PATRON brings up proposal (CCT Photo)
SCHOOL BOARD member shuts down proposal (CCT Photo)
Doodoo Process in the Ozark School District, a screenplay
(BASED ON A TRUE STORY)
OPENING CAMERA ANGLE SHOWS The Exterior of the Ozark R-VI School District World Headquarters. Cut to interior shot of a long, narrow table, much longer than usual tables. Camera sweeps along the table top to a group of school board members sitting in front of mics on one side. They are flanked by pompous looking administrators, adorned with school lanyards. Each board member has his or her name plate in front of him or her.
The meeting is in progress.
A district patron gets up and approaches the podium for guest comments. A sparse audience is seated behind the patron. A uniformed officer shifts his weight in a corner.
Bottom of screen fades up the title JULY MEETING, Ozark, MO R-VI Board of Education. Words fade out as camera cuts to patron speaking to board and administration.
Scene dissolves to same location, but board members are dressed differently/ The patron, dressed for colder weather, is again at the podium.
Words fade up: DECEMBER MEETING, Ozark, MO R-VI Board of Education.
Patron: Are you going to finally vote on a policy proposal intended to protect district employees from unlawful harassment and discrimination that I submitted to you when it was much warmer outside?
Blondie Board President: Your proposal violates their due process.
Patron: What? So, let me get this right. If a staff member feels targeted by the district administration and asks the board to review their case, it would violate their due process for the board to grant their request?
Blondie Board President (blushing): Yes.
Patron: How so? How could reviewing their case at THEIR REQUEST somehow violate their due process?
Blue Suede shoes wearing male board member, leaning into the mic: Because that’s not our policy.
Patron: Right. Uh, that’s exactly why I’m proposing a new policy. At present, an employee targeted by district administrators – as literally DOZENS have reported experiencing in just the very recent past – has no one to appeal to. They’re being forced out of the district without having anyone to hear their case. I propose a new policy IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH SOME KIND OF DUE PROCESS.
Blue Sude: That’s not our process.
Patron: What is your process?
Board members glance at one another, exchanging knowing expressions. Blondie, the board president, nods to a woman who looks like she’s been in the system longer than anyone.
System Woman: To ignore them.
Patron: How is that just?
System Woman: We didn’t say it was just. We said it was “due process.”
Closeup of patron
Patron: I don’t understand. Isn’t “due process” intended to promote justice? Isn’t the very essence of it that each person is entitled to some kind of process intended to ensure they’re dealt with fairly?
Blazer wearing woman on board: We don’t know about all that justice mumbo-jumbo. “Due process” means exactly what it says. It is whatever “process” our policy states they are “due.” And our current process is to ignore them! (Takes a sip from a hot mug of cocoa with school logo on it)
Patron: Exactly! You are ignoring them. And “due process” doesn’t just mean “whatever process we already have.” It is a principle, guaranteed in the constitution, that each public employee is entitled (or “due”) a process intended to ensure justice and fairness!
Blondie: There you go with that justice mumbo-jumbo again. (giggles, looks at a System Woman for support) We have a process. We follow it very carefully. (Stares down patron).
Patron: You mean your practice of ignoring complaints?
(Murmur ripples through audience. Cut to uniformed officer, who instinctively touches his radio.)
System Woman: Yes. And like we said, we follow it precisely. We ignore all complaints. And since you mentioned fairness, rest assured that we ignore all complaints equally. See, that’s fair, right? Even you can agree to that.
Patron: Can we please get back to my policy proposal? Can you explain how it violates due process?
Banker Board member: Because it specifies a process that isn’t due the employee. It’s in conflict with due process. And if it’s in conflict with the process we have dictated is due the employee, then it violates the process we have said is due them. It’s definitional. We say they’re due this particular process. And you’re asking we pursue a different process. They aren’t due THAT process. We said no. So, therefore, it violates the process they’re due.
Patron: In a perverse way, I think I’m beginning to understand what you mean. Whatever process you prescribe is, by definition, what an employee is due. So it is their “due process.” Anything in conflict with it is therefore a violation of what you’ve defined to be their “due process.” Right?
Big board man in glasses: Exactly! Why was that so hard for ya?
Patron: Well, I guess it was hard because “due process” is supposed to promote justice by ensuring fairness in the investigation of someone accused of wrongdoing. It’s supposed to ensure the accused is permitted to present and contest evidence and an independent authority will examine all evidence impartially, etc. You know, like in the real world in America.
System Woman: Listen, that’s not our policy. But, hey, we do sometimes even ask the accused administrator whether the allegations against him or her were true. So that pretty much covers even your definition of due process, get it?
Patron: Okay, let me try another approach… You could change your policy, right? You could replace your existing policy of ignoring employee complaints with a new proposed policy of listening to employees. And once you did, it’d no longer violate due process, right? Because it’d then be your process.
Blazer woman: No, we can’t. It would violate due process for us to hear the employee.
Patron: Why? If you changed your policy, then you wouldn’t be violating your new process, right?
Blue Suede: But that is not our process. So adopting it would violate due process.
Patron: Forget existing policy. Can you just tell me how listening to an employee’s complaint, AT THAT EMPLOYEE’S REQUEST, violates that employee’s rights?
Banker: Because it is a violation of due process.
Patron: You keep saying that, but your explanation reduces to nothing more than “that is not our process.” Your explanation has nothing to do with justice and fairness. In fact, . . . [Board cuts off patron.]
Blondie: Let’s not discuss this any further. We already said “no.” You just don’t want to accept it. We need to move on now.
SCENE FADES TO BLACK
| This is not purely a work of fiction. Any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, or actual events is purely intentional. |
2 responses to ““Doodoo” Process in the Ozark School District!”
[…] or her would in fact be the definition of due process, not a violation of it. (Someone else noticed the absurdity of this objection.)— If a teacher or employee asks to be heard by the board, then it’s “a violation of the […]
[…] him or her would in fact be the definition of due process, not a violation of it. (Someone else noticed the absurdity of this objection.) — If a teacher or employee asks to be heard by the board, then it’s “a violation of the […]