Surely Mr. Innes made this public claim with trepidation, because bosses usually dislike this type revelation. State Administrator for VCUSD Damelio responded with a letter to the newspaper rebutting Mr. Innes’ claims. A believable rebuttal only needed to deny Mr. Innes’ claims with supporting factual evidence.

Instead, Damelio accused Innes of a breach of professionalism for not checking with the individual responsible to get all the facts. He accused him of the inaccurate and unconscionable act of leaving readers with the thought VCUSD spent $200,000-plus in additional money as opposed to budgeted money. Finally, Damelio accused that Mr. Innes “violates the Code of Ethics of the organization that employs him.” Was this a veiled threat against his job for exercising his First Amendment Right of Free Speech?

Personal attacks against an accuser’s character supply no factual information to refute his claims. Here, Damelio used them to switch the discussion from one about a claim that VCUSD wasted money when it hired a non credentialed applicant for the vice principal position. Instead, he tried to make it about the appropriateness of the whistle blower’s conduct.    

Damelio told us about how the screening committee of teachers, parents and administrators checked the job applicant’s references. This information only shows that many people wasted a lot of time and money screening an unqualified job applicant. In addition, it supports rather than refutes Innes’ claim that VCUSD’s job screening process does not work well. Which of these involved individuals on the screening committee would Damelio have Innes consult to get all the needed factual information?

Damelio claimed it was “the excellent work of our credential specialist in our Human Resources Department that determined there could be a credentialing problem which we then began researching.” Supposedly, he offers this information to prove Innes’ claim was wrong. Therefore, this is when he should tell readers clearly that this determination and research about credentials happened before they hired the applicant. Notice how he omits saying this, because it happened after they hired the applicant just as Innes claimed it did.

California has a website where people can check contractors’ licenses, before they interview or hire them. The California Commission on Teacher Credentialing also has a website where employers can check teachers’ credentials. It also has a section for Administrative Services Credentials that authorize service as principals, vice principals, superintendents, etc.

So, the VCUSD credential specialist could have learned if the job applicant had a credential issued in California after 1989 by entering his name and social security number on this website. A negative report would alert him or her to check further. In addition, this site outlines procedures for hiring people with out of state credentials. VCUSD’s job applicant screening process should start by verifying an applicant’s credentials before further screening takes place and certainly before hiring them.

In addition State Administrator Damelio did not make a clear statement supported by fact that refuted the Innes claim that VCUSD wasted money on this hiring fiasco. Instead, he makes some confusing claim that Innes is wrong because the money involved was for a budgeted position and was not additional funds as Innes claimed.  

Damelio wrote that the middle school vice-principal and vacant custodial supervisor positions are budgeted positions, as if this refutes Innes’ claim. He reports that VCUSD moved the applicant from the vice principal position and placed him in the custodial supervisor position while they researched problems with his credentials. If nothing else, this Damelio statement is a clear admission they hired the applicant without proper credentials just as Innes claimed they did.

In addition, Damelio’s letter shows they obviously made this temporary switch to justify paying the applicant while they decided his qualifications for the job. I doubt if taxpayers care about the dubious distinction between wasting budgeted tax money and wasting additional unbudgeted tax money to pay for services not received.   

Finally, Damelio accused that Mr. Innes “violates the Code of Ethics of the organization that employs him.” Was this a veiled threat against Innes’ job for exercising his First Amendment Right of Free Speech?

Damelio’s best response would have been to acknowledge that large institutions sometimes make mistakes. Then, he should have reassured taxpayers that he corrected this flaw so that VCUSD will now verify job applicants credentials first before screening or hiring them.  

 

Kenneth Brooks is an independent writer. Contact him P.O. BOX 882, Vallejo, CA 94590 Opinion@ethicalego.com