Judge Beetem affirms Linn R-2 board’s decision to terminate Winslow

By Neal A. Johnson, UD Editor
Posted 5/12/21

Cole County Circuit Court Judge Jon E. Beetem on May 9 ruled that the Linn R-2 school board's decision to terminate former Linn R-2 Elementary Principal Lorie Winslow’s contracts are …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

E-mail
Password
Log in

Judge Beetem affirms Linn R-2 board’s decision to terminate Winslow

Posted

Cole County Circuit Court Judge Jon E. Beetem on May 9 ruled that the Linn R-2 school board's decision to terminate former Linn R-2 Elementary Principal Lorie Winslow’s contracts are affirmed.
This judgment comes almost a year after Winslow was terminated by the board on May 18, 2020, for her failure to submit all of the completed teacher evaluations as directed and for speaking with a fellow administrator and school board members about a family member of a staff member who tested positive for COVID-19.
Judge Beetem in his judgment noted that Winslow was familiar with the district’s policies, including Policy 4630 regarding staff conduct, which requires compliance with all board policies and directives from administrators.
Winslow’s contract stated that she may be terminated “following notice and a hearing, for any good cause, including but not limited to any material breach, or any cause stated by law for the termination of permanent or probationary teachers.”
Winslow’s attorney David J. Moen, of Jefferson City, said he may file an appeal with the Western District Court of Appeals on the grounds that Judge Beetem considered elements not outlined in the charges against his client, which ultimately led to her termination. Winslow has 40 days from the May 9 ruling to file an appeal.
According to Judge Beetem’s ruling, it was noted that no later than Jan. 31, 2020, Superintendent Dena Smith had completed an evaluation that advised Winslow she had failed to comply with administrative directives in numerous ways, and recounted several instances of dishonesty in Winslow’s statements and representations regarding her failure to carry out assigned duties and comply with directives.
On April 22, 2020, Winslow was provided by the district a statement of charges of good cause for contract termination, including but not limited to willful or persistent violation of the policies and/or rules or regulations of the board, along with a notice of hearing.
“It matters what they charged her with,” said Moen. “Under the law, there is a provision which allows termination for dishonest conduct but that’s not what they charged her with.”
The same document also discussed deficiencies in Winslow’s performance as reported through a staff survey wherein numerous teachers rated her as below average in approximately 45% of the categories about which they were asked.
“No supporting documents were presented in support of Superintendent Smith’s assertion that Mrs. Winslow had performed poorly in her job as principal,” said Moen. “There was also no mention of the positive comments made by teachers.”
In the ruling, Judge Beetem noted that as a result of her troubling summative evaluation, Smith offered Winslow the opportunity to transition from her role as principal to the Director of Student Services. Alternatively, Smith would recommend the board not renew Winslow’s contract for the following year.
On Feb. 7, 2020, Smith directed the district’s administrative team, including Winslow, to complete teacher evaluations prior to March 23. Judge Beetem found that Winslow had undergone training for administrators that focused on the evaluation of teachers. This evaluation includes a summative conference, which is an in-person meeting at which an administrator sits down with the teacher and goes over the summative in detail, including strengths, weaknesses, and areas of focus for the following year.
Moen disagrees with this view. “You have to be able to prove that she willfully violated board policy, and there is no board policy at Osage County R-2 that requires a summative conference be conducted in person,” he said. “The training they’re talking about is a three-page document from an outside company that tells administrators what to do but doesn’t tell them exactly how to do it. So these evaluations could be done in person, online, by email, or even by phone.”
According to the judgment, while other administrators completed their evaluations and turned them in prior to March 23, 2020, Winslow turned hers in to Smith on March 23, including one evaluation with a note written by Winslow that said, “We went over this virtually due to the virus.”
The court found this statement to be false because Winslow had not actually discussed the evaluation with the teacher either in person or virtually. Winslow did not hold a summative conference with the teacher until March 25, 2020.
Judge Beetem noted that in addition to the petitioner’s knowledge of Policy 4630 and directive, “willfulness was established by the fact that petitioner attempted to conceal her failure to meet the deadline by falsely representing to Smith that she completed one of her evaluations ‘virtually.’ … Petitioner offered a number of excuses but the standard of review does not permit the court to substitute its judgment for that of the board.”
Moen doesn’t see it that way. “Mrs. Winslow believed the evaluations could be turned in on March 23,” he said. “She had them done and if she knew needed to turn them in on the previous Friday (March 20), it would have been more convenient to do it then. She turned them in when she thought they were due.”
As for the statement written on the document by Winslow, Moen said she was being truthful. “She had communicated with the teacher via email and text because of the virus, gave the teacher a glowing review, and the teacher signed off on it,” said Moen. “That begs the question, what exactly defines ‘virtually?’ A video conference call? An email, or by phone?”
Winslow said she had observed the teacher several times and the teacher was required to accept the evaluation using a software program, which she did on Friday, March 20, 2020.
“All I was missing was her signature and that was because of the virus,” said Winslow.
Moen added that the judge’s finding that the handwritten note by Mrs. Winslow on the evaluation, according to him, shows that she was willfully trying to cover up that she turned in all the evaluations late.
“I don’t think that’s logical,” Moen said. “It seems to me that her writing on the evaluation had nothing to do with whether she turned the evaluation in Friday or Monday because she wrote on the evaluation but it was gone over virtually on Friday. Therefore, if she really wanted to make it look like she hadn’t missed the deadline, she did a very poor job of it. The fact that she wrote on the evaluation doesn’t make it any more likely that she really thought it was due before March 23.”
At a May 19, 2020, hearing, the board concluded that Winslow had willfully and persistently violated board policies, and terminated her contract.
Moen, however, believes Judge Beetem’s ruling is reversible because Winslow’s termination was retaliatory. “That they fired her for this indicates there must be something else they wanted to fire her for,” said Moen.
The board also determined that Winslow’s actions in discussing information related to an employee’s medical testing violated Smith’s directive not to do so. Additionally, the board found that Winslow violated Policy 4820 because she willfully and negligently disclosed confidential information about an employee’s medical condition.
Judge Beetem wrote that, “As the court finds that there is competent and substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the termination over the false statement about having completed the evaluation virtually when it had not been completed, the finding is sufficient to support the decision to terminate the petitioner’s contract. Accordingly, the court finds it is unnecessary to address the issue about the alleged improper disclosure of personal health information and/or any First Amendment or whistleblower.”
Judge Beetem wrote that the court finds the board’s decision to terminate Winslow’s contract is not in violation of any constitutional provisions, not in excess of the agency’s statutory authority or jurisdiction, supported by competent and substantial evidence upon the whole record, was authorized by law, was made upon lawful procedure and with a fair trial, was not arbitrary, capricious, nor unreasonable, and was not an abuse of discretion.
Whether Winslow decides to file an appeal will be determined soon.
“We have good grounds for an appeal but should we?” Moen asked. “We have the option to pass on the appeal and focus on the lawsuit for wrongful termination we filed in Osage County last month. This judgment seems to validate the belief that the school board was retaliating when it fired Mrs. Winslow.”
Moen added that regardless of which path is pursued, there will be continued legal action.
Superintendent Smith said she was not at liberty to comment due to ongoing litigation.