I think if any person with influence over children or teenagers has to leave their job because of moral issues, expecially at a school, it should be made public. That way the place hiring them knows what type person they are hiring. Personally I would not want someone that has a pattern of morals that are lacking having any influence over my children.  
 
I teach them right and wrong and talk to them about why something is wrong, but as children expecially teenagers they do not always follow what their parents say. I would hope they would but I am not a fool and bury my head in the sand and think they will do what I tell them at all times. I just hope that telling them why something is wrong, that when the time comes that they will take the right path.

The thing I don't understand is why schools when they let someone go that has a history they don't let the school that is hiring them know. I quess it boils down to money, they don't want to get sued, but you would think if it was true they could not sue the school that let them go.
 
Maybe I am simple that way, I just think honesty is the best policy.
 
If RP did what they are saying he did, and it is looking like he did, and the school did not know about it before they hired him would there be a case for a law suit against the other school that did not inform the school? Or if they did know is there a case for the parents against the school? Or if they didn't know and RP signed a moral clause, can there be a case against him?
 
Just some questions going on in my head.

when letting people go one must be very careful defense from invalid claims still costs money....the say nothing exit is common....only confirm dates employed if asked make no comments about personalities is the best advice.
 
i know it stinks and bad people find new jobs, take it up with the lawyers, not me.

Quote from radar49 on 08/05/07 at 7:12pm:

 
Having been on both side of the Human Resources game, the thing to understand about Alabama is that it is a Right To Work state.  If I don't like your haircut, I can fire you.  I don't have to tell you that I don't like your haircut, just that you are fired.  If you have reason to believe that I fired you unjustly, you can take me to court.  You'll most likely lose.  Most lawyers will not touch a employment case unless the EEOC has already ruled in your favor and issued you a Right To Sue letter.  
 
On the flip side, the hiring part.  If I am an employer worth his salt, I will ask for a complete employment history and send letters to the former employers.  These letter (or phone calls) will ask for the following information:  When did John Doe work there?  What was his position?  What was his income?  Would you rehire?  I would then match the answers with John Doe's application.  If they don't match, John Doe doesn't get to work here.
 
If I'm an employer getting one of these letters/phone calls, the answers will be truthful, but I will not get into detail.  I don't have to tell you why I will or will not re-hire.  I can hide behind :  Our company policy is that we will give you the dates worked, the position, the salary and if we would rehire.  That is all.  
 

You are so right, Lament.  Tammy Dunn, former national teacher of the year, was chairman of the science department and an excellent AP Biology teacher at SPHS.  
After she left (of her own volition because she was tenured and out-spoken so Broadway found ways to undermine her department and interfered with her ability to teach), she publicly stated that it was because of Broadway and that he was the primary cause of the average 30% plus turnover in teachers per year at SPHS.  Who's lucky enough to have and APPRECIATE her now?  Mountain Brook.

riverteacher,
I agree.  All the more reason that the arrogant, and far less intelligent administrators like Broadway, should not be running off our brightest and best.  What the BOE, CC and non-educational background supt. Craig have failed to comprehend, is that it's not about the money to dedicated teachers (or being able to say they are the "highest paid" in the state of Alabama).  It is about the ability to teach in a non-threatening retaliatory environment where the personal agenda of the administrators and BOE is not education.  Dr. Tammy Dunn is a teacher of great integrity.  She did not have an offer from Mountain Brook when she left SPHS.  And she knew when she told the truth publicly about her reasons for leaving that she was burning her bridges with the Hoover gang forever.  In taking a stand and making a statement about the problems with priorities in our school system, she taught her adoring students even more than Biology:  character, integrity, honesty and courage.
 
I doubt that the BOE or supt. ever contacted this national teacher of the year to ask why she resigned from SPHS.  They didn't care.  But for some mysterious reason, they did give Broadway a $16,000 raise after Dr. Dunn resigned and a week after school started for the 2006-07 year, far beyond his entitlement in accordance with the salary schedule adopted less than a month before by the BOE.  They knew Broadway did not deserve to have his salary brought up to $122,000 annually, not to mention other perks.  And they didn't raise him to keep another system from luring him away. I'm confident he has had no other offers from any other system since being at SPHS.  They raised him for a reason totally unrelated to merit.  They raised his salary by $16,000 for one reason only: to keep him quiet about what he knows and for his salary to be consistent with the $122,000 they agreed to pay to HHS's newly hired principal for 2006-07: RP's college buddy, Richard Bishop.
 
We're on the right track forum friends.  Let's keep following the money trail.      

There was an article in the B'ham New several months ago when Jon Anderson and Erin Stock were investigating the reasons for the extremely high turnover in teachers at SPHS.  Dr. Dunn made extensive remarks at that time which were reported.  Broadway refused to comment.  I recall the end of Anderson's article on that topic with respect to SPHS being: "where there's smoke there's fire."  How right he is.

If you find it online, please post the link.