit that the actions of Pearson and her attorney during the months leading up to the hearing show their clear understanding that Pearson did, in fact, have another option. Had any one of those resignation offers come to the Board without including a demand for some type of payment, we wouldn't be having this conversation - nor would the district have had to incur the time and expense of the hearing.

As for Reardon's characterization of the resignation acceptance "saving" the district untold sums by avoiding a lengthy appeal process, I say "hogwash". I have no doubt there would have been an appeal filed if the Board had rejected Pearson's resignation and instead accepted the recommendation of the mediator to terminate her contract. Given the strength of the evidence that resulted in the clear decision on all 5 points being worthy of termination individually (let alone in together!), I submit that the appeal process would have been brief.

Hinting at some altruistic bent by her client throughout this sad scenario is an insult to the Swanton Local School District and the residents whose tax dollars had to be spent on this action instead of our kid's education.