Deer Creek Principal

What Cathy_Lee said. If you are so concerned about the situation and so far there is not any indication of an issue why not show up to the school board and get it changed. Gossip and innuendo particularly because of a concern about someone in the past, Orcutt, does not give anyone the right to go on a smear campaign.

Cathy_Lee wrote: Talk about escalating the situation. The principal is already back at work, so I think you can dispense with the fear mongering of a "pedophile principal." I wouldn't blame him if he sued your a**.

Yes, I believe personnel matters are private (even in public schools), unless they involve criminal activity. But that doesn't stop some people with nothing better to do from speculating. Some people in the community just love juicy gossip and love to spread it around, even if they're not sure exactly what they're talking about.

Cathy_Lee wrote: Talk about escalating the situation. The principal is already back at work, so I think you can dispense with the fear mongering of a "pedophile principal." I wouldn't blame him if he sued your a**.

Yes, I believe personnel matters are private (even in public schools), unless they involve criminal activity. But that doesn't stop some people with nothing better to do from speculating. Some people in the community just love juicy gossip and love to spread it around, even if they're not sure exactly what they're talking about.

I was not accusing him of anything, but just using it as an example of what is personal info that deserves to be kept quiet and what is just an organization covering up to preserve their image.

Would a teacher driving to school drunk and then teaching class, a private matter or a public hazard that parents and students should know about?

I never said he did anything awful. Quite the contrary.
I simply stated that the lack of transparency lets the imagination run..... lol .... Much like some of you assumed the worst of me for merely asking the question.
Read the thread carefully.
I have to wonder why some are so quick to shoot the messenger before they even know what the message might be.

Something that's always made me curious.

When someone is put on paid administrative leave, isn't that like giving them a two week (or whatever timeframe) vacation with pay? If they've done something that requires them to not be on the premises, wrongdoing of some sort, why would their company pay them to be suspended?

No you just decided to insert Orcutt and what he did into the post making it as if that is what happened with the DCE Principal. Nothing but gossip and innuendo as others have stated. You don't even have children at the school. Your grandson next year is your responsibility because his parents aren't responsible enough to address the issue themselves?

frogger wrote: I never said he did anything awful. Quite the contrary.
I simply stated that the lack of transparency lets the imagination run..... lol .... Much like some of you assumed the worst of me for merely asking the question.
Read the thread carefully.
I have to wonder why some are so quick to shoot the messenger before they even know what the message might be.

Mtn Gramma wrote: Something that's always made me curious.

When someone is put on paid administrative leave, isn't that like giving them a two week (or whatever timeframe) vacation with pay? If they've done something that requires them to not be on the premises, wrongdoing of some sort, why would their company pay them to be suspended?

I do not believe that companies would. Government is different.

"The IRS was in damage control mode Tuesday after an audit revealed that it paid bonuses to employees who were in trouble over tax issues themselves.
More than $2.8 million, plus thousands of hours of paid time-off, were doled out over two years to employees who had recently been disciplined for various types of misconduct, according to an audit report. About $1 million of that money was given as bonuses to 1,100 employees who were in trouble over tax related issues."...

http://money.cnn.com/2014/04/22/pf/taxes/irs-bonuses/

Can we please stay on the subject of this particular principal and not another principal or teacher or the IRS? Getting to the IRS, we're just a step away from tying in Benghazi, which I was joking about before.

I've found people are suspended with pay because the entity needs to investigate something they are not sure happened the way it was brought to their attention. They presume their employee is innocent until proven guilty. It's an American thing. Some of you should try it sometime.

I might feel differently about this if the principal had been suspended and then terminated. He's already back at work. IF you're still interested in this, I'd suggest attending the next PTA meeting. Oh, the Flume never returned my call.

swansei wrote: No you just decided to insert Orcutt and what he did into the post making it as if that is what happened with the DCE Principal. Nothing but gossip and innuendo as others have stated. You don't even have children at the school. Your grandson next year is your responsibility because his parents aren't responsible enough to address the issue themselves?

frogger wrote: I never said he did anything awful. Quite the contrary.
I simply stated that the lack of transparency lets the imagination run..... lol .... Much like some of you assumed the worst of me for merely asking the question.
Read the thread carefully.
I have to wonder why some are so quick to shoot the messenger before they even know what the message might be.

Interesting.....I inserted the article as an example of the district not doing it's due diligence in regards to the hiring of certain individuals. Orcutt isn't the first.
YOU made the jump to something worse.
Don't put words in my mouth. I am perfectly able of speaking clearly and distinctly.
A principal was placed on admin leave for almost two weeks. No information was provided to parents of students.
The Board entered into Executive Session on 5 occasions to discuss personnel issues. 3 of those 5 sessions were in April.
I see no where in the regular minutes of the one and only regular meeting on 4/14/14 where any action is mentioned.
Can you place an individual on admin leave in an executive session or do you need to do that in a regular session?
Just one of the many questions I have.

edited to add link to minutes of Special Session Board Meetings

http://www.edline.net/pages/Platte_Cany ... chive/2014

I am happy to attend a PTA meeting, as 3 of my 7 grand children attend Platte Canyon Schools.
I will also feel free to discuss this issue openly right here. That is sort of an American thing to. (unless we are pickin' and choosin' what is American and what is not.

Cathy_Lee wrote: Can we please stay on the subject of this particular principal and not another principal or teacher or the IRS? Getting to the IRS, we're just a step away from tying in Benghazi, which I was joking about before.

I've found people are suspended with pay because the entity needs to investigate something they are not sure happened the way it was brought to their attention. They presume their employee is innocent until proven guilty. It's an American thing. Some of you should try it sometime.

I might feel differently about this if the principal had been suspended and then terminated. He's already back at work. IF you're still interested in this, I'd suggest attending the next PTA meeting. Oh, the Flume never returned my call.

Please excuse my question - sorry I upset you.