Who was employee 1895Published Oct 30, 2013 at 12:01 am (Updated Oct 29, 2013 at 4:26 pm)
O n Oct. 21, the members of the Peters Township School Board voted unanimously and without discussion to terminate employee 1895. Certainly, the board has the legal right to let an employee of the school district go, and under the Sunshine Law, public officials are protected from disclosing information about personnel, talking about pending litigation or discussing contracts.
But, when asked, the district would not disclose whether the employee was male or female, or in which department employee 1895 worked. Was the employee in administration, a teacher, bus driver or maintenance worker? Did the employee work near children? And what was the offense that rose to the level of termination?
In the private industry, employees are let go for a variety of reasons and little is ever said or known unless criminal charges are filed.
Perhaps a school district is a little different. Taxpayers pay the salary and benefits, unlike in private industry, and should, in some small way, have a right to know at least why a district employee was let go. Was the safety of a child compromised?
The name of employee 1895 is not that important, but what department the employee worked in and what offense occurred should be of some concern to parents and others who want to ensure children are safe within the confines of the schools.
But under the current law, a school district employee is exempt from having even his or her gender released. Those who worked along side the employee know what happened.
Just a little bit of information could be released without damning the reputation of the employee, who, obviously, is an adult. Hiding even the minutest of details only serves to stimulate the curiosity of those not privileged to serve on the board or to be in the know.
One bit of information that appeared on the school board’s agenda was that employee 1895 did not “demand” a hearing on the charges. So, is that to mean employee 1895 knew what he or she did was wrong?
The issue is moot now. Employee 1895 is gone and no one, with the exception of a select few, will ever know why.