Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
1949.
2. Since April 14, 2008, I have been employed as the Superintendent of the
Wickliffe City School District, located in Wickliffe, Ohio. As Superintendent, I am the chief
executive officer of the District, reporting directly to the Board of Education. Attached as Exhibit
3. The Board of Education is an elected body, empowered to set policy for the
Wickliffe City School District. The current Board of Education is comprised of President Tony
Vitale, Vice President Joe Muscatello, and Members Carl Marine, Jeremy Forsythe, and Daniel
Thomeier.
and education practices in the District. Attached as Exhibit 2 is the Board's graduation credit
policy, denoting the requirement that students complete coursework towards at least 21 Carnegie
credits in order to receive a diploma. The State of Ohio, in contrast, requires a minimum of 19
credits to graduate.
Exhibit 5 is the Board's policy defining the District's management team. Attached as Exhibit 6 is
the Board's policy concerning the authority of building principals. Attached as Exhibit 7 is the
Board's policy concerning staff relations and lines of authority, i. e., the "chain of command" for
problem solving. Attached as Exhibit 8 is the Board's policy concerning staff involvement in
decision making. Attached as Exhibit 9 is the Board's policy concerning staff conduct. Attached
as Exhibit 10 is the Board's policy concerning staff complaints and grievance procedures.
Attached as Exhibit 11 are the Board's policies concerning the evaluation of staff.
District; implementing and enforcing Board of Education policies; implementing "best practices"
for education of the District's students; maximizing educational outcomes; and ensuring the
District's compliance with state and federal statutes and regulations governing K-12 education,
approximately 1,500 students in three school buildings, an elementary school serving Pre
Kindergarten through grade 4; a middle school with grades 5 through 8; and a high school serving
grades 9 through 12. In addition, high school student can pursue vocational training through the
Career Tech and College Tech Prep program offered by a consortium of school districts (among
them are Euclid City School District, Mentor Exempted Village School District, Willoughby-
Eastlake City School District, and Wickliffe). Wickliffe City School District also offers its high
directly or indirectly. All three building principals report directly to me and teachers report to
their respective building principal. Attached as Exhibit 12 is the job description for the High
School Principal. The High School Principal is responsible for ''the total operation of the high
school program and staff. (Exh. 12). The High School Principal's responsibilities include
2
"[keeping] the superintendent ... informed of the school's activities and problems"; «[interpreting
and enforcing] district policies and administrative regulations for staff, parents and students;
"[establishing and maintaining] an effective learning climate in the school"; "[supervising] all
professional, paraprofessional, administrative, and support personnel attached to the school"; and
"[evaluating and counseling] all staff members regarding their individual and group performance."
(Id.).
served as Principal at Wickliffe High School during my tenure. Currently, Ms. Wheatley is on
an administrative suspension, with full pay and benefits. Attached as Exhibit 13 is the 2009-2010
August 3, 2009. I categorically deny that Ms. Wheatley has been discriminated against or
retaliated against for any reason. Instead, Ms. Wheatley was reprimanded and suspended for
curricula, and graduation requirements that negatively impacted the District's orderly and lawful
operations; and severe breaches of state and federal special education laws that exposed the
11. Ms. Wheatley's charge claims that I discriminated against her in favor of
male employees and created a hostile environment based on her gender. This is false.
Furthermore, when Ms. Wheatley made her initial complaints in the fall of 2008, the Board hired
an outside attorney, Barbara K. Besser, Esq., to investigate Ms. Wheatley's allegations. A copy of
Ms. Besser's report is attached as Exhibit 14. Ms. Besser determined that there was no evidence
3
of discrimination toward Ms. Wheatley; rather, Ms. Besser noted communications problems
12. Ms. Wheatley's charge claims that she received a written reprimand on
December 3, 2008. This is not accurate. Attached as Exhibit 15 is a memorandum I sent Ms.
Wheatley on December 3, 2008, along with attached Board policies. The memorandum was not a
reprimand; rather, it was a directive to Ms. Wheatley intending to remind her of the District's
reporting procedures (i.e., she reports to me, not the Treasurer); to remind her to compile
information to address the Board of Education's concerns regarding the high school curriculum;
and to remind her to share that information with me, her direct supervisor, before presenting it to
the Board. These communication issues were the exact kind of problem addressed in Barbara
Besser's report.
13. Ms. Wheatley's charge claims that she received a written reprimand on
February 9, 2009; she did receive a reprimand that day, for performance reasons. Specifically,
Ms. Wheatley's e-mail of January 30, 2009, attached as Exhibit 16, Wheatley complained that I
had talked with a study hall monitor about his job performance when I visited the High School. In
fact, I visited the High School on several occasions in January 2009, entering the High School
through the cafeteria door when study hall was being held in the cafeteria. Each time I found
chaos. There was excessive noise, students socializing all around the cafeteria, and few students
engaged in their studies. Other students were eating, playing cards, milling around, etc. One
time, I witnessed female students with low-cut tops leaning over a seated duty monitor, who was
actively socializing with those female students. I asked Mr. Phillips, the duty monitor, what was
being done to address the lack of student passes, the lack of accurate record keeping on attendance
that had been brought to my attention, as well as the generally chaotic atmosphere I had observed.
4
I also spoke to Chris Papouras, the Assistant Principal, about getting the study hall into order
after Ms. Wheatley informed me that the study hall was his responsibility. I did not see any
positive changes during my walk-throughs, so I approached Ms. Wheatley about the problem.
Attached as Exhibit 17, please find a copy of a memorandum I sent Ms. Wheatley on February 2,
2009, regarding the performance expectations for all high school duty monitors (i.e., study halls,
14. My February 2,2009 memo specifically instructed Ms. Wheatley to put the
duty monitor job performance expectations in writing for distribution to the duty monitors when
she spoke with them. The letter also instructed Ms. Wheatley to put together a job description for
the duty monitor positions. Attached as Exhibit 18, is a responsive e-mail from Ms. Wheatley,
dated February 2, 2009, in which she states that she had discussed my expectations concerning
duty monitor performance. The e-mail, however, did not outline the substance of those
expectations. Ms. Wheatley sent this e-mail to the various study hall monitors, but also sent it to a
15. Attached as Exhibit 20, please find the written reprimand I issued to Ms.
Wheatley on February 9, 2009. The reprimand notes that Ms. Wheatley's mass e-mail of
February 2 included information relating to one individual employee's job performance. This was
highly inappropriate. In addition, the reprimand noted that Ms. Wheatley had abdicated her
responsibility for those performance issues. I felt that Ms. Wheatley had attempted to shift the
blame Mr. Papouroas, her assistant principal, for her own poor performance managing the study
hall problem. In addition, by informing the duty monitors that she was communicating my
5
expectations, not her expectations, I felt that Ms. Wheatley was abdicating any responsibility for
setting perfonnance standards for employees who worked in her school building.
16. Attached as Exhibit 21, dated February 10,2009, is Ms. Wheatley's rebuttal
to the February 9, 2009 reprimand. In the second paragraph of the rebuttal, Ms. Wheatley
mentioned that the duty monitors had been infonned of their job duties and perfonnance
expectations "on the first day of school, August 24, 2008." This response was unacceptable to me
because I had observed deficient perfonnance by the duty monitors in Ms. Wheatley's building
and I had specifically instructed her in my February 2 e~mail that she was to layout her
perfonnance expectations in writing. See Exhibit 17. Ms. Wheatley's rebuttal also disturbed me
because she did not seem to grasp my expectation that she take ownership of her staffs
perfonnance issues.
17. Ms. Wheatley's charge claims that the Board Vice President, Joe
Muscatello, sent her a "frightening" e-mail. Attached as Exhibit 22 is the e-mail of March 18,
2009, from Dr. Muscatello to Ms. Wheatley, which was copied to me and Board President Tony
Vitale. Attached as Exhibit 23, please find Ms. Wheatley's e-mail, dated March 24, 2009,
responding to Dr. Muscatello's e-mail, along with Dr. Muscatello's response. By way of
background, the Board considered, but never adopted, a seven period per day class schedule for
Wickliffe High School. In November 2008, however, Ms. Wheatley created and distributed a
write up, attached as Exhibit 24, announcing that Wickliffe High School had "been instructed to
implement a seven (7) period bell schedule for the 2009-20 10 school year." This statement was
not true, because the Board had never adopted any policy making such a change to the schedule. I
brought this issue to the Board's attention and confronted Ms. Wheatley about the write up. It is
my understanding that, during the November Board of Education meeting, the Board questioned
6
Ms. Wheatley about this matter, and about a subsequent letter writing campmgn involving
students. Ms. Wheatley refused to explain her actions and she was later instructed by the Board's
attorney, Tim Sheeran, and her own attorney, Susan Gragel, to submit a written explanation. Dr.
18. The Board and I did not confront Ms. Wheatley about the November 2008
write up to harass or retaliate against her. Instead, we addressed the issue with Ms. Wheatley
because she had misinfonned the public that the Board had ordered that the District's only high
school change its entire schedule. Neither the Board nor I had even issued any such order. Such a
schedule change would have impacted teachers, students, non-teaching employees, and parents
alike, which is why Ms. Wheatley's incorrect write up was so disturbing to us. In addition, Ms.
Wheatley never showed me or the Board the write up before distributing it. This created problems
for me and the Board members, because we were forced to respond to incorrect infonnation in an
official school document that we had never seen or approved. Finally, in her November 2008
write up, Ms. Wheatley made it appear that she had been instructed to change the High School's
schedule, which was false. No one instructed Ms. Wheatley to change the schedule or to
announce such a change to the public. Dr. Muscatello's e-mails, which Ms. Wheatley claimed
19. Ms. Wheatley's charge claims that I filed a "complaint" with the Ohio
Department of Education at the end of April 2009. This is not accurate and, in the context of her
charge, misleading. On or about March 31, 2009, a teacher approached me to report that she was
uncomfortable with a particular practice at the High School. She initially explained that high
school students were receiving 12 credits for a speech class during a class period in which they
were earning 1 or more credits for English. The teacher's concern was that the English class did
7
not actually cover the elements of the speech course, but the students were getting credit anyway.
In addition, students were receiving a total of 1'l2 to 2 Y2 credits for only 1 credit of work. Finally,
since speech is a graduation requirement, students were given credit toward both the required
credits for graduation, and for completing a required class that they, in fact, never took.
20. As the teacher explained what was happening, I concluded that this
practice, in effect, meant that students might have graduated who did not actually meet the Board
of Education's requirements for graduation. I was also concerned that state and federal special
education laws might have been violated if special education students' class assignments were not
consistent with their individualized education program ("IEP"), or if they received credit for
courses they never completed, or that a "free and appropriate public education" ("FAPE") was not
afforded to these special education students because they were graduated from the High School
without meeting the same graduation criteria as regular education students. The teacher informed
me that she had tried to use the chain of command and have Ms. Wheatley solve this problem.
The teacher even showed me e-mails documenting her efforts to have Ms. Wheatley rectify the
situation. Ms. Wheatley, however, had taken no action to correct the problem, so the teacher went
21. Ms. Wheatley's charge claims that she received a written reprimand on
May 26, 2009 and it implies she received another one on June 2, 2009. This is not accurate.
Rather, on April 15, 2009, I confronted Ms. Wheatley about this "double booking" practice and
she admitted that it had occurred. At the time, Ms. Wheatley rationalized the practice by claiming
that speech "used to be" a part of the English curriculum (before my tenure), so she saw no harm
in giving 1Y2 credits for 1 credit of work. Ms. Wheatley, however, never informed me about this
8
practice, she never sought my approval, and she never informed the Board or sought its approval,
either.
22. Later, in a written response, Ms. Wheatley implied that, for the double
booked special education students, their IEPs had not been violated because they were receiving
the interventions required by their rEPs while attending those double booked, multiple credit
classes. See Ms. Wheatley's rebuttal to my draft reprimand, dated May 29, 2009, attached as
Exhibit 25. But none of these students had "double credit" courses listed on their IEPs. Based on
this explanation and the teacher's complaint, I was worried that this practice might be illegal when
applied to special education students because it would violate the requirement that the District
provide a "free and appropriate public education" ("FAPE") to special education students. I was
also concerned that this may have been "the tip of the iceberg" to a more widespread problem
Education's Office for Exceptional Children, the agency charged with overseeing special
education in Ohio, and I contacted Jacqueline Barker at the Office for Professional Conduct, the
agency that oversees teacher licenses and practices. I contacted Ms. Barker and Ms. Shelby
because I needed advice on how to deal with the ramifications of possible violations of state and
federal special education laws resulting from the double booking practice that Ms. Wheatley
employed at Wickliffe High School. Ultimately, that investigation resulted in two actions. First,
parents and students who were about to graduate without required courses were given the choice
of (a) free summer school courses resulting in receipt of diplomas upon passing those courses, or
(b) parents and students could select a "credit waiver" option, which would be officially voted
upon and approved by the Board. Second, I issued an administrative reprimand to Ms. Wheatley.
9
My reprimand, dated June 2,2009, is attached as Exhibit 26. Attached as Exhibit 27 is my formal
School's "double booking" issue, I uncovered other troubling information. For example, though I
refer to the improper practice as "double booking," one special education student was actually
"triple booked" - given credit for two English courses and speech during a single period. In
addition, contrary to Ms. Wheatley's explanation, I discovered that special education students
were receiving credit for speech during classes that had nothing to do with the school's English
curriculum, i.e., Algebra and Art. A chart of special education students double and triple booked
25. I later found other violations of Board policies, unauthorized practices, and
potential violations of state and federal special education laws and regulations. I discovered that
Ms. Wheatley had created a "work study" program where students received credit for working
jobs during school hours. Ibis program had no curriculum and it had no teacher oversight of the
student's educational performance; as such there was no academic component that would justifY a
student earning credit for working. Despite this, our records show that Ms. Wheatley gave
students as many as 6 credits toward graduation for participating in her unauthorized "work study"
program. Ms. Wheatley, however, had never informed me about these practices, she never sought
my approval, and she never informed the Board or sought its approval, either.
26. I also discovered that Ms. Wheatley gave special education students credit
toward graduation for time spent in tutoring mandated by their IEPs. Special education tutoring is
intended as supplemental help for students having trouble with a course and is known as a "related
service" in special education law. Since tutoring is not an academic subject, and since no
10
student's IEP indicated that they would receive credit for tutoring, it was entirely inappropriate
under the special education laws to give credit for a non-academic service. Ms. Wheatley,
however, denoted the students' tutoring time as "support" and gave them credit. Ms. Wheatley
had never informed me about this practice, she never sought my approval, and she never informed
the Board or sought its approval, either. A chart of the unauthorized work study program and
27. In reviewing student records, I found that, from 2004 through 2008, Ms.
Wheatley graduated 30 students even though they had fewer than 21 officially approved credits.
This was a violation of the Wickliffe City School District's graduation requirements and was not
28. From 2004 through 2008, Charging Party Vicki Wheatley graduated 14
special education students even though they had fewer than 21 officially approved credits. This
was a violation of the Wickliffe City School District's graduation requirements and a violation of
the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and a failure to provide the special
education students a "free and appropriate public education" as required by that federal statute.
29. From 2004 through 2008, Charging Party Vicki Wheatley graduated 11
students even though they had fewer than 19 officially approved credits. This was a violation of
the state minimum requirements for graduation, a violation of the Wickliffe City School District's
graduation requirements, and this practice was not approved by the Board of Education.
30. From 2004 through 2008, Charging Party Vicki Wheatley graduated 7
special education students even though they had fewer than 19 officially approved credits. This
was a violation of the state minimum requirements for graduation, a violation of the Wickliffe
11
City School District's graduation requirements, a violation of the IDEA and a failure to provide
FAPE as required by that federal statute. 1ms practice was not approved by the Board of
Education.
management of Wickliffe High School, I removed her from the High School Principal position
and put her on home assignment, with full pay and benefits.
32. On or about July 15, 2009, Marilyn Foote, the interim High School
Principal, discovered another issue. She learned and reported to me that, during the 2008-2009
school year, five teachers were teaching classes for which they had no certification. Specifically,
two mathematics teachers were teaching weightlifting; a teacher certified for history, bookkeeping
and basic business was teaching government; a teacher certified for English and science was
teaching web page design; and a teacher certified for business education and bookkeeping was
teaching computer applications, multi-media and yearbook. The teachers teaching outside their
areas of certification produced error codes in the District's reporting to the state education
management information system ("EMIS"). These EMIS error codes, in turn, jeopardized some
of the District's state funding under the state's rules, which penalize school districts for not having
a "HigWy Qualified Teacher" ("HQT") teaching students. Ms. Wheatley had never informed me
about this practice, she never sought my approval, and she never informed the Board or sought its
approval, either. Moreover, the practice of assigning teachers outside their area of certification
was contrary to my express directive to all principals that every assigned teacher would be
33. I also learned that, during the 2008-2009 school year, Ms. Wheatley
instructed the High School Assistant Principal to have duty monitors teach classes when other
12
substitutes were not available. While some of the duty monitors held teaching certificates, others
did not. Most importantly, however, none of the duty monitors were Board approved as substitute
teachers. This created a situation where students were, in some instances, taught by unlicensed
individuals. Conversely, duty monitors were assigned to do a job for which they had not been
hired, for which they had not received training, and for which they had not been approved. Ms.
Wheatley had never informed me about this practice, she never sought my approval, and she never
informed the Board or sought its approval, either. Furthermore, during the same timeframe when
I was instructing Ms. Wheatley to take charge of managing the then-unacceptable job performance
of the high school duty monitors, she was assigning those same individuals to teach classes.
34. I reported all the facts I discovered to the State Board of Education's Office
for Professional Conduct, for their investigation and possible discipline of Ms. Wheatley. To my
knowledge, the State Board of Education has not taken any action on Ms. Wheatley's licenses.
35. On July 31, 2009, Ms. Wheatley submitted a letter requesting a transfer to
a teaching position. Attached as Exhibit 30, please find Ms. Wheatley's letter requesting a
transfer and attached as Exhibit 31, please find Ms. Wheatley's employment contract. During this
same time period, the Board's attorney, Adam Miller, has engaged in negotiations with Ms.
Wheatley's attorneys to try to resolve the situation with Ms. Wheatley's employment. To date,
the parties have not come to any agreement regarding her employment.
special education students, the work study program and giving academic credit for tutoring, the
Board has been forced to conduct a complete audit of the special education program at Wickliffe
High School.
13
37. Ms. Wheatley's violations of Board policies, state and federal laws and
cause to terminate Ms. Wheatley's employment contract under Ohio's statutes. The Board of
Education, however, has not yet taken any action to terminate Ms. Wheatley's employment, or
suspend her without pay pending termination, because the investigation of Ms. Wheatley's job
~fi ~1f1
KATHLEEN 1 INTAVEY, PH~'
Fl.])
'
SWORN TO BEFORE ME and subscribed in my presence this C)'+~ay of
October, 2009.
II \ \ II \ III/Ii Ii·
11
",,' RIAL 1 '1//
14