Dishonesty

(CCEA Express, November 2009)

Tell the truth.  Seems like common sense, yet not telling the truth is one of the most common mistakes a teacher can make when facing an investigation.  This mistake can be a costly one, as dishonesty is one of five grounds under Nevada law that do not require that a teacher receive an admonition prior to dismissal.  Nevada law requires that, except for the circumstances noted below, a teacher be admonished when the supervisor believes the employee may be dismissed or not be reemployed.  Effectively, teachers receive a written “Admonition” advising them of the deficiencies, how to correct them, and the time to do so before they can be dismissed.  However, there are five exceptions to the Admonition requirement:

     * immorality

     * physical or mental incapacity

     * a justifiable decrease in the number of positions due to decreased enrollment or district reorganization

     * conviction of a felony or of a crime involving immoral turpitude

     * dishonesty

     Dishonesty is the most common of the five exceptions, and recently the school district has been successful in upholding dismissals without a prior Admonition or progressive discipline.  Following are three case scenarios where dishonesty during an investigatory interview cost the teachers their job.

     The dismissal of a teacher was upheld when he denied making defamatory statements to students during the investigatory conference.  Had the teacher told the truth during the investigatory conference, the school district would not have had grounds for dismissal.  The school district would have had to admonish the teacher first.  The arbitrator noted that the school district had completed a thorough investigation by obtaining 15 student statements and that students’ testimony during the arbitration proved that the teacher was dishonest and the dismissal was appropriate.  It is significant to note that this teacher did not call CCEA for union representation during the investigatory interview and the arbitrator noted this, “Had [teacher] sought Association representation during the investigative meeting in question, perhaps the Association’s wise guidance could have avoided the present charges and thus saved [his] employment.”

     A teacher who provided a false Verification of Employment was dismissed.  The arbitrator determined that the teacher was deliberately untruthful on the Verification and upheld the dismissal.  Again, this teacher did not receive an Admonition prior to being dismissed.

     In the last scenario, a teacher was dismissed without a prior admonition when she was dishonest during the investigatory interview regarding the accuracy of the grades that she entered into GradePro.  The teacher was given an opportunity to change her answer so that she could correct the grades but was adamant that the grades were accurate.  The arbitrator upheld the dismissal noting that the teacher’s vacillating, inconsistent, and untruthful statements during the investigatory meetings showed persistent dishonesty.  Again, had the teacher admitted that the grades were not accurate, she would not have been dismissed for this first offense.

     It is easy to get nervous and tense when being investigated; however, the advice is simple:  tell the truth.  It is also important to have representation with you.  It will build your confidence to have someone there by your side to ask questions, take notes, and potentially resolve the issue right then and there.