Antioch School Board Moves to Censure Debra Vinson After Investigation Reveals Intimidation of Employees

On Wednesday night, the Antioch Unified School District Board of Trustees in a 3-2 vote took several actions against Trustee Debra Vinson including censure.

The move was in response to a report released Friday by the Antioch Unified School District as part of the School Board Agenda, it provides findings regarding a complaint against School Board Trustee Debra Vinson.

The investigation has to date cost the school District $20,119 to look into allegations that Trustee Vinson engaged in bullying and intimidation related to transferring a student to Orchard Park School.

According to the Summary of Findings, Van Dermyden Maddux says they found that Vinson engaged in conduct, as alleged based on consistent interactions of the witnesses, there credibility and corroborating. They also found despite every opportunity to do so, Vinson did not provide any information to the contrary.

The findings of the investigation revealed that:

• Vinson engaged in intimidating conduct towards two employees.
• Vinson improperly attempted to exercise administrative responsibility and commanded the services of two school employees.
• Vinson used her position to pressure two District employees into making a decision that was contrary to Board policy.

School Board Meeting Recap:

During public comments, multiple speakers spoke in support of Vinson.

Heath Lenoble stated during public comments that he had worked with Board Member Vinson and questioned the integrity of the report based on a single line in the document where it stated “this is troubling for someone serving as a trustee” which to him sounded like an opinion and opinion by an investigative work.

“I just have worry in the credibility of the report,” s

My Christian also spoke during public comments who spoke on behalf of Vinson and her character stating when she read the report, she had some concerns.

“I believe that the information provided was not complete and did not contain any information from Debra’s side but also the terms within the report we were not prevue too nor the individuals names who filed the complained which was one sided and jaded, the terms racist and the fact that they said she intimidated and bullied them. Those are some very harsh terms without reading them, those characteristics are harsh and in bullying and would like to know more information about how they felt threatened for their lives and how this woman could somehow physically, mentally, emotionally or financially could really hurt them,” said Christian. “The person I know of Debra Vinson is one of integrity, passion, and I have seen her like no other board member at so many events that it’s unreal.”

Willy Mims, education chair of NAACP, questioned this whole item being on the agenda because it should have been reported out at the last meeting and challenged the legality of it.

“The investigator uses terms of totality of evidence,  what totality? You have two employees, two incidents occurring on separate days, you don’t have five, six, seven or ten, you have to,” said Mims. “My concern is why did it have to go this far. When we look at the situation it is somewhat of a kangaroo court.”

Board President Walter Ruehlig stated he disagreed with Mr. Mims comments because they did not reach a consensus at the last meeting and the decision was made after the meeting.

Chrystal Sawyer-White interjected saying she believed the Board should have come to consensus before this led to litigation and investigation and met in closed session months ago.

“I find this troubling that it has gone this far and as a board we should come together,” said Sawyer-White. “No one actually spoke to Ms. Vinson and as a Vice President of this Board I think we should be communicating more often. It was difficult for me to come here today. This is a sad day and we need to communicate more as a board for the sake of the kids.”

Janet King spoke in support of Vinson and hoped she will stay in office for the children in the Antioch Unified School District.

“It would be a shame to see someone like Debra fall to a recall, I hate the word because it sounds like you are trying to erase something, I am standing here before of you in support of Debra that this whole nightmare that she is going through just disappears,” said King.

Ruehlig then provided an overview about the investigation for public record.

The actions that could be taken included:

• Take no action
• Letter of the Board to Vinson directing her to communicate inquires or requests for information or documents solely to the superintendent and not to communicate with other district offices unless authorized by the board to do so. This could be limited to a period of time.
• Letter from the Board to the employees or administrators letting them know they are not to respond to the requests from Trustee Vinson but instead but may refer her requests to the Superintendent for handling
• Direct the Board President to work with the Attorney on a Censure Resolution against Trustee Vinson and presented to the Board for consideration – a formal and group condemnation of an individual.
• Revoke her title as Vice President of the School Board

Debra Vinson then spoke and read a prepared a statement which read which she said was her side

Debra Vinson, AUSD Trustee

“I regret the untimely coordination of meeting with legal counsel which came too late for the investigator. My attorney and I attempted to contact Ms. Maddux, however, we were not able to contact an agreed upon schedules because of my work schedule and because of her schedule so I just want to be clear that it was not a total avoidance. The other thing I want to say is this isn’t really to put out any sort of defensive stand but to give a perspective on what happened and how it happened.

I don’t work in the District; I don’t have access to employees. I work during the day so it was very perplexing to me to hear the accusations of intimidation and bullying. I am someone that have a staunch belief against intimidation and bullying because many students won’t come to school each day because of what happens on school campuses with intimidation and bullying, it’s a very serious offense. Typically speaking, to intimidate and bully, number one you have to have full access to an individual on a regular basis and it’s not a one-time occurrence, it is something that continues over and over again and it’s very harmful.

The other thing that I have concerns about is there is the perception that I did something in isolation, I actually have emails to prove that I was communicating with our Superintendent and our board president and was really just following a direction, I really didn’t do anything on my own. I did have access and was given permission to contact employees and to speak with them about this matter. I know that it seems like I did something on my own but I did not.

The other thing that I would like to say is that as a passionate employee when a parent says I need help, it’s been 10-days, I need help, I can’t make any decisions, I can’t make any individual decisions as a board trustee but I can forward items to our superintendent and can follow our superintendents direction. So I feel that is what happened.  I do not ever, ever, have ever intimidated a person and that sounds just harsh and rude and I just think that is really harmful. I think often times with people of color, if you have a passion and a strong voice it can be misinterpreted. But if your not demanding someone, if your not standing their telling them if you don’t do this, this will happen or you better to do this or this will happen, to me, that is intimidation and none of those actions occurred. I would hope that nobody in the school district engages in that behavior. I as a trustee would never, ever tell someone you better do this or else.

The other thing I would say is that I don’t even know the outcome of the situation. I don’t know what happened. This transfer situation, I have no idea where the student was placed. I don’t know if the parent had the chance to send the student to the school that she requested because there was a concern of safety. I have no follow up information. Once I was informed that the employees followed through, I left the situation alone.

The other piece I would say about this is, I think there is some, I think there is some generational issues in board members and how we serve. For those of us who are 21^st century, very culturally relevant and meeting the needs of the community that we serve in Antioch, we have a difference of philosophy and opinion. I really follow being a school board trustee to the letter that the California School Board Association has put out.  They encourage you to be in the community and the top 10 things they say is No. 10, students first, No 1 is students first, communities and families in between and I follow that to the letter. I will go on record and say I have the same advocacy for employees. So if any employee came to me and said X, Y, Z … I will work with the Superintendent  but I have advocated fiercely for employees to have work through any issues of concern because I am getting reports and issues all the time and as a trustee I have to balance if I am going to bog the superintendent down with those issues because she has her daily tasks because if I am going to talk to the community and refer them back to the protocols that are in place.

So I would like to say that I will go on public record to say that I did not nor I have I ever, gotten in an employee’s face and threatened them and intimidated them forced them, told them they better do this, you need to do that. I think there is some misperception. I do have a strong voice. I do have a strong tone. I know different people have told me that before, but when they get to know me, they know my heart, they know that I will give you the shirt off of my back, I will come to your defense. So I just want to say in general in terms to the accusations. I am denying them. I did not ever go into an employee’s face and threaten their job and say you better do this. As a Board Trustee, I would honestly like to know what happened with that student. I’d like to know, I don’t know what happened. I’ll add more comments later, but that is speaking from my heart, I am just perplexed to see this.

Trustee Gary Hack asked the lawyer to explain the investigation which were summarized by Mr. Ruehlig. Hack requested more information about the communication between Ms. Vinson and legal along with the timeline.

Legal explained that when an outside investigator is requested, they determine who is to be interviewed and come up with a plan. The complaint was received in February and the investigation commenced sometime after that.

Hack asked why it took this long to conduct an investigation. Legal replied that it had to do with document review, steps taken, reviews, and if witnesses are unavailable, they can delay in investigation. There is also follow up that occurs.

Trustee Chrystal Sawyer-White said normally during an investigation based on her own research, wouldn’t trustee Vinson have the opportunity to get legal representation before you call her time and time again. She didn’t have any time one day after another and she works during the day.

“It seemed like it was more harassment to me,” said Sawyer-White.

Legal stated she could not speak for the investigator, other than the actions were documented in the investigators findings and they do what they need to do to contact witnesses and they want their reports to be completed on sound facts.

Sawyer-White again pressed legal on the right to an attorney. Legal responded there is no right to an attorney, simply Ms. Vinson could obtain one if she wanted during the investigative process.  She stated at some point investigations have to close if they feel they have an unresponsive witness.

Diane Gibson-Gray asked if Ms. Vinson would have participated in the investigation, she would have had a conference with the attorney would have said something along the lines of on this particular day, did you have a conversation with this person about that. At that point, she would have gotten more information on the complaint itself.

“The reason it is in this form is because it was one-sided and the participation wasn’t there,” said Gibson-Gray.

Legal responded that in any investigation, an investigator is going to determine whether or not what questions to ask, they will answer questions the witness has so there is a back and forth between the investigator and any witness.

“So they have to provide enough information to make sense of why the complaint is happening,” said Gibson.

Legal agreed.

Hack said the first email happened February 28 and the first email exchange was in March 28 and its now August.

“That is a long time that there has been no conversation between the parties,” said Hack. “If you look at the document there is a delineation of what happened or did not happen.”

He then asked Superintendent Stephanie Anello, since Vinson mentioned her in her initial comments, can you share your interpretation.

“I am not looking at the documents she has, but what I recall is that Ms. Vinson sent me an email about Orchard Park and whether or not it was open to transfers. I said I will get that information and she said she had questions about the intra-district transfer policy is my recollection,” said Vinson. “She said something about contacting Bob Sanchez and I said I will let him know to contact you if you have questions regarding policy.”

Vinson then provided clarifications.

“So initially, I forwarded the email from the parent to you. I asked, because the parent had such a specific request because the child was home schooled and was concerned about his safety and social adjustment, that activated by advocacy for children. So then I think your initial response was you didn’t know and it was Bob’s department and you would notify him that I have some questions and that I would speak to him.”

Hack then wanted to clarify because some of the public speakers here this evening because they misunderstood what you were saying were referencing the recall effort.

“This has nothing to do with the recall effort, absolutely nothing. There is three issues we are not talking about. Recall effort we are not talking about at all. There is an with AEA and being asked of employees, that is a second issue, that is not what we are talking about. I think what we are talking about now is what you are here this evening to address,” said Hack.

Ruehlig interjected that to bring it down to an understandable level.

“The board acts as a whole and there is no individual on a board who has the authority to go out and make individual actions of authority. The only employee we have is the superintend, the rest are managed by the superintendent,” explained Ruehlig.  “The allegations here whether you believe them or not and obviously there is a difference of opinion as to the veracity of them is that Trustee Vinson went out to employees and commanded them to do certain actions which she wouldn’t be allowed to do. Number two, those actions contravened board policy. Number three, there was an allegation of an atmosphere of bullying and intimidation.”

Vinson then stated she followed up to speak with both employees in a very brief conversation and followed up with Ms. Anello while stating she only sent emails to Ms. Anello to communicate the issue and only with Ms. Anello.

Hack then explained again this has been going on since March and no decision was made during closed session other than we wanted to go to an open session while reading the summary of findings in the document.

“I don’t know if this is accurate of not. I was not a part of the investigation but this was because the District thought for whatever reason that they needed to hire an outside person to conduct an investigation,” said Hack. “These are the findings, and it said in engaged in intimidating conduct towards two district employees. These are the findings, not my comments. Improperly attempted to exercise administrative responsibility and command the services of two school employees. That is not appropriate for a board member. That is why we are here in open session by choice.”

Vinson interjected saying the open session was her choice while stating it was at her request because she did not receive the findings.

Hack responded the findings were there at closed session.

“I hear you,” said Vinson. “In terms of the time and length between, I was actually in a car accident so I had to get treatment between that whole time. I had emails and sent emails. Received treatment and then followed up with Ms. Maddux, each time I scheduled time with her, it just didn’t work out.” Explained Vinson. “I understand that this says and to the average person this looks bad, but I assure you it is what it is.”

Sawyer-White then said she wanted to start from the beginning saying she did not believe an investigation was needed if all the board members held a meeting and spoke with Ms. Vinson.

“It seems as if the investigator was hired without the Board of Trustees approval,” said Sawyer-White.

Hack explained that may be true but the board does not dictate what the District chooses to do on a regular basis.

Sawyer-White stated this involved the vice-president of the Board and it should be revealed who hired the investigator and the cost of the attorney that is costing the District.

Superintendent Anello said when she was made aware of the complaints she referred it to the Board President Walter Ruehlig because it would not be appropriate for her to address the board in that matter and said Ruehlig then reached out to the Boards attorney.

Sawyer-White responded that the president of the board should have informed Ms. Vinson that she was going to be investigated.

Both Ruehlig and Gibson-Gray responded there was no such policy in place while Gibson-Gray highlighted last year when a complaint came up while she was Board President, she made the decision to contact the attorney and Vinson participated in that investigation where she issued a letter of apology.

Sawyer-White then argued that Vinson should be forewarned that she was going to be investigated.

Gibson-Gray responded it would not be appropriate because only the Board President can contact the attorney.

Ruehlig then stated that although Ms. Vinson was in a car accident, it was several months into the investigation while she also continued to carry on school board business (from the attorney).

“I have to be frank, you read through this it’s one excuse after another. One week its Skype, the next week its traffic, the next week I have a busy work week, the next week it’s a car accident, the next week its oh I am getting an attorney,” said Ruehlig. “I spoke to one investigator and normally he allows three attempted contacts and after that he pulls the plug. We did 15-attempted contacts.”

Ruehlig then called for the board to discuss potential action or inaction.

Gibson-Gray then asked the District HR Director if the board got together and decided we would not take any action but you have employee complaints, what would be the exposure to the District.

She replied that would be a legal question but could be open to litigation.

Hack stated the District cannot ignore this not that there is a pattern but there is more than one incident.

“This has been thoroughly investigated and everyone has seen the documents,” said Hack.

Gibson-Gray stated

“The biggest concern I have is the lack of response on Debra’s part. 25-days it took to return a phone call. First response came 25-days after the first contact. Regardless if you were in an accident I would think you could reach out and make a phone call,” said Gibson-Gray. “You also returned a call at 9:22 pm knowing that no one would be in the office you indicated that you wanted to work a few things out and would hopefully be able to reach out within the next couple of weeks. It just moves it further and further down the road. These employees, it took a lot for them to come forward and have a charge against a board member. It should have been investigated equally from both sides. You have this side, that side and a decision. That is what should have happened.  The second response came 15-days after that phone call was made and 40-days after initial contact. As board members we are constantly asked to respond quickly and be available for District business.”

She called the Executive Summary a third party opinion and that it was validated by the employees that she spoke with  and should have spoken to you.

“When we are Board Members, we have a position of power whether perceived or not. People perceive us as being able to go out in public and do things we can’t do. We are constantly asked to do things we can’t do whether its move my child or not. We only have one employee, we have no power,” said Gibson-Gray. “In all honesty our employees, our parents, our students have more power than we do. We need to dial down when we are in public and have our employees feeling comfortable and confident in talking to us in a matter that disagreed with us or not. When I first became a board member someone explained to me it’s not how much power you have its what you do with it. And power cannot be welded whether you meant to or not, the perception is you used your power to make something happen. Again, I wish I heard more before we got to this point.”

She further highlighted how employees deserve a place free of intimidation and perceived power of board members.

“As this is the second formal complaint, I feel that the steps we need to take as a board member will send a strong message to all employees so we can do nothing or we can do something on that list,” said Gibson-Gray.

Hack said in this issue, it was an inappropriate action to tell employees to do “this or that” and had no desire to reduce Vinson’s ability as a board member but two times it’s been inappropriate and believed the board should react so it doesn’t happen a third, fourth or fifth time.

The board was then directed by legal that it could only provide direction and could not take action Wednesday night—it would be at a future meeting.

Ruehlig stated this whole process has brought him no pleasure and it was not a vendetta.

“This is no fun, I’ve been on the board for 11-years and this is uncharted waters for me,” said Ruehlig. “It didn’t have to happen his way, it really didn’t. We had hoped that with the investigator some discussion would be had, cooperation would exist and resolution concluded without it ever getting to the public.”

Ruehlig again acknowledged they had no intention of bringing it to open session, but rather it was Trustee Vinson desire to do so.

“I have to believe this report,” said Ruehlig. “We didn’t hire these people on a lark, if you hire them you are assuming that you have some trust in their findings.”

Sawyer-White stated again she believed the first step would have been to meet as a board to address this issue and we did not hear Trustee Vinson’s side of the story.

“My opinion is the investigator constantly calling her asking her questions is not giving her the option to hire an attorney,” said Sawyer-White.

Gibson-Gray said we are elected officials and not employees who can be fired, but have to be held to certain standards.

“I feel that in this case, that standard was not met. Nor was the lack of response at 25-days and another 40-days before it continue. I feel that I have to speak up for the employees and recommend all of the actions on the list be implemented,” said Gibson-Gray. “I’m on my third term, I’ve been on the city planning commission, parks and recreation commissioner, and I’ve never seen anything like this between an elected official and employee.”’

Ruehlig again read off the options the board could take and when the topic of vice presidency came up, Gibson-Gray stated with three months left, that is a decision they could make in December.  Meanwhile the timeline would be six-months on the options taken by the board.

Hack said the recommendation by Gibson-Gray were good with him.

In a 3-2 vote with Vinson and Sawyer-White dissenting, direction was given to have legal draft a course of action against Trustee Vinson.

The recommendation includes:

• Letter of the Board to Vinson directing her to communicate inquires or requests for information or documents solely to the superintendent and not to communicate with other district offices unless authorized by the board to do so. (6-months)
• Letter from the Board to the complainants and other employees letting them know they are not to respond to the requests from Trustee Vinson but instead but may refer her requests to the Superintendent for handling  (6-months)
• Direct the Board President to work with the Attorney on a Censure Resolution against Trustee Vinson and present them to the Board for consideration.

These items will be brought back at a future meeting for the Board to vote on them.