safeguarding your district the evidence model for reliable in house investigations n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Safeguarding Your District: The EVIDENCE Model for Reliable In-House Investigations PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Safeguarding Your District: The EVIDENCE Model for Reliable In-House Investigations

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 50

Safeguarding Your District: The EVIDENCE Model for Reliable In-House Investigations - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 56 Views
  • Uploaded on

Safeguarding Your District: The EVIDENCE Model for Reliable In-House Investigations. Presented by: Brian D. Bock, Partner. Purpose of Today’s Presentation. When to investigate? Conducting an “adequate” investigation Protecting the district from legal action.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Safeguarding Your District: The EVIDENCE Model for Reliable In-House Investigations' - enan


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
safeguarding your district the evidence model for reliable in house investigations

Safeguarding Your District: The EVIDENCE Model for Reliable In-House Investigations

Presented by:

Brian D. Bock, Partner

purpose of today s presentation
Purpose of Today’s Presentation
  • When to investigate?
  • Conducting an “adequate” investigation
  • Protecting the district from legal action
cotran v rollins huding hall int l inc 1998 17 cal 4 th 93
Cotran v. Rollins Huding Hall Int’l, Inc. (1998) 17 Cal.4th 93
  • Landmark decision
  • Strengthens employer’s chances of successfully defending against a wrongful termination action
  • Adequate (prompt, appropriate, and effective) investigation is key
cotran decision
Cotran Decision
  • Employer has good faith belief that a worker engaged in misconduct establishes “good cause” for terminating their employment
  • Good Cause: “reasoned conclusion … supported by substantial evidence gathered through an adequate investigation that includes notice of the claimed misconduct and a chance for the employee to respond.”
keys to an adequate investigation employing the evidence model
Keys to an Adequate InvestigationEmploying the EVIDENCE Model
  • Evaluate the complaint/situation
  • Verify allegations and plan investigation
  • Interview witnesses and gather facts/evidence
  • Document, document, document
  • Examine evidence and prepare report
  • Notify those involved
  • Corrective actions – consider options
  • Educate to avoid future problems
evaluate when is an investigation appropriate
EVALUATE - When is an investigation appropriate?
  • When disciplinary action is being considered (CBA?)
  • When the incident exposes the District to potential liability
  • When it is required by Board policy
  • When it is required by law (UCP 5 CCR 4600)
when is an investigation appropriate
When is an investigation appropriate?

Other considerations:

  • Severity of alleged conduct
  • Frequency of alleged conduct
  • Complainant’s credibility
  • Identity of the accused
  • Similar complaints against accused
  • Impact of alleged conduct on others
  • Whether immediate action is required (i.e., report to police/CPS)
verify and plan commencing investigation promptly
VERIFY (and PLAN)- Commencing Investigation Promptly
  • Evidence available and preserved
  • Witnesses’ recollections will be fresh
  • Protection against legal actions and challenges
selecting an investigator
Selecting an Investigator
  • CBA, BPs/ARs - designated employees?
  • Individual v. team
  • Who?
    • School administrator
    • Independent outside investigator
    • Legal counsel
    • Police
  • Characteristics (e.g. neutral, sound judgment, experience, gender, personality)
what needs to be verified
What needs to be verified?
  • CBA, BPs/ARs violated?
  • Appropriate investigative policy and/or procedure
  • Relevant facts to be determined
create investigative plan
Create Investigative Plan
  • List all witnesses to interview
    • Identified in complaint
    • Personal knowledge
  • Be flexible; list may change
  • Match up facts to verify with appropriate witness
    • Who can provide what information?
create investigative plan1
Create Investigative Plan
  • Prepare interview questions
    • Subjects to cover in interview
    • Avoid leading and compound questions
    • Open-ended and non-judgmental questions
    • Expand inquiries beyond “four corners” of the complaint
create investigative plan2
Create Investigative Plan
  • Separate complainant from accused
  • Mandatory vs. optional leave of absence offense
  • Administrative leave?
    • In writing and non-disciplinary
create investigative plan3
Create Investigative Plan
  • Prepare memo
    • Brief, general description of investigation
    • Identify investigative policy and/or procedure (attach copy)
    • Introduce investigator
    • Warn of prohibition against retaliation
    • Instruct but don’t promise confidentiality
review documents before interviews
Review Documents Before Interviews
  • Personnel/Site files
  • Job descriptions
  • Previous complaints or grievances
  • Organization chart and roster of employees
  • Other sources of institutional memory
  • Relevant policies and/or procedures
  • Note: Consider revising your investigative plan
interview initial considerations
INTERVIEW - Initial Considerations
  • Order of witnesses
    • (Almost always) start with the complainant, or
    • Most knowledgeable person (if no complaint filed)
  • Take copious notes
  • Tape recording interviews (check Board policy)
  • Representation
  • Be unbiased, open and direct
  • No group interviews
  • Interviewing students (age, number)
  • Interviewing parents (translator)
conducting interviews
Conducting Interviews

Location and Time of Interview:

  • Memo to individual re: interview
  • Private office or conference room
  • Come and go without raising comments/suspicion
  • Remove distractions (i.e. cell phones)
  • Allow interviewee easy access to exit
  • Clear visual of the interviewee
  • Provide tissues
conducting interviews1
Conducting Interviews

Starting Interviews:

  • Explain/provide copies of process, policies and/or procedures
  • Explain investigator’s role
  • Report perceived retaliation
  • Don’t promise confidentiality
  • Acknowledge potential disclosure of complaint; assure sensitivity
  • Request confidentiality of interview
conducting interviews2
Conducting Interviews

Getting the Facts:

  • Verify facts and probe for details
  • No leading or compound questions
  • Ask follow-up questions
  • Ask questions repeatedly if not answered
  • Be thorough - get story from start to finish
  • Ask for demonstrations
conducting interviews3
Conducting Interviews

Getting the Facts:

Listen

No judgmental comments

Do not insinuate blame or suggest that the complainant deserved it

Be sensitive, but don’t empathize

Assess interviewee’s demeanor (cooperative, nervous, angry, forthcoming)

20

conducting interviews4
Conducting Interviews

Getting the Facts:

Seek written statement/complaint

Ask for supportive documentation/names of other witnesses

Notes should capture:

Gist of questions

Content of responses

Credibility/demeanor notations

Repeat significant points

Confirm no more allegations

21

conducting interviews complainant
Conducting Interviews - Complainant

Getting the Facts:

Gather background information

Gather details

Take alleged incidents in order and ask specifics about each incident:

When did it occur

How often did it occur

What was said or done

Who was present

Anyone complainant told prior to filing complaint?

22

conducting interviews complainant1
Conducting Interviews - Complainant

Unlawful discrimination investigations

Why complainant believes conduct was based upon their protected status

Examples of differential treatment

How conduct made them feel

Negative impact on the work environment

23

conducting interviews complainant2
Conducting Interviews - Complainant

Remedy sought?

Additional information?

Repeat significant points of interview; ask for confirmation

Remind interviewee of retaliation prohibition and confidentiality instructions

Confirmation of interview

24

conducting interviews complainant3
Conducting Interviews - Complainant

Reluctant / seeking anonymity:

Ascertain reasons

Reassure protection against retaliation

Reassure that investigation will be discrete

Consider duty to investigate despite requests

25

conducting interviews accused
Conducting Interviews – Accused

Explain:

Process

Although neutral, acting on behalf of employer

Each allegation

Seriousness of allegations

Possibility of disciplinary action

26

conducting interviews accused1
Conducting Interviews –Accused

Provide employee

Copies of procedures

Written complaint?

Witness statements?

Summary of allegations?

Check CBA, BPs/ARs

Offer representation? Allow if requested

No retaliation

Confidentiality instructions

27

conducting interviews accused2
Conducting Interviews – Accused

Identify individual making allegation?

Opportunity to respond to each allegation

Review details of each allegation - admit or deny?

Any documentation or witnesses supporting accused employee’s version

Basis of employee’s belief that others are lying

Confirming memorandum of interview?

Anything else to add?

28

conducting interviews5
Conducting Interviews

Taking the Fifth…

Spielbauer v. County of Santa Clara

California Supreme Court 2/9/09:

Public employer acted lawfully in dismissing employee for refusing to answer questions with possible criminal implications as part of an internal, noncriminal investigation.

29

conducting interviews witnesses
Conducting Interviews – Witnesses

Eye witnesses – who, what, when, why, where, and how

Corroborating witnesses – ask specific details about what they were told or witnessed

Credibility witnesses – ask questions about the credibility of the person they are vouching for

30

visit the site of the alleged event s
Visit the Site of the Alleged Event(s)

Better image of how and where the events may have occurred

Opportunity to confirm credibility of allegations (i.e., could other individuals have actually overheard or seen events)

31

visit the site of the alleged event s1
Visit the Site of the Alleged Event(s)

Search and seizure opportunities

Always ask for permission first

Reasonable expectation of privacy?

Police search - “probable cause”; District search -“reasonable suspicion”

No searches of sensitive body areas or removal or rearrangement of clothing (Education Code §49050)

32

follow up interviews
Follow-Up Interviews

Resolve ambiguities or disputed evidence

Allow accused or suspected employee the opportunity to respond to new allegations

To question the complainant’s motive when credibility has been put in dispute

Create new investigative plan

33

document document document
DOCUMENT, DOCUMENT, DOCUMENT
  • Good documentation throughout the entire process is key!
  • It will:
  • support personnel decisions
  • evidence corrective discipline
  • ensure consistent and fair discipline

34

document document document1
DOCUMENT, DOCUMENT, DOCUMENT

Remember:

Thorough notes

Send confirming memorandum of interview

Tape record interviews?

Draft comprehensive reports of interviews as soon as possible

Maintain separate investigation file

35

examine and report after interviews
- EXAMINE (and REPORT) After Interviews

Review - complaint, notes, evidence

Ambiguities? Gaps? How to reconcile?

Make a new list of witnesses to interview

New list of facts and questions

Re-interview complainant and/or accused?

36

after interviews
After Interviews

Weigh the evidence for each factual allegation “Preponderance”

Explain persuasiveness of evidence

Determine witness credibility

Determine whether violation of law or policy?

37

investigative report
Investigative Report

Date complaint received

Name of investigator

Names and positions of witnesses interviewed

Dates and location of each interview

Names of individuals present at each interview

38

investigative report1
Investigative Report

Note all documents and evidence reviewed

Describe complaint investigated

Policies and/or procedures followed in investigating complaint

Note that all interviewees warned about retaliation and confidentiality

Exclude irrelevant evidence

Attach documentation/evidence

Sign and date the report

39

investigative report2
Investigative Report

Keep audience in mind…third-party

Jury, employee, public

Organize logically - chronological/topical

Make a decision

Separate out and describe each allegation

Recite the relevant evidence for each allegation

Note credibility determinations

Make a factual finding regarding each allegation (sustained/denied/inconclusive)

40

investigative report3
Investigative Report

Facts v. opinions v. conclusions

Conclusions/opinions without facts = useless

Explain discounted evidence

State conclusions in terms of objective fact rather than legal conclusion

Recommendations for corrective action at conclusion of report?

Do not include a final disciplinary decision

41

notify and correct
NOTIFY (and CORRECT)
  • Take corrective action, as appropriate:
  • stop the misconduct
  • prevent recurrence

42

corrective action
Corrective Action

What form of discipline?

Verbal Reprimand

Written Reprimand

Notice of Unprofessional Conduct

Notice of Unsatisfactory Performance

Demotion

Involuntary Transfer

Suspension

Dismissal

43

corrective action form of discipline
Corrective Action – Form of Discipline?

Considerations:

Employee’s status

CBA (e.g., progressive discipline policy)

Seriousness and frequency of offense

Treatment of others for similar offenses

Grounds for discipline (CBA, BPs/ARs, Ed. Code § 44932)

Morrison factors

Consult legal counsel

Report to insurance carrier, CTC (5 CCR § 80303), CPS, Police, as appropriate

44

corrective action notice to complainant
Corrective Action - Notice to Complainant

Result of investigation

Explain conclusion

“Appropriate action was taken” - no specifics

Thank complainant for coming forward and immediately report any future misconduct

Copy of report to complainant? Depends (CBA, BPs/ARs)

45

corrective action notice to accused
Corrective Action – Notice to Accused

Conclusion and result of investigation

Invite employee back from any leave

Provide directives where appropriate

Contain in written reprimand, dismissal charges, etc…

Copy of report? Depends (CBA, BPs/ARs)

46

educate redistribution revision training
EDUCATE –Redistribution / Revision / Training

Consider:

Distributing BPs/ARs to employees, students, parents, and community members

Amending student and employee handbooks and mandated parental notifications

Staff training

47

a successful investigation requires evidence
A SUCCESSFUL INVESTIGATION REQUIRES: EVIDENCE
  • Evaluate the complaint/situation
  • Verify allegations and plan investigation
  • Interview witnesses and gather facts/evidence
  • Document, document, document
  • Examine evidence and prepare report
  • Notify those involved
  • Corrective actions – consider options
  • Educate to avoid future problems

48

slide49

NewsFlash, a complimentary service from F3, brings you the most current news on legal decisions and legislative action that affect public education. Subscribe today at fagenfriedman.com.

slide50

All webinars in the E-ducation series have been recorded. Visit

www.acsa.org/e-ducation

for links to all webinar recordings and a schedule of future sessions.