Board members say they
’re focusing on what’s best for students, district finances
In the wake of nationwide attention surrounding the settlement of an anti-harassment suit Tuesday, Morgan Hill School Board trustees mostly agree they are glad the lawsuit will not be going to trial.
“I’m glad this lawsuit is settled,” Board President George Panos. “This settlement signals the end of legal action and the continuation of our primary focus: the goal of educating students in a safe learning environment for all of our children. Let me add that we at Morgan Hill Unified take bullying and any type of harassment very seriously. Bullied students make for lousy learners.”
Trustees voted to approve the settlement agreement for a lawsuit brought by six former Morgan Hill students in 1998. The vote was 4-2, with Trustees Tom Kinoshita, Shellé Thomas, Del Foster and Amina Khemici voting for and Panos and Trustee Mike Hickey voting against approving the settlement agreement.
Trustee Jan Masuda was not present at the vote. Panos did not return a phone call before presstime asking why, if he is glad the suit is settled, he voted against it.
Hickey has many reasons for voting against the settlement. First, he said Thursday, he doesn’t think the lawsuit settlement is centered around the Morgan Hill School District, but around the ACLU’s contention that this training program “should serve as a model for schools everywhere.”
He also believes, he said, that the cost for the training is high, that now the “door has been opened” for other groups to “work their way into the school’s curriculum, and above all, that all district students should be protected equally.
“As a parent of four children in this school district, I do not believe that anyone needs to know about my children’s religion, race or sexual orientation in order not to harm them,” said Hickey. “Nor do my children need to know about anyone’s sexual orientation, religion or race to know that they do not harass them. It’s simple: Don’t harass.”
Panos said the district is not admitting fault.
“As noted, there has been no admission of wrongdoing by the district, and after five years of litigation, there’s no evidence that our district people discriminated against children,” he said. “However, we wanted to avoid the cost and uncertainty of trial. What you don’t need is disruption at the schools by continually pulling administrators out of the schools to testify.”
Foster said his focus was on the best outcome for the students.
“It had to be whatever was best for the kids,” he said. “And to get it over with and go forward. We thought the trial would be more harmful, because of staff time … In the end, I think we came out with the best result we could for the kids.”
Kinoshita agreed that a trial would be both costly and disruptive to the district.
“Looking at the downside, you have to consider the attorney fees, having to reconnect with past employees, staff time. It could be incredibly costly. There is an outside chance we would have lost, then we couldn’t take that chance. This is the best compromise we could make.”
His focus, Kinoshita said, is on student safety.
“This is about protection of all students,” he said. “As we talk about harassment, we’re talking about all students. I don’t see it as a lifestyle issue.”
Thomas said the responsibility of the district is to focus on educating the students in a protective setting.
“Any step we can take to protect kids and to achieve a safe learning environment is a step we need to take,” she said. “Now we can move forward, and work towards making our schools safe for all kids … This has nothing to do with sexual education; this is about discrimination and harassment.”
Thomas said the district needs to proceed with the training, but that because the district is a “microcosm” of the larger society, even that may not eliminate harassment, but at least employees will be prepared to deal with it.
Masuda said harassment is pervasive in society.
“Unfortunately one can find harassment, bullying and put downs in all societies, but that does not make it right,” she said. “While we may not agree with another person’s differences, we all have something in common. We feel hurt when others make fun or criticize our differences.
“Our goal is to teach our children that each of them have a responsibility in making this world a place of peace and mutual respect. As adults it is our responsibility to role model and teach respect in our schools, churches, youth groups and community.”
Superintendent Carolyn McKennan said her aim is to find something positive in the experience.
“We really must treat this as a positive experience,” she said. “Our students deserve the most positive environment possible in which to concentrate on learning. This has to be a positive thing, we have to make it positive.”
McKennan still did not admit wrongdoing by the district.
“Whether I subscribe to the idea that anyone acted with indifference is not material to me,” she said. “What is material to me now is the need to draw from our community, bring some folks in to sit around the table and find ways to make this training meaningful for all kids. This is a chance for our community to pull together to turn this into something good.”
Rumors that McKennan, through Live Oak High Principal Nancy Serigstad, had put a “gag order” on all Live Oak teachers Tuesday turned out to be incorrect.
“On Tuesday, I did not have a copy of what the settlement was, we didn’t know the terms, so I told teachers anyone with questions needed to be referred to the district office,” she said Thursday. “I think I said that it is ‘in your best interests not to speak to students or press.’ When I had a copy of the settlement, I went to the student congress and told them what the basic conditions were. Then I capsulated it and sent out to staff and told them there were people wanting to talk to them, and gave them the numbers to call.”
