School board rejects call to pursue discharge of superintendent

On the evening of Tuesday, May 29 the main hallway of New Rockford--Sheyenne School was lined with community members who awaited a special School Board meeting that had been called by Board President John McKnight. Many of those in attendance held up signs and donned buttons in support of Superintendent Jill Louters.

As President of the School Board, McKnight had been tasked with investigating three patron complaints the district had received against Louters. In conducting the investigation, McKnight found that an incident did occur, which Superintendent Louters acknowledged. McKnight recommended that the School Board pursue the discharge of Superintendent Louters with cause for conduct unbefitting a superintendent, as per N.D.C.C. 15.1-14-04.

During the special School Board meeting, no information or details were provided on the investigation. McKnight explained that the details were withheld so the board could remain impartial in their decision making should further action be taken. If the Board voted to accept McKnight’s recommendation and pursue discharge proceedings, he would schedule a due process hearing in the next 30 days and petition for an administrative law judge to preside. In the due process hearing, both parties would present information and evidence, and the final decision would rest with the School Board.

McKnight said he would abstain from the vote, as he could be called as a witness should the Board decide to pursue a discharge hearing. The motion to pursue McKnight’s recommendation was made by Roger Duda and seconded by Todd Duchscherer. The motion failed on a 4-2 vote with Alyson Myhre, Eric Myhre, Mary Kay Price and John Grann voting no. Roger Duda and Todd Duchscherer voted yes.

Following the vote, McKnight made no other recommendations regarding action to be taken by the Board. Rather, he resigned from his position on the School board declaring, “This is an organization that I do not want to be a part of, and as of this moment I’m resigning (my position).”

On Wednesday, staff from the New Rockford Transcript reached out to board members for further comment. In regards to his resignation, McKnight said he had made the decision while at the meeting, adding “I felt like (the board’s) priorities were in the wrong spot.” He said that he didn’t want the family who made the complaint to feel that they weren’t heard. “It takes a lot of nerve to make a complaint,” he noted.

Transcript staff also obtained a copy of the investigation report prepared by McKnight, which outlined the nature of the complaints and Louters’ response. The first complaint, according to the investigation report, was received on April 4.

The parent of a fifth grade student alleged that Louters had stayed in a hotel room with her son and three other fifth grade boys on Friday, March 23 during the North Dakota National Archery in the Schools State Tournament in Minot. The parent stated that Louters did not have permission from the parents, nor did she notify the parents of the sleeping arrangements. The parent was concerned that such behavior was inappropriate for the superintendent.

On May 17, another parent filed a formal written complaint that echoed the concerns of the first parent. Both parents stated that if they had known male children were staying with a female administrator, they would not have given permission.

In an interview with McKnight on April 8, Louters confirmed that she did, in fact, stay in a hotel room as a chaperone for her son and three other male students. She asserted that nothing inappropriate occurred during the overnight stay.

There is no school district policy in place that directs staff and chaperones to only share rooms with students of the same gender during overnight trips. The policy that does address school-sponsored trips, Policy FFF, states the following in regards to supervision: “On all school sponsored trips involving students, provision will be made for proper supervision by school employees. Parents or other approved adults may assist in such supervision.”

In his investigation report, McKnight cited three other policies that he said were relevant to the situation, including DEBD- Staff-Student Relations, which states, “The Board believes that students and staff members should interact with each other in a warm, open and positive fashion. However, there must be maintained a certain distance in order to preserve the businesslike atmosphere that is necessary to achieve the educational mission of the school.” The other policies he referenced were KABA, School-Parent Relations Goals, which outlines parent rights in regards to communication and supervision of students, and CAAA, the Superintendent Job Description.

There were several questions among Board members about the process used by McKnight in conducting his investigation and recommending Louters’ removal. The school district policy manual addresses the process in detail in KACB-E3, Responding to Personnel Complaints, and answers 12 commonly asked questions about the process. The school district policy manual is available on the school district’s website. Below are a couple questions that are particularly relevant in this case:

Should the Board answer questions about the incident at a board meeting or on an individual basis when approached by the public?

No. Board members should simply state that the matter has been referred to the appropriate school official for investigation, and the investigator will recommend the appropriate course of action upon completion of the investigation. By answering questions at a board meeting or on an individual basis in public, the Board may invite charges of libel and slander or inadvertently disclose information protected by the investigation confidentiality statute (NDCC 15.1-07-25).

In addition, board members should avoid gathering and disseminating information about a personnel incident because they may ultimately be required to serve as decision makers in a school district nonrenewal or discharge hearing and they must remain as impartial as possible.

How is an investigation of a superintendent or business manager different than an investigation of a school employee?

The Board President conducts the investigation of the Superintendent and Business Manager, reporting back to the Board. When reporting back to the Board, the Board President should explain whether or not the complaint was substantiated and what action was taken, if any. The Board President should not discuss any further details of the investigation with other board members (prevents premature decision making and potential open meeting violations), especially at board meetings (libel and slander prevention safeguard), but may direct them to the investigation report in the superintendent’s or business manager’s file.

As of now, it appears no formal action will be taken by the board against Louters based on those parent complaints. The third complaint against Louters has not yet been investigated, and it is unclear whether it is related to this incident or not. The next School Board meeting is scheduled for June 11, 2018 at 7 p.m.