David Peercy responds.

David Peercy is the Policy
Committee Chair. He is the
person most responsible for
preventing a public discussion of the
restoration of the role modeling clause
to the Employee Standards of Conduct.

He, more than any other person in
the leadership of the APS, is preventing
and open and honest discussion of
administrative and executive
role modeling of the student standards of conduct.

The clause reads;

In no case shall the standards of conduct for an adult,
be lower than the standards of conduct for students.

Peercy has copied me, a letter that he wrote in response to
a letter that he had received from one of his constituents.

Thanks for your concerns.
Let me provide some thoughts for your consideration.

(1) Mr. Robbins Proposal
First, it is important that you understand that I do support what is right to do. Second, I do not believe the language of Dave Robbins suggested proposal would add value to what we already have, and in fact may suggest conduct of less value than what we already have. That clearly would not be the right thing to do.

To suggest that our adult behavior be something that "measures up to a minimum of the standards of students" is unacceptable to me. We should in fact aspire to a much HIGHER standard, such as what is stated in the current policy as "APS expects employees to maintain the highest standards of conduct " and also "...shall serve as positive role models for students". These statements apply to all employees and all relationships - adult to adult as well as adult to student. Any suggestion that we need only be as good as or slightly better perhaps than what we expect of our students is not acceptable to me, nor should it be acceptable to you.

The existing policy and the extensive procedural directive information is much more comprehensive and specific about expected code of conduct and behavior in any such APS relationships - the board, administration, teachers, staff, students, parents, and community - than the additional words that Mr. Robbins suggested. And the existing policy language requires a much higher expected behavior and code of conduct than the additional words that Mr. Robbins suggested. I believe Mr. Robbins would agree now that we have presented that information, although the intent of Mr. Robbins' suggestion is clearly understood and in particular there may still be opportunities to improve the existing policy.

(2) Policy and Procedural Improvements
That said, I do believe, as was stated in the meeting, that our existing policies and procedural directives can be improved. That improvement process has already been initiated, actually prior to my involvement. There may be better ways to phrase and improve the existing policy in which you are interested, and that will be reviewed. There are some changes to other policy areas that are needed for clarification as well as ensuring we meet changes to legal requirements of the federal and state laws as well as the State PED. Such changes are reasonably normal since regulations and legislation as well as our own community expectations tend to evolve over time, .

(3) Litigation and Law Suits
The context for this board discussion was in terms of the overall side effect that I'd like to see due to improved policies, procedures, and the implementation of those procedures. With improvements and effective implementations, it is expected that there might be fewer reasons why anyone would need to seek remedies outside of the normal processes for conflict resolution. The result won't be zero litigation, but such litigation is costly to the district and to reduce that cost would be a worthy result. The context of the board discussion was not to ensure that any changes did not "cause" lawsuits, but rather that such changes would be value-added and hence reduce such lawsuits.

Reducing litigation is of course not the primary goal of our policies and procedures improvement, but hopefully a good side benefit. Part of the "right thing to do" is to be consistent with what is legally required - that in itself is a policy requirement.


Thanks again for your concerns. I will do the best I can to ensure that our policies, procedures, and implementations are improved and effective. I'm sure you heard in the board discussion that the administration is clearly in support of that effort.

Sincerely,
Dave Peercy

And my specific objections to Peercy's claims;

1. Peercy writes; Any suggestion that we need only be as good as or slightly better perhaps than what we expect of our students is not acceptable to me, nor should it be acceptable to you.

The truth;
the proposed language creates a floor, not a ceiling.

Peercy writes as if the role modeling clause read;

In no case shall the standards of conduct for an adult
be higher than the standards for students.

It does not of course, so his claim that restoring the clause
somehow lowers the expectation for adults, flies in the face
of the reality which is, it raises the standard for adults.

2. Peercy writes; ... the existing policy language requires a much higher expected behavior and code of conduct than the additional words that Mr. Robbins suggested. (which) "... in fact may suggest conduct of less value ...

There are no higher standards of conduct than ethical
standards of conduct.

The student standards of conduct represent a nationally recognized, accepted, and respected code of ethical conduct. The simple truth is that the standards for adults don't come close. I would challenge Dr. Peercy to point to even one "...existing policy and the extensive procedural directive ..." that comes anywhere close to an ethical standard of conduct.

In particular, I would like to point out that the student standards
of conduct require truth telling, and further that, Peercy
cannot point to any place in the standards for adults that
requires anything more than not lying.

Feel good language like; highest standards of conduct " and also "...shall serve as positive role models for students"
is completely unenforceable because it does not point to any specific definition. Nowhere will you find written, the meaning of "highest standards" or "positive role modeling".

On the other hand, student standards do point to a written document with unequivocal and explicit definitions link, and therefore, are enforceable.

The truth is; Dr. Peercy cannot point to any place in APS rules,
regulations, policies or procedures that even come close
to measuring up to the six Pillars of Character Counts!,
period.

By any reasonable measure, student standards of conduct
are higher standards by far, than adult standards.

3. Peercy writes; With improvements and effective implementations,
it is expected that there might be fewer reasons why anyone would need
to seek remedies outside of the normal processes for conflict resolution.

One of the strongest arguments in support of the Pillars of
Character Counts! is that with respect to litigation and lawsuits,
adherence to the Pillars of Character Counts! absolutely
eliminates the need for any litigation at all. The Pillars require
all participants to pursue a principled resolution of any dispute.

A principled resolution guarantees a fair resolution, and renders
litigation unnecessary except in the pursuit of an unfair resolution.

The only reason APS litigates is to prevent a fair resolution of
disputes, and to make Modrall lawyers wealthy.

In my own case, a principled resolution of my complaint would
have cost tax payers far less in the long run, than it cost to pay
Modrall lawyers to prevent that resolution.

Were one looking for the biggest difference between the
Student Standards of Conduct, and the Employee Standards
of Conduct, it is that; the Student Standards of Conduct
require honest accountability to those higher standards,
and the Employee Standards of Conduct do not require
honest accountability to any standard of conduct at all,
even the law.

The bottom line;
the refusal to restore the Role Modeling clause to the
Employee Standards of Conduct, is indefensible.

And, David Peercy's refusal to entertain any kind of public
discussion of the restoration of the Role Modeling clause to
the Employee Standards of Conduct, illuminates his
intention to avoid circumstances where he can be compelled
to defend his indefensible positions, or where any of his claims
can be questioned.

cc Peercy upon posting.




photo Mark Bralley