Civil Grand Jury Speaks Out on Ghysels Conflict of Interest Schools & Kids, posted by Tea Partyer, a resident of the Old Mountain View neighborhood, on Jul 1, 2010 at 9:03 am
Good objective rticle on Conflict of Interest in Local Schools in the SJMerc. Web Link
Too bad the MVWSD Board couldn't man up to these issues when they first broke surrounding Ghsyels. Rather, they shamelessly feted his departure, citing his tenure as nothing but glowing.
On a married Ghysels' romantic relationship with a married principal who he hired and transferred around from low to higher performing school sites:
Grand Jury Question #10: Q: Does your school district have a “romance” in the workplace policy? If yes send a copy. A: No. Claims the District’s Sexual Harassment & Conflict of Interest policies address the situation.
On ex-board member over Ghysels being subsequently hired as a teacher: Q: How many friends & relatives of school district employees & board members are currently employed at your district? Please list employee and relationship. A: No records maintained. 10 employee relatives are known informally.
Posted by Kyle, a resident of the Cuesta Park neighborhood, on Jul 2, 2010 at 11:19 am
This was an attempted cover-up from the start. We were told by the district administrators that there was no precedence for dealing with romance in the office. The Mercury News didn't have to go very far to find one.
Posted by reader, a resident of another community, on Jul 8, 2010 at 4:09 pm
Kyle,
Your statement made me reread the article. I see nothing in there about MV Whisman except in the lead paragraph.
Of course there's "precedence" in the sense that somewhere, somebody had a romantic relationship "in the office." But MV Whisman said then that it did not have a *policy* for dealing with it. Far as I know it still doesn't. This article says that about a third of the county's districts do not have policies in place.
Posted by reader, a resident of another community, on Jul 8, 2010 at 4:13 pm
One more clarification: the Civil Grand Jury did NOT "speak out on Ghysels conflict of interest." It made observations and recommendations generally, to apply to all districts in the county. And the investigation was launched due to a different complaint about a different superintendent. Neither Ghysels nor that supe was named or singled out in the report, and the lead investigator told Nick Veronin that Ghysels was NOT the impetus of the investigation.
Posted by le dude, a resident of the Old Mountain View neighborhood, on Jul 8, 2010 at 7:19 pm
You should query the reporter who wrote the article. The Ghysels incident is a case of point in this area. It's just amazing how the blindly loyal and low the pro-Ghysels Kool Aid drinkers are.
View in an RSS Reader
E-mail this topic.
Print this topic.
