Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Discipline topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board orders written reprimand after appeal over internal investigation
Summary
Following testimony from a complainant and the respondent, the school board declined to affirm the superintendent's coaching memo, then voted to adopt the investigator's recommended written reprimand for the respondent after deliberation (3–2). The hearing highlighted procedural concerns about whether to use an external investigator.
A personnel appeal before the Leon County School Board produced divided votes April 28 after more than an hour of testimony and board discussion. A district employee (the complainant) described repeated unprofessional interactions she said created a hostile work environment; the respondent, Mr. Shively, disputed the findings and urged the board to remand the matter for further review.
The district investigation, led internally and summarized by Assistant Superintendent Tonja Fitzgerald, had recommended corrective action; the superintendent issued a coaching memo and the matter was appealed to the board under district appeals policy. In testimony the complainant said the conduct was "insulting and demeaning" and that a written reprimand was appropriate. Mr. Shively asked the board to remand the case, arguing the investigation exceeded the investigator's scope and citing alleged conflicts of interest. He said several procedural errors undermined the findings.
Superintendent Hanna said he regretted the situation and acknowledged process lessons: "...in hindsight I probably should have hired outside counsel to look into the matter. I just thought we could handle it internally and, obviously, I was mistaken," he said. Several board members expressed concern about process, evidence inconsistencies and the impact on workplace climate. Board member Smith said the district had not demonstrated that it had exhausted internal efficiency steps before seeking remedies but ultimately favored returning the decision to the investigating officer's recommendation.
After an initial vote to affirm the superintendent's coaching memo failed (2–3), the board considered and adopted the investigator's original recommendation — a written reprimand — in a subsequent motion. The final vote to adopt a reprimand passed 3–2. The board's attorney clarified the board's options under policy: the board may affirm or reject the superintendent's decision and its ruling is final.
What this means: The written reprimand is now the district's final action in this appeal; the record shows both substantive disagreement over factual findings and procedural concerns (requests for an independent investigator, timing of the superintendent's decision, and whether the investigator exceeded her role). The board directed no termination and did not order additional investigatory steps at the meeting.
