Town Square

Post a New Topic

Civil Grand Jury Speaks Out on Ghysels Conflict of Interest

Original post made by Tea Partyer, Old Mountain View, on Jul 1, 2010

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.

Comments (5)

Like this comment
Posted by Seth
a resident of St. Francis Acres
on Jul 2, 2010 at 9:16 am

The school board never wants to face reality. It goes against their agenda.

Like this comment
Posted by Kyle
a resident of Cuesta Park
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.

Like this comment
Posted by reader
a resident of another community
on Jul 8, 2010 at 4:09 pm


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.

Like this comment
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.

Like this comment
Posted by le dude
a resident of Old Mountain View
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.

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Burger chain Shake Shack to open in Palo Alto
By Elena Kadvany | 11 comments | 3,457 views

Eat, Surf, Love
By Laura Stec | 4 comments | 1,164 views

Couples: So You Married Mom or Dad . . .
By Chandrama Anderson | 1 comment | 1,119 views

The Cost of Service
By Aldis Petriceks | 1 comment | 768 views