Dialogue--if civil and reasonable--is good, especially when dealing with matters that folks feel deeply and passionately about. Sometimes, the only way to reach a solution to a problem is to find out why other folks think the things they do, and the only way to do that is to discuss matters. I welcome any comment that is civil, reasonable, and not a personal attack.
A comment from a Gap area person--Another Norwegian ---was left at my blog entry titled, " Don't See Much Healing" . That commenter made several points I would like to talk about.
Another Norwegian stated that, as I understood it, Sandy McMahan, former Cranfills Gap ISD school secretary, was to be trained to also take care of a handicapped person and resigned on account of that job change. I would like to point out that taking care of a handicapped student is not normally the job of a school secretary, but is usually the job of the teacher or aide employed under Special Education. (In this case, would that have been teacher Laura Rose, who was teaching Special Education illegally without a certificate? Laura is the sister-in-law of Kathie Witte, Cranfills Gap ISD board member and the best friend of School Superintendent Carla Sigler-- don't forget, nepotism is big at Cranfills Gap! )
Working with Special Education is not usually the job of a school secretary, which was Sandy's job title as listed on the official Cranfills Gap ISD website. I would be interested to know if Janet Cox--- who took Sandy's place and is now listed as school secretary--- was also trained to assist handicapped students and is Janet caring for handicapped students as part of her job duties? Does Janet perform the same duties expected of Sandy in that position? Or was Sandy told that assisting handicapped students was now part of her job and she was expected to do it ---- Either you do this or you can quit!---and thus, when Sandy objected, was she purposely and deceitfully forced out?
And what exactly were these new job duties? What would you actually be doing if you assisted a handicapped student? Would this assisting be added to your present job duties? Would you even be doing the job you were originally hired to do, or had the job description changed so much that it was not the same job?
I refused a permanent well-paying job as a Special Education aide, because---among other things which were distasteful to me--- I would have had to lift the student--who weighed quite a bit more than me --from their wheelchair and place them on the commode--the toilet--remove a portion of their clothing, then----how do I delicately say this?---- after they were finished with vital functions, make sure they were wiped and clean before I replaced their clothing, and then lifted them back in their wheelchair. I would have had to do this as necessary, at least several times a day, and, with my bad back from lifting hay and feed all my life, I would have been physically unable to perform this job, and, even without the bad back, I would have intensely disliked this job.
This is what a nursing home employee's job duties entail, and this job would not be a good fit for me. Not that I would not like the student---I just would not like the job, and if you don't like what you do, you cannot do it well for very long, and that would be a job I would hate. I would not be a good nurse, though I could do it if I absolutely had to, but again, not for long. I am not a good fit as a nurse, as I am better at and prefer other ways of making a living. Like most folks, I could not love what I do for a living if I had to do things unpleasant or distasteful to me to make that living.
As a small business owner and a boss for many years and as an employee for large and small companies, I have heard objections from employees and even stated objections myself in front of others when job duties were unexpectedly ---and sometimes unfairly--- changed. (Several times I discovered I was not being paid the salary I had been hired at. Believe me, I was not a happy camper and became quite vocal!)
Several times I have heard others say and have said myself that I would possibly have to find another job when job duties were changed---- others have heard me say that---- however, those statements did not constitute a resignation. As the boss of my own small businesses and as a boss at companies I have worked for, I have always required a resignation to be submitted in writing,so there would be no question of whether an employee resigned or was terminated (fired!), as often the unemployment office would consider it hearsay or "he said--she said" in determining if unemployment insurance funds were payable by the company to the fired employee.
Many companies approve unethical and illegal ways to keep from paying required unemployment funds to those who are entitled to them under the law in their particular situation----to save the company money and sometimes just out of spite and ill will toward a former employee. And then there are those companies who want to get rid of the employee that they makes it so hard on the employee that the employee finally throws up their hands in disgust and quits. Texas is an At Will employment state, and there are a lot of unfair and unethical ways to get an employee who has become undesirable-- for whatever reason-- to quit.
Sometimes I could talk to my bosses and work out a solution suitable to both of us, and sometimes I could not. None of those--the boss or the bystanders who heard me voice my objections to job duty or pay changes ever thought I was resigning by hearing my statements at that time. I have also been a boss many times and have heard objections from employees about job duty changes. Never at any time did I consider their objections as an official resignation--rather, just what it was---an attempt for discussion about job changes, which is fair and reasonable to all parties concerned.
Many times after discussion, it turned out that there was a better way to deal with it, and that really was not the best person for the job after all. At the very least, duiscussion got everyone on the same page. In my mind, voicing objections to job changes is not resigning from a job.
As for the four teachers' statements saying they heard Sandy say she quit, I doubt that these four teachers just jumped up and volunteered to write statements as to what they heard about a co-worker and probably friend. With the documented track record of Cranfills Gap School Superintendent Carla Sigler, I wonder if these teachers felt coerced--- felt they had to make those statements in order to keep their jobs ---or they also wanted Sandy out so Janet Cox could be putin---nepotism, remember? I would be interested to know if one of those teachers who submitted a signed statement was Laura Rose, who is kin to Janet Cox by marriage---"Aunt Janet" to Laura--and did any of the other teachers have a personal interest?
The end result is that apparently Sigler wanted Sandy out to make way for Janet, and that is what happened. We can only surmise as to how it happened, as there is so much conflicting information. Sandy has moved on to bigger and better things, but the way it was done certainly makes it seem like a decitful ploy to force her out.
Another Norwegian, you also stated that Carol Nelson was only a half-time employee as a Cranfills Gap custodian and would not have had health insurance as a result. If that were the case, why would Carla Sigler have had Carol fill out all the COBRA paperwork and submit it,if Carol was not eligible? Did Carol ever have insurance? Why were health insurance coverage payments set up and being deducted from her paycheck if she never had the coverage? As I understand it, if you ever have coverage, you are by law eligible to continue it for eighteen months after you are no longer employed if you submit the proper paperwork, but it would be at your own and not the company's expense. Something here does not make sense.
As for Another Norwegian's statement that Michelle Dubay had ten jobs in ten years, how is that relevant to the fact that Laura Rose was breaking the law--committing the white collar crime of teaching without a certificate and drawing state funds as salary for that fraud---teaching two subjects actually, one subject without a certificate for many years? This is to say nothing of harm done to students by not having the certified teacher in the classroom as required by law.
Anyone-- even you, Another Norwegian-- could have accessed the teacher certificate website on the internet or through Texas Education Agency, as it is public record----Michelle Dubay just happened to be the one who inadvertently discovered it and was maliciously punished by the vindictive actions of Carla Sigler, while the real criminal, Laura Rose, remained in place at the school, still breaking the law. Another Norwegian, if you had been the one who had discovered that Laura Rose was breaking the law, would your job history-- and any reputation you might have or not have --be relevant to the fact that Laura Rose was breaking the law? Of course it would not be relevant, and neither is anything about Michelle Dubay's job history.
Aother Norwegian, you may not be aware that many teachers and others in the education field change jobs yearly for many different reasons--- more money, a better professional fit somewhere else, family circumstances, etcetera. The majority are women who follow their husbands when they move to different jobs---the reasons are myriad.
Master Science and Chemistry teachers--- like Michelle Dubay--- as well as math teachers-- are especally in demand, since Science and Math are what Americans score the lowest in on the required tests, and many teachers of these particular subjects are offered the opportunity to change jobs all the time. The fact that Michelle Dubay has been employed over and over by the school system speaks volumes for her desirabilty as an employee.
In our mobile, global economy of today, it is unheard of to stay in one job forever. And, as I said before, Michelle's Dubay's background does not change the fact that Laura Rose was committing a crime and drawing a huge salary from the state.
I personally believe that Laura Rose should be punished and forced to make restitution to the state for her fraud. The huge amount of taxpayer money she was fraudulently paid through those many years, could be put toward Texas students' pressing needs, and not into her pocket as a reward for knowingly and willfully breaking the law. And if others knew about her breaking the law, especially if they were on the school board--as were her husband, Jeff Rose, and her sister-in-law, Kathie Witte--- those others should be punished also, as they would be an accessory to the crime. If her husband or others benefitted financially from this fraud, they should also be forced to make restitution. State money should be spent in the best interests of students, not to line the pockets of lawbreakers who rip off the taxpayers.
And by the way, Another Norwegian, when you find some of those folks who can tell you what I look like, please let me now what they said. Just Kidding! Not that it would matter to me all that much anymore, as I am of the age to realize that it is not appearance that makes you who you are, it is what is inside you and how you treat others.
No comments:
Post a Comment