MLMS alleges CCSD retaliation against principal

By VERNON ROBISON

Local education advocacy groups have filed formal requests for a full investigation into inappropriate retaliatory actions by the Clark County School District (CCSD) against a Moapa Valley school principal.

In two separate letters dated Dec. 22, 2021, the School Organizational Team (SOT) at Mack Lyon Middle School, and the Moapa Valley Community Educational Advisory Board (MVCEAB), both claimed that Mack Lyon principal Ken Paul had been specifically targeted and retaliated against by CCSD.

Retaliation for testimony
The retaliation allegedly came because of testimony Paul had made several times before the State Board of Education during the fall of last year. Paul had been vocal in those testimonies regarding his observation of the failings of the CCSD in its compliance with a 2015 Nevada state law that reorganized the district to bring more autonomy and funding to local school precincts.

Paul was the only Moapa Valley school administrator, and one of very few in the CCSD, to be so openly critical of the district in this way.

The two letters frame Paul’s testimony as the cause of an alleged campaign of retaliation by CCSD central administrators against the local school principal.

“This retaliation took the form of…an aggressive and prolonged mask wearing investigation at Lyon Middle School,” the Lyon SOT letter stated.

Prolonged and aggressive
According to Southern Nevada Health District (SNHD) records last September, SNHD did receive a complaint alleging that the school was not acting in compliance with current mask-wearing mandates. The records indicate that a SNHD inspector was dispatched at two different times, both in unscheduled surprise visits, to investigate the complaint. Both times, the SNHD inspector reported no significant findings of non-compliance at the school.

Yet CCSD central administrators continued an ongoing investigation into the school on their own, the letters state.
These CCSD investigations, which happened during the same time period as Paul was testifying before the State Board, took place “in spite of the fact that the SNHD exonerated (Lyon) staff and principal from these false allegations,” the SOT letter stated.

In addition, the CCSD investigations “were only focused on our school and none of the other Moapa Valley schools,” the SOT letter said.

The letter adds that the SOT was forced to conclude that the investigation was a retaliatory move calculated for reprisal.

“This…investigation was an unjustified unwritten message to discourage other administrators and SOT members from transparent actions that might negatively frame CCSD,” the letter states.

Both letters conclude by formally requesting investigative action into the matter under the provision of Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) 388G.100.

CCSD response
A CCSD response to the request was sent to the Lyon SOT on Dec. 29 by CCSD Regional Superintendent RoAnn Triana.

The response stated that the SOT request did not legally fit within the NAC 388G.100 framework. That framework required the CCSD to establish a dispute resolution process for such cases. It also laid out a strict timeline for CCSD in responding, investigating and resolving these disputes.

But Triana’s letter categorized the entire episode as a “confidential personnel matter” outside the scope of the NAC.
“The investigation and related proceedings are governed by a negotiated agreement and do not relate to any SOT member’s performance of duties as a member of the school organizational team nor are they topics for public resolution,” the response states. “NAC 388G.100 does not apply to the aforementioned situation.”

Triana added that, in the interest of “transparency and open communication, I have looked into the matter and can confirm that the allegations are unsubstantiated.”

No response has, to date, been sent to the MVCEAB request.

Appeal to the state
On January 7, the SOT sent a letter of appeal on the matter to Jhone Ebert, the Superintendent of Instruction of the Nevada Department of Education. This letter once again laid out the entire situation and asserts that the CCSD reply failed to comply with the NAC.

“CCSD has not implemented the mandated dispute resolution process and their reply is an attempt to completely skirt the issue at hand and hide their harassment and retaliatory acts against a respected and promenint member of SOT,” the letter of appeal stated.

The letter claims that the CCSD response tries to use “confidential personnel information” to shield itself against a full investigation into the complaint.

“If this tactic is allowed, all CCSD SOT retaliatory actions involving CCSD employees could be deflected as ‘confidential personnel issues’ which defeats the intent of NAC 388G.100,” the appeal letter states.

The SOT appeal letter also expresses alarm at the revelation made in the CCSD response that the mask-wearing investigation had evidently become a personnel matter apparently involving disciplinary actions.

“We were unaware that this prolonged and aggressive investigation had escalated into a formal disciplinary action against our principal,” the letter stated. “The fact that it escalated into such a disciplinary action against only our principal supports our retaliation claim.”

“They have taken formal disciplinary action against our principal that CAN result in his termination,” the letter adds. “This is clearly what NAC 388G.100 intended to PREVENT.”

Finally the SOT letter calls into question the ability of the CCSD to investigate itself in this matter.

“It is highly inappropriate and self-serving to allow CCSD to determine (its) own innocence,” the letter states.

In the end, the letter concludes by requesting that the State Superintendent of Public Instruction step in and fully investigate CCSD in the matter.

Attached to the appeal letter was a declaration from Principal Paul waiving the confidentiality of all personnel information involving the dispute to allow a full investigation to take place.

Local response
MVCEAB chairwoman Wendy Mulcock also testified on this matter in person before a subcommittee of the Nevada Board of Education last week in Las Vegas.

At the Wednesday night meeting, Mulcock said that she was disappointed, yet not surprised, that the CCSD had made no response to the MVCEAB letter as required by the NAC.

“Under the law, (CCSD was) required to respond within 5 business days and it has been 13,” Mulcock told the subcommitee. “We thought you should know of this as another example of selective and self-serving non-compliance.”

Mulcock added that the MVCEAB also intends to appeal to the Department of Education on the matter. “We don’t think the (CCSD) Board of Trustees has ever established a NAC 388G.100 dispute process because we can’t find it,” she said. “But that remains to be seen.”

“If this can happen to one of the very best principals the district employs, it can, and likely does, happen to others,” Mulcock concluded in her comment. “Protection against such reprisals must be ensured.”

In an interview with The Progress last week, Lyon SOT Chairwoman Syrissa Jolley insisted that it is time for the district to be held accountable for these types of techniques in dealing with employees.

“This situation is just one example showing that the district is all about being fear-based,” Jolley said. “Ken (Paul) was not willing to bow to that. He wants to do what is best for the kids not for his employer. There should be absolutely nothing wrong with that. The district should be supportive of that. It is what public education is supposed to be about.”

Jolley added that the members of the Lyon SOT had considered long and hard whether to stand up and send these letters. In the end the team decided they had no other option, she said.

“(CCSD) is just not in compliance with the law at all and it is blatantly obvious that they have no desire to comply,” Jolley said. “So what else do we do? Do we just lay down as a SOT and be a puppet to CCSD central, act in fear just like most other administrators do. Ken wasn’t willing to do that and neither was our SOT.”