Anyone in our community who hasn’t been living under a rock over the past few months knows that Stamford High School has suffered from significant negative publicity due to the criminal charges brought against our principal, Dr. Donna Valentine, and administrator Roth Nordin.  Although there have been numerous rumors and allegations circulating since their arrests, the Stamford Advocate has cited several different sources that appear to confirm at least the following basic facts about the incident that led to the criminal charges:

(1) As a result of several different individuals reporting the same thing to her, Valentine  had reason to suspect  an alleged sexual relationship between a student and English teacher Danielle Watkins; (2) For several  months after learning of the alleged relationship, Valentine did nothing to directly stop it; and (3) Dr. Valentine not only failed to directly intervene herself, but she also failed to report the relationship to the Department of Children and Families (DCF),  as she is a “mandated reporter” who is required to report suspected abuse to the DCF.

Following her arrest, and while awaiting resolution of the criminal charges, Valentine was suspended, with pay, from her duties as principal of SHS.  The Board of Education’s Personnel Policy Handbook, in section 4117 (a), appears to have required this suspension to be with pay, as it states that the Superintendent of Stamford Public Schools may “suspend an employee with pay and benefits and without prejudice pending investigation of allegations against the employee of serious misconduct.”

According to reports in the Stamford Advocate, the prosecutor investigated the allegations, but Dr. Valentine never went to trial, because Connecticut Superior Court Judge Richard Comerford granted her (and Nordin’s) request for accelerated rehabilitation.  Essentially, this means that they will be placed on probation for the next two years and then the charges will be wiped from her record, provided no other legal problems occur during the probationary period.

Now that it looks like our principal will not suffer legal consequences, the question that has been on the minds of almost everyone at SHS is whether or not Dr. Valentine will return as the principal and leader of our school. In Superintendent Dr. Winifred Hamilton’s recent letter to the Stamford community, she stated that “following the fact-finding review of the Stamford High School administrators, [she] will make a recommendation to the Board of Education consistent with the obligations under the administrators’ contract.”  What are the obligations due to Dr. Valentine under her union contract that will govern Dr. Hamilton’s recommendation and the eventual decision by the Board of Education?

The Administrators’ Union Contract, in Article 16, states that “No Administrator shall be disciplined by being reduced in rank or compensation or deprived of any professional advantage except for just cause.”  It does not define, however, what “just cause” means or how it should be determined.  According to one legal dictionary, “just cause” means a “reasonable and lawful ground for action.”

We know that criminal charges were brought against Valentine.  However, she never went to trial and was never proven guilty of these charges, so “just cause” – based only on the fact that she was charged with a crime, especially when the charges are going to be dismissed – may not be a reason to discipline her. If we consider people in our country innocent until proven guilty, should Dr. Valentine lose her job simply because charges were brought against her?

That being said, Dr. Valentine didn’t just have criminal charges brought against her.  Regardless of her legal obligation to report anything to DCF, at least according to the facts reported by the Stamford Advocate, Dr. Valentine knew about an alleged sexual relationship between a student and a teacher for many months, and she didn’t do anything to directly stop it.

Presumably, Dr. Hamilton’s investigation will seek to determine more about what information Valentine knew about the alleged relationship, when she knew it, and what (if anything) she did after learning of it. If the investigation finds that Valentine didn’t know very much about the alleged relationship at all, then she may also need to determine why she was in the dark about such a relationship that so many others reportedly knew about. If she finds that Valentine knew about it (as reported by The Advocate), but did nothing to stop it for many months, obviously Dr. Hamilton will need to determine why Valentine didn’t do anything.  As the leader of our school, was it Dr. Valentine’s responsibility to watch out for the safety and well-being of the student involved in the alleged relationship with his teacher?  Regardless of any legal reporting requirement, does anyone in our community with knowledge of such a relationship have a moral obligation to try to put an end to it as quickly as possible?

The Board of Education also implemented a “Social Responsibility and School Climate Policy” in September 2013.  According to this policy, “It is important that everyone (all administrators, teachers, certified staff, non-certified staff, students, parents, guardians, and visitors) model positive behavior that reinforces respect for differences among members of the school community…Members of the school community are expected to promptly address situations that may compromise the physical and/or emotional safety of anyone in the school community.”

At least according to the facts reported by the Stamford Advocate, it appears Valentine didn’t “promptly address” a very serious situation involving the physical and emotional safety of a student.  Dr. Hamilton and the Board of Education will have to determine what occurred and whether this policy was violated.

They also will have to consider section 4003 of the Policy Handbook, entitled “Public Trust Employees.”  That section of the policy states that, “The job effectiveness of such employees depends of the members of the community maintaining respect and confidence in such employees in regards to both their on-duty and off-duty conduct.  Accordingly, the Board directs such employees to refrain from engaging in any conduct on or off school property which could damage the public’s trust and confidence in such employees.  Such conduct includes, but is not limited to, acts of moral misconduct (i.e. criminal conviction, such as commission of a felony) or conviction of any crime.” If Valentine has lost public trust and confidence, which ultimately remains to be determined, this policy states that she cannot be an “effective” leader of our school.

Until this investigation is completed, all we can do is to speculate as to what actually occurred based on the information that has been reported so far.  There are many unknown facts that may yet play major roles in the decision made by Hamilton and the Board of Education.  When those facts are determined, the Superintendent and Board of Education must decide if Valentine  has violated any part of the school policy or her union contract before a determination regarding termination or reinstatement can be made.