MrsPeel, before you react like this, you should know the facts behind the entire case that were not presented at this meeting, and were also not told in Tom Hollands letter o the Star Observer editor.

What you are experiencing is a witch hunt of a board member who is not marching in lock step with the superintendent!

If anybody should be ethically challenged it is Tom Holland and the superintendent!

I think it's about time for the people of Hudson (the voters) to get their heads out-of-the-sand and take a good look at many of the School Board members and how tight they are tied to the Superintendant. She says jump and they say how high! Last time I checked, she is supposed to answer to the school board, not the other way around. Pay attention voters and get people on that board who are willing to stand up to her and support the children and teachers as they are supposed to be doing. If anyone ever bothered to check into what is really going on it would make your hair curl. Whether you have kids in school, yours, your grandchildren or none at all, you should be looking out for them not helping our superintendant drive our school system into the ground like she has been doing since she was hired. Hope all of this spurs people into doing the right thing.

School board members are not the "boss" of school district employees, nor are they the managers of the school district. Their job is to govern....to mark sure that the applicable laws and policies are followed.

Witch hunt? A formal compaint was filed with the board over a boardmembers actions, there was no possilbly involved. The board responded to a compaint, plain and simple.

William, there was no formal complaint filed. The article is clear as to EXACTLY who started the investigation. "The investigation was ordered by board president Tom Holland" It is nothing less than a witch hunt when the president of the board is the one that ordered the investigation, I would bet that order came from the Superintendent. The article clearly states the employee contacted Gehrke and asked for help. "•Gehrke said she would be happy to take on the employee's cause if she felt that she had been treated unfairly". Not so plain and simple, your statement is just unsupported by the facts.

You're wrong about that, Mike. There was a complaint filed. That's why Holland ordered the investigation. Also, Gehrke reached out to the employee, not the other way around.

Michael - have you seen a copy of the complaint? I don't believe even the one accused has seen a copy yet.

Vested Interest: Waldspurger declined my request for a written document of the allegations, findings and conclusions. I spent all night re-typing it all from an audio recording of the meeting.

Don't you find that a bit odd? What's taken place is a very public flogging approved by one member of the board and yet no documentation.

But it was the very same Tom Holland who wanted the Hudson 40 (those teachers that went to Madison) to be fired on the spot! I can remember that most of the teachers in Hudson were absolutely outraged by this reaction, and now hey love him?

Could it be that they received emails from the administration to better behave?

Further more Mr. Waldsburger is specialised in School Board matters, teacher contracts, etc. and all of a sudden he is also a capable investigator?

Mike, it could be that the school board is not fully aware what is going on "inside" the schools. All district employees who want to talk to the school board have to submit their request and the substance of their talk to central administration first, and there it will either be approved or denied!
My reading is that teachers are scared to be fired if they tell the truth!

First amendment rights do not exist in and around the Hudson School district. If a person does not agree with the superintendent (no matter whether it is a school board member or an employee), disciplinary actions are started!

Hudsoner, based on the information in this article and past news articles or letters to the editor I have to agree with you and I believe your "reading" is 100% right. I have not been involved in politics in the past, this article has prompted me to post my thoughts. How long has this been going on?

Mike, shortly after the new superintendent took office, the employees were informed that any contact with the school board had to be cleared through her office prior to establishing such a contact.

It is now also written like this in the new teachers handbook.

Cheryl, please re-read the news article. It was not stated in the facts that Ms. Gehrke ever told the employee not to tell. You simply made that up to try and make your point. The FACT's say that Ms. Gehrke "told the employee that she would keep their conversation in confidence and that the district would not be happy with the employee if it found out they had spoken". Second, district policy is not LAW. No LAWs were broken. In the article Ms. Gehrke said "she vehemently denied making any false statements". This is EXACTLY where problems come in to play. In this case Cheryl made statement that were not supported by the facts of the article.

Cheryl, they call it an independent investigation. What a joke, the investigator was the attorney employed on retainer by the school district, the same attorney was the prosecutor against Mrs. Gerke and also the judge who recommended her penalties. What is independent about this?

I bet he was advised about the desired outcome of his investigations!

By the way, what law did Mrs Gerke break? Was it the law of the superintendent? I do not know of any law that would not allow an employer (and as a school board member she is a part of the employer group).

Could it be that she recommended not to tell the supervisor about this interview because she know about the violent reaction that results from these interactions (how about what happened to Mrs Simons?)

Mike reread the statement, it does say she insinuated to the employee that if she told here superiors about thier conversation that they wouldnt be happy. Either way should should be fired for gross insubordination. She willing and knowingly broke the rules. The board cannot intervene in personnel issues on a direct basis that is against the law and does undermine the district management which is responsible for personnel related issue. This boardmember could end up with a lawsuit being filed against the board and the district. She violated board rules she should be fired.

William, again Ms. Gehrke is not an employee that can be fired at will. She is the BOSS! Ms. Gehrke did not break any LAWs. You seem to be taking the Allegations as being facts. If you read it close you will see that the Findings and Allegations do not match simply because most of the Allegations lack merit. Just because Ms. Gehrke will not follow every wish of the board is no valid reason start a witch hunt.

SP, you answered your own question.... Waldspurger even stated that the "offense" did not rise to the level required to remove her. ["but he didn't believe Gehrke's actions warranted removal"]. Even with this being a witch hunt he couldn't even stretch it far enough for that. Keep in mind, the article doesn't list exactly what the circumstances are or what they were about. Ms. Gehrke is not an employee of the superintendent, she is a publicly elected official of the school board. SP, why do you think that everyone should follow the board and if you have a person that uses her own mind, they should get rid of her?

What a right has Waldsburger at all, to recommend anything to the board, after he was portrayed as an "independent" investigator".

We shall not forget that Mrs Gerke was voted onto the board by a large majority of the voters. Most of those voters certainly knew of Mrs Gerke's background (one needed to read only the Hudson media publications to learn almost anything about Mrs Gerke.

I bet that these very voters wanted Mrs Gerke to be on the board to do actually that what she is doing, interrupting the lock step this board developed with the superintendent and rubber stamping any decision this very superintendent is making.

In my book, Mrs Gerke (I did not vote for her, my favorite candidate was Mrs Leaf) is doing exactly the things her voters wanted her to do, and the superintendent and her groupies called school board don't like it!

Purposely violating policy associated with your duties? Certainly an actionable offense.

SP, Gehrke has stated that mistakes were made. The facts do not support any actions against mistakes. The attorneys conclusions are just that, conclusions. Conclusions are only supported by the most minimal amount of fact and may not be accurate.

How do you know it were the same voters? As I stated, I did not vote for mrs Gerke (and I still would love to see Mrs leaf in this position), but I voted against the purchase of the dog track!

Don't you think that most voters can think further than just on one issue?

I return i could say that all voters, who voted for the dog track are now thoughtless followers of everything the school board decides, no matter whether it is wright or wrong!

My point is that a Majority of voters voted for both the Dog Track and Gehrke. I should not have said " same".

Diane, I cannot blame the lawyer for doing his job. The school board (or the superintendent ) told him what they wanted to achieve (quieten Mrs Gerke's critical voice), and he did what he is paid for. He seems to be good in what he is doing, and that is the reason that he was hired by the board.

The only way we can change this attitude of the current superintendent of being the absolute ruler over the Hudson School district is to remove her serves from the school board! The next elections are very soon, and it is up to us, the voters to initiate change!

Hudsoner: The August primary and November general election don't include school board positions. The next school board general election will take place in spring of 2013.

Thank you for the clarification Micheal

To expand on DianeT's post...

Waldspurger's firm, and Waldspurger in particular, sell their services aimed at removing uncooperative board members (to the district administration) from their school boards. They even have a session on just that topic at free workshops they hold for school district admin staff.

This usually a lucrative and risk-free venture for the law firm. They support the administration, which is who hires them and on whom they depend for continuing work and revenue. They can always find a basis to challenge an uncooperative board regardless the soundness of the opinion. And they have little fear of being contradicted since the challenged board members tends not to have the personal resources to mount a challenge.

It would be interesting to know who authorized the expenditure of district funds on the investigation and which board members knew of this investigation before it was initiated.

In Farmington, Minn., where I was the subject of a Waldspurger investigation (actually conducted by another attorney who was answerable to Waldspurger), well over $12,000 was spent. The board voted to censure me, and... (continued next post)

Tim Burke
tburke@elmwoodgroup.net

(continued from previous post)

...In Farmington, Minn., where I was the subject of a Waldspurger investigation (actually conducted by another attorney who was answerable to Waldspurger), well over $12,000 was spent. The board voted to censure me, and to refer the matter to the Dakota County Attorney for possible criminal charges. The Dakota County Attorney declined to pursue charges, citing, in part, the very political nature of the matter (http://www.startribune.com/local/south/125053164.html).

This matter, and others related to the transparency of the district administration, lead to the election of three new board members in Nov. 2010. New information that came to light in early 2011, but was never reported publicly, was followed soon after by the superintendent's resignation. He cited the new board's pursuit of "new directions and goals..." as the reason for his resignation (http://www.startribune.com/local/south/117359328.html).

Tim Burke
tburke@elmwoodgroup.net

Pain, I understand your comments. Very simply, there is absolutely no mention of a complaint in the article. By Michaels own words he tried to get a copy of it and was denied. If it's not there, it doesn't exist. The school board falls under the open meeting laws, this information is public information and the school board is refusing to release it. Its not a very far stretch to believe that since Ms Gehrke doesn't have a copy and they won't release a copy...it doesn't exist.

Wrong again, Mike. Perhaps you missed this sentence in the article above:
["The violation is a serious violation, and we had a complaint from a staff member," Holland told Patch after the meeting.]

Also, I tried to get a copy of what Walspurger presented during the meeting (allegations, findings and conclusions), which I had to transcribe from my audio notes. I never attempted to get a copy of the complaint, which I'm sure is tucked away safe in the employee's personnel file.

Michael, yep your right, I did miss that. Thanks for bringing that out to light. It is still interesting that they would not provide you with the documents you requested. Shouldn't the complaint and the allegations, findings and conclusions also be covered under the open meeting laws? I can understand if they blank out the staff members name, but the information included in that document could be very helpful to the community.

I want to put this comment in here in regard to several comments related to the release of material by the Attornery,

It is standard practice in these instances that the work product of the lawyer, consultant, accountant, etc. belongs to the client; in this case the School District. The professional will not release this information without the approval and direction of the client.

So again, taking swipes at Mr. Windsburger is out of line as he is bound not to release this information without permission.

I am for a new high school (or an extension of the existing one), but I'm not for it that such a school should be build on the dog track. There are many other possibilities that could work out very fine, for much less money! There is ample space behind the current high school (why do they need TWO football fields there?). There is ample space at Rock elementary, there is still the purchased Land on UU (I was told it would be rather low cost to run services out there).

I can't recall that I ever said at whatever cost, or that I mentioned cost t all.

I am just missing a thorough planing process here that was open for public (and employee) input. If my employer would operate like this, they would not be one of the worlds largest companies!

MrsPeel, the question is...when did Ms. Gehrke under the rules? We don't know if it was after all this started. That statement by the attorney is just an assumption, not a fact of time of knowledge.

Come on MrsPeel, the community knew about Ms Gerhke's former ethic problem, (and she paid her dues for this), but she still got elected. are we saying now" once an ethics violator, always an ethics violator?

Like once a red light runner, always a red light runner?

Curtsy-Lady, Talk about left field Google searches. Interesting article, but not relevant here at all.

Are you saying someone here has slandered Ms. Gehrke? If you can't forgive what you see as the "sins" of the past with the school board should Ms. Gehrke's past behavior be any different(and the ethics violations are not slander, they are a matter of public record)? Is asking people to follow the rules too much?

Mike,
Thanks for your great work on the school district investigation questions. Patch coverage has presented the breaking news and related documents to allow a timely and robust forum to express viewpoints.

Thanks, Peter, for the kind words. Are you trying to butter me up for something? ;-)

I certainly won't. If you want to get ahead of me, check out the full meeting video at http://patch.com/A-vWZY.

MrsPeel, you fail to take one very important, fact changing thing into consideration. You are correct about limitations that can be agreed to at the time of employment. But in this case, Ms. Gehrke is NOT AN EMPLOYEE! She is the BOSS! She is an elected official of the people to represent them on the school board. She is not an at will employee, or trusted employee with property rights, she is an elected official. Elected officials are not governed by the same rules as employees!

Mike: At the meeting last night, the relationship was described as that of a CEO and board at a public company. The superintendent is the CEO, and the board is the board. They used a road trip analogy and said the board navigates a course, but the superintendent drives the car.

Michael, I understand what you are saying, but my statement still stand as true. She is not an employee, she is not at will and can not be terminated for any reason, she does not have a property interest. She is an elected official responsible to the community that elected her. The structure of the board does not change any of the above facts. I have not been involved in the politics before but this sure whole topic seemed to me to be a witch hunt. I am learning a lot that I did not know about how the HSD is being operated and to say the least, I am very disappointed in the system. I had no idea the management abilities of the schools board was so limited by the Superintendents all mighty power. I hope others reading this may also get concerned enough to voice their opinions as I have. Michael, thank you for all your hard work in bringing this information to light, I see you were up all night to get this info out.

MrsPeel, you forgot one little item here, the investigation was called an "independent" one. How can an attorney, who is on retainer by the school board, can be an independent investigator against one member of said board.

If I ever have seen a conflict of interests, this is certainly one!

And another thing, Sandy Gerhke is not employed by the school district, she will not fall under those regulations. Sandy was elected by the voting public of the school district, and I have a little bit of a doubt whether she has to yield to a policy that the board gave it self (what legality have these rules/policies??), or whether she has to follow the will of her voters

In a public company (school district), the board is elected by the shareholders (taxpayers). The board hires the CEO (superintendent) to run the company. The CEO (super) answers to the board, who in turn answer to the shareholders (taxpayers). The CEO (super) may drive the car but the shareholders (taxpayers) own it. The board decides what kind of car it is. Anybody know when MBE's contract is up? It might make for a great slogan for a possible new board member want to be in 2013.

@Mike... No, Ms. Gerhke is not the "BOSS". She is one member of an elected Board of Education, which in turn elected Mr. Holland as its President. Gerhke has no more authority than any other Board Member. The Board has authority when it acts as a "whole"; that authority is not vested in any indivual member.

I'm pretty sure that the Board has a process that would permit the Board acting together to terminate the membership on the Board of any member that is determined to be acting against the interests of the District.

This has nothing to do with Ms. Gerhke being the BOSS. She is a member of the School Board and is obligated to abide be the rules of governance of the School District and/or The Board of Education.

If she disagreew with these rules and polices then she has every right to bring them up and discuss them and attempt to have them altered. She does not have the right to disregard them at her whim.

I've been very impressed with the civil tone in most of these comments, but I should put out a quick reminder to all to refrain from personal attacks in this forum. Keep up the healthy debate and discourse.

Who determines that she did? The lawyer who is on retainer by the board and created the findings of his ;independent: investigation exactly as it was requested?

For about 10 years of my working life I was an internal investigator for that very big company i was employed by (fraud investigation, regulatory violations, etc.) I had to write a report about every finding I made. Where is the report from the attorney, can we see it, where are his working papers that should accompany the report? Any audit/investigation should be reproducible with the support of this paperwork, is that possible with this investigation?

And again my question, what legal standing have the rules given to it self by the board compared to the wish of the voters for the person they voted into office? Which rules/requirements have priority?

I can ask for it, but I have a feeling they will withhold it based on attorney-client privilege.

Thanks Michael. I appreciate your hard work.

Seriously, Evjen? How is an attorney from the Twin Cities be "out of area"? That law firm specializes in working with School Boards which is undoubtedly why the firm was engaged initially.You obviously know little or nothing about how professionals are hired by companies, corporations, boards, etc.

Hudson is a small community which is not large enough to support specialized law firms, so if one needs expertise in specific areas one must expand one's search for that skill. You might ask any of our excellent local attorneys about this instead of ranting about it.

The way in which the Hudson School District operates with the relationship with the Administration and the Board of Education is quite normal. You seem to lacking in understanding this also. Mr. Holland gave a good example during the meeting. Of course you have likely not watched the video of the entire meeting.

If you take the time to watch the video you will hear the attorney read his detailed report.

@Hudsonmmom... I would wager that you would be among the first to go apoplectic at the $50,000 - $100,000 cost of the investigation that you are proposing.

I'm guessing that you have little knowledge of the cost of such professional services to conduct such a review. The fees for the individuals would be ranging between $90 - 200/hr.

So let us know if you want to spend this kind of money anytime soon.

Clearly she has said that mistakes were made by her, I think she has accounted for them by the article. Moreover, to me it is an issue of a public flogging of a board member. At first this morning I had no idea about the power the Superintendent has over the board, which should be her boss. That has come to light to me just today and I think that is absolutely WRONG! This seems like it is nothing more than control tactics to attack a board member that is not under the control of the Superintendent. Pain, I hope that answered your question. Now please answer mine. Thanks.

Bobby, I hope thats not a concern.... But from what I learned today about the actions of the school board it could be a reality.... lol

@Bobby B. .. Apparently you didn't read Hudsoner's suggest that you put on your Big Boy Pants.

@Mike... once again you to be corrected. If you listened to what was said during the meeting and what has been posted here in several posts you would understand that the Superintendent has "no power" over the Board. The Superintendent reports to the Board, not the other way around.

Try thinking before typing and you wouldn't have to be corrected so often.

Paine, was that my answer?

Waldspurger investigated those very complaints as well and reported the allegations, findings and conclusions for them as well. I plan to do a post on that within the next day or two. If you can't wait, check out the full meeting video at http://hudson-wi.patch.com/articles/video-hudson-school-district-board-of-education-meeting-july-10-2012.

She is paid more than any full time teachers!

Paine... stop confusing the "whiners" with the facts. Having them actually watch the video would likely cause some sort problem by causing them to have to think, which would cause cognitive dissonance.

The attorney also asked Ms. Gehrke for the source of her information so he could follow up on it. It didn't appear that he was being deceptive.

I would not go that far to call the school board members corrupt, but they are totally uninformed, because all information for them is filtered through the superintendent.

As we realized from the recent board meeting, this shall not change! Any board member who will step out of the lock step the superintendent determined to be the proper space, will be dealt with in a very harsh manner!

So fma iris, when was the last time you paid any attention to these issues? When was the last time yoiu attened at Board Meeting? When was the last time you paid attention to anything for more than 5 minutes?

You sit on the sidelines and pay little attention and then suddenly you are "shocked" at what takes place on a day to day basis.

What is the "cat that is being let out of the bag"?

MrsPeel: Please don't resort to personal attacks. Keep it civil in here and refrain from attacking someone's perceived attention span.

@True Grit... huzzah!

You are correct that the "government as a business" model would result in the immediate dismissal "for cause" of Ms. Gerhke.

Ms. Gerhke as a busiiness person and a realtor is quite familiar with contracts, rules, policies, etc. She works with and interpret these on a daily basis. To plead that she didn't understand them is pure BS.

As the attorney said, she is intelligent.

She screwed up and got caught. She was admonished for it. End of story.

Paine Reliever: Perhaps you missed this sentence:
[Gehrke acknowledged that she had made multiple mistakes in her conversation with the district employee, but she vehemently denied making any false statements.]

From what I sensed at last night's meeting, Gehrke acknowledged wrongdoing for many of the findings Waldspurger laid out. The only finding she seemed to dispute were those that claim she lied (made false statements) to the employee.

It seems to me that she had nothing but good intentions for the employee, but in the process of pursuing those intentions, she appeared to willfully undermine the administration and put the district at risk for litigation.

It seems to me like she aligned her own goals with what she viewed as best for the employee and used it as a platform to undermine the administration.

... but that's just the way I saw it from my front-row seat at last night's meeting. Strictly opinion.

Thanks for your explanation Micheal.
What makes me wonder is the fact that Sandy'd contact with the employee was considered to be a risk leading to litigation.

On the other hand, how shall school board members find out what is going on inside the schools? Employees are not allowed to talk to them, information about schools get filtered through the superintendent, how shall they know?

And my other question, what is more important, following the self imposed rules of the school board or following the will of the voters. It would be interesting to hear a legal opinion about this.

continued

We see here a lot of comparisons with corporations, and statements that corporation boards do not contact individual employees. Actually, they do. Most large corporations have an auditing committee made up by members of the board, and internal auditing systems. A part of these internal audit groups are compliance auditors who report to the auditing committee and not to the CEO (who is an employee). These auditors are the vehicle through which boards find out what is going on in the company. This is the checks and balance system in large corporations.

This system is missing in the school district and prevents the school board members from finding out what is going on inside the school system.

I feel that it is very obvious that such a system is "sick" and will lead to problems (as we can see in Hudson), and I believe Sandy wanted to to get some information which was not made available to her through the administration. Instead of scolding her, we should praise her that she had the "guts" trying to brake through the vicious circle of keeping the school board members to continue to be uninformed puppets of the central administration!

Paine, because every school district is acting like this makes it right? And because past board members acted like Lemmings following their leaders makes it a sound system?

Board members are there to look out for the public and not to rubber stamp the decisions of the administration!

Following you logic, I have to say that manure is great, millions of flies can't be wrong!

Pain, if we don't understand the policies and why they are there, then show me you do and please explain them to me so I can understand. Until someone tells me where I am wrong, there is only one explanation for the policies.

Wouldn't you think "independent" means someone who has no working or business ties with the school administration or the school board. You might be able to find an attorney in River Falls or New Richmond or Stillwater with no associations...

Perhaps Editor Mike can explain who determines the label "independent" in a story like this? It reminds of the FOX News slogan "Fair and Balanced."

PBnJ: I got the "independent investigation" wording straight from the meeting agenda. Anyone doing an investigation would have had to have been hired by the district/board and paid with taxpayer dollars. And if they were bothering to do an investigation (they did three), you would expect that they would get the best and most experienced attorneys they could afford to conduct it.

Also, remember that Gehrke is part of the board too. This same lawyer might have to argue a case on her behalf if the district is sued as a result of her actions.

Mike, if Waldspurger has been employment by the board and/or administration previously, because of the previous connections and future business potention to Waldspurger and his law firm, I have doubts about the independence.

Perhaps, from a journalistic perspective, you should have put "independent" in quotes.

Phil - I think you are hitting the nail on the head. This administration has through policy making tried to reduce the ability of board members to perform their duties to ensure school operations are done as required by law. A policy is not a law.
Here's what is stated in Wis stats as law.
Wis Stat: 120.12 School board duties. The school board of a common
or union high school district shall:
(1) MANAGEMENT OF SCHOOL DISTRICT. Subject to the authority
vested in the annual meeting and to the authority and possession specifically given to other school district officers, have the possession, care, control and management of the property and affairs of the school district
(2) GENERAL SUPERVISION. Visit and examine the schools of the school district, advise the school teachers and administrative staff regarding the instruction, government and progress of the pupils and exercise general supervision over such schools.

Now, " the authority and possession specifically given to other school district officers" stated in (1) are those listed by state law, not policy. A board cannot usurp state law The action that Sandy did with talking to an employee about a concern was well within her duty to do.

Vested this is what I was looking for. A body (here the school board) gives it self rules how to operate (like Robert rules of Orders for example). These rules are not law and can be broken if an elected member of said body feels it is in the best interests of the organization. No organizational rules can overrule state or federal law,

What I see here is that the school board actually violated state law by censuring Mrs Gehrke. It should be Mrs Gerhke who takes the school board to court, and not the other way around.

I see an indication for the possible violation in the fact that Mrs Gehrke was informed of the possible action only in mid morning of the meeting day. This made it impossible to seek the advise of legal council in this matter, while the school board and the attorney had all the time in the world to prepare themselves.

I even wonder whether Mrs Gehrke was aware of the fact that an investigation was instigated against her.

Please read more carefully: "Subject to the authority vested...and to the authority and possession specifically given to other school district officers". Your interpretation is not accurate. Basically, the school board can appoint a district official (superintendent) to be responsible for the affairs of the district. If no official is given this authority, only then does it become the board's responsibility. School district policy #2200 outlines the role of the board as it pertains to personnel matters, and references this exact state statute (along with others).
Furthermore, the policies that Ms. Gehrke violated were not created by this board. At least 2 of the policies referenced in the investigation were most recently revised in 1990. That means that no current board member or Ms. Bowen-Eggebraten had anything to do with creating or approving this policy.
Ms. Gehrke touts "transparency", yet she and many who support her claim that this should have been done in a more discreet and private manner. I'm sorry, but you cannot demand complete transparency from your school district, then expect to have your personal negligence kept quiet. If you don't want your wrongdoings exposed to the public, don't violate the policy in the first place.

Kari, thank you for your thoughts on this! I slowly get a feeling for all the ins and outs with these board policies.

How should one understand "the authority vested in the annual meeting"? Does that mean a special meeting of the sitting board, or a meeting of the electorate at which said voters will extend the other school district officers?

I do not see in (1) anything that would forbid a board member to talk with employees, because this would not interfere with "the possession, care, control and management of the property and affairs of the school district" because it is not active but only informative!

Point (2) seems not to be very clear either.

I agree with you that the request for transparency should go into either direction!

The statute allows a school board to appoint a district officer (in this case, superintendent), who is responsible for overseeing the district, including personnel matters. (They have vested their authority to her). In doing so, the board removes itself from direct involvement with the daily affairs. To protect the integrity of the statute and maintain accountability by the superintendent, the board created policies which lay out specific procedures as to how the district should be managed. In matters of personnel, all concerns are brought to the superintendent. In this case, the board policies do, in fact, supercede the statute (because the statute allowed for it). Ms. Gehrke was NOT within her rights to handle an individual personnel matter.

My role is to host the conversation, make sure everyone is being civil, point out when erroneous information is being spread (if I know it to be erroneous), and provide facts and insights.

I am a journalist, but I also am a resident of the Hudson community. You click through to my profile to see where I stand politically. As a professional journalist, I know how to write an article with facts despite my own personal opinions on the matter.

"Railroaded by a slick attorney" and "It's all a bunch of crap. I didn't lie to this person about one single thing. [Waldspurger] twisted everything that happened to make it sound like I did." are one characterization of what happened at the meeting. I do get that.

But I also get Holland's characterization when he told me, "In order for us to protect that staff member and Sandy, we needed to investigate it. ... We'd rather be doing it behind closed doors, but when we do that behind closed doors the public is not aware of what action we are taking and therefore rumor mills can spread."

I think both versions are fair characterizations of what happened Tuesday. I presented both in my article. Different people can view the same event in different ways. I acknowledge that and there is no shortage of additional points of view being shared in the comments of this post.

Nice speculation on your part, Diane T. However you are wrong. I live in the City of Hudson, however I once lived in the Plymouth area so I keep up on the happenings there.

Waldspurger made the suggestion, as on option, to the Board that they might want to consider making policy changes. It's what any good professional would do for his client.

Nice try.

Well said.

Do we know whether the complaint reason is for real or just a fabricated one to justify the "investigation"?

Geez Hudsoner, Ms Gehrke has admitted speaking with the employee. Why do you think the board members have a secret agenda. Looks like they had to spend/waste a whole lot of time dispelling myths and rumors that are flying around our district. Perhaps if people didn't make this stuff up they could spend more time on that little education thing that is their true task.

There are no facts in your statement. Just a bunch of 'what ifs', or 'maybe'.

I know for a fact that other sitting board members had school related conversations with some teachers> How come they were not investigated? is it because they are in lock step with the superintendent?

As I said before, I smells like a witch hunt!

Or, could the employee that Sandy talked to is scared that she/he might get fired and has now changed her/his story? From everything else I have read about the Superintendents method of dealing with personnel issues, that is not a far stretch.

Not on the payroll, do not personally know any of the board members, have lived in the district and paid taxes for thirty years, having one child in the district for one year (more than 20 years ago). I have no vested interest in the school board except as a taxpayer and someone who hopes our children are more intelligent than we are.

So Phil McGraw, what are your creds? And are you on the payroll?

MrsPeel, mentioning the possible law suits during the meeting could have been scare crow tactic (you and I know that lawyers like to do these kind of things as part of their saber rattling).
What do we know, why should the person have initiated a law suit, since it seems that Sandy wanted to help the person. The only possibility I can see that said person would have become encouraged to file a law suit against the district for wrong treatment.

What amazes me is the fact that, even though the policies were written in the very early 90's, there has never been any action against any board member because of these rules.

And I know for a fact that different board members had job related discussions with different employees over this time span!

Why is it now that the rules are acted upon? Could it be that a board member who is not marching in lock step with the superintendent has to be put into her place, and an example has to be established to warn future dissidents?

I still call these actions to be a witch hunt!

Well Painer Reliver, for those that are employed (wink wink), I'm sure they would be appalled if their employer opened up the file and read it to the community. Do you not think any confidentiality laws were broken in this regard. Please don't be blinded by your support of Holland and Bowen-Eggebraaten.

Kari, do you really believe that consulting fellow board members (which had already formed a close wall against Sandy at that point), would have brought any satisfactory result?

Considering that the board is not providing much information to Mrs. Gehrke, or if at all, only shortly before the deadline (as we could see with the agenda changes of the last meeting), It might have been the only chance for Mrs. Gehrke to gather the information she needed by going directly to the employee.

As I said several times before, different board members contacted different employees before on job related issues, and it has never been made into a subject of any investigation.

I still don't know on which legal ground the policies are based, and if policy can override the will of the electorate. As far as I know, elected officials can only be removed from office by the voters and not by means of some policy. am I wrong here?
I feel that the policy #2200 should be changed asap, because it gives the superintendent absolute power and relegates the board members to become useless puppets. Why have a board at all if all its power is delegated to their top employee?

Come on Kari, are you pleading ignorance now after all of your fine research and information dating back 20 years? Nice try. Several board members have been cited in recent years. Check back on the ruling where Nancy Donovan and Dick Muenich were cited by the district attorney for a violation of the open meetings law for starters. I don't recall any public flogging by the slick attorney and board on that one. That was handled privately by the board. FYI- You look silly when you're trying to hide your bias......

"You look silly when you're trying to hide your bias"-

Yes the Gehrke backers seem completely objective here. A rule exists, a rule was broken. Just as we tell our children, there are consequences. In this grey world it's a black and white situation.

I do not know whether complains (by who) were filed.
We don't know who filed or why complaints were filed this time around either.

Please show evidence of any filed complains! I do not consider roof of evidence if the attorney or a board member says so, they can say anything they like!

No different than how the Gehrke matter was handled? Come on now, are you serious? Please provide the internet link where you obtained this information. Or do you have a direction connection to the district? Tuesday was a joke, pure and simple.

Kari, there is a huge difference between violating LAWS and POLICIES. Law's are criminal, where policies are guidelines. Policies do not trump state/federal laws. As to your comment of what a past board did, it is very relevant. That has set a president as to the future. Each person must be treated equally, if they treat Sandy different than others in the past have been treated then the HSB has set up a condition of liability where Sandy could sue them.

What do you mean, Bobby?

You're jumping to conclusions, Bobby. I have gotten no contact from legal counsel representing the school district nor from Patch's parent company, AOL.

I have had to remove several abusive comments, and all users have the ability to flag comments as inappropriate.

You clearly were able to leave a comment an hour ago without any problems. Your account has not been suspended and remains in good standing.

I am with you Mike. There is nothing to say anymore, all arguments have been presented. I also want to thank Micheal for running this article.

I don't see how one comes to the conclusion that there is a general consensus that Ms Gehrke was the target of a witch hunt. Doesn't the fact that she was the one who had the inappropriate behavior, looking to drum up dirt on the Superintendent mean anything. The fact that the employee felt very uncomfortable after speaking with her should have no consequences? I think the fact that several of the school board members have been elected several times may mean that the public has confidence in them and their decisions.

If you're making that correction then how about the part where the lawyer says that the board can remove Gehrke. Wisconsin law does NOT allow a school board to remove one of their own members. Only the constiuents can do this through the recall process. I would appreciate the patch making that correction as well. And then maybe the Mr. Walldspurger can apologize to Ms. Gehrke for blatantly harming her reputation with such falsehoods.

I have a question along those line in at the state's Government Accountability Board. I'll, of course, note it here if I find that school boards don't have removal authority.

With most legal issues, I'm sure there will be arguments both ways. That's why I'm going straight to the agency responsible for taking complaints in these sort of matters.
http://gab.wi.gov/node/1372

I see the Paine has returned. Please quote anywhere in Wisconsin law where a school board member can be removed for any reason by the board and not the voters. Try not to sway too far from the question. I know it's tough.....

The attorney stressed he didn't feel any further actions were warranted. I think BB is just trying to deflect attention from the real issue.

Mis-stating something is not the same as lying (I can't say the attorney misstated anything as I don't know the law). It also seems like a small point to make - any damage to Ms. Gehrke's reputation has been by her own hand. I suspect inflammatory comments such as "garbage investigation", "witch hunt", etc., are simply an attempt to disparage the reputations of Waldspurger, Holland and Bowen-Eggebraaten.

PR - I look forward to the possibility of rezoning denied at which time the 3 amigos will say "how could you; now what?"

Oh Phil, just another attempt, as with D.T., to discredit someone by going off topic.

Threat??? How is anything I said a threat? Please explain.

Each of those is their own topic and you seem to believe that Diane is stating facts. You simply want to discredit me. Right?

Bobby B, Show me where I have dodged the question about removing Sandy. I have never called for that. I would appreciate it if she didn't break policies while she serves our community. And if she breaks more policies and is investigated again, is that a witch hunt?

The purpose of this whole conversation was about using proper channels to correct a wrong. If you aren't willing to stand behind your position then you are doing just as I thought, blowing smoke.

What documents are you talking about, and what documents has Diane used in her "research". I'd be happy to read them. Let me know when you find them.

hissy fit? Try that shoe on, I think it will fit.

Ha! That is funny, an anonymous blogger bragging about her virtual income. Is your dad stronger than my dad too?

Give it up Kari, there is a faction here that does not have a remote interest in objectivity just in being 'right' and throwing flames. Being rational doesn't work. But nice try.

Amazing how little some contribute.

PR, how does someone lie "with or without intent?" I would think a lie would be an intentional misrepresentation of the facts to knowingly mislead or cover up something. Unintentional explaining something with incorrect information or no intent to intentionally mislead or cover up, wouldn't qualify as a lie in my book. It would be more like ignorance exposed.

Renee makes an excellent point about the quantity of some contributions here.