UPDATE on Brighton Collegiate High School VERSUS School District 27J

School District 27J and Brighton Collegiate High School Will Go To Court November 17

Brighton Collegiate High School Makes Motion for Temporary Restraining Order Against School District 27J

At the District 27J Board meeting on November 10, 2009, a motion was made and seconded to “direct the superintendent, Dr. Rod Blunck, to exercise all allowable, appropriate, and legal measures, within the agreed upon contract between Brighton Collegiate High School and School District 27J, in order to assume the temporary management of Brighton Collegiate High School effective immediately.” The motion passed.

The matter was being discussed due to the recent incident at Brighton Collegiate High School of inappropriate contact by a staff member towards a student.

In-house legal counsel Janet Wyatt, under the direction of Dr. Blunck, asked BCHS administration for information about this allegation. BCHS administration under direction from one of the BCHS Board of Education members denied access to this information to District 27J. Janet Wyatt gave a history of four past issues with BCHS personnel beginning in 2006. Ms. Wyatt reviewed breaches of their current contract.

Dr. Blunck defined “temporary management” of the school. District 27J will take over complete decision making for the school. Dr. Blunck explained the District’s responsibilities to the charter schools. “27J embraces choice as long as it is quality choice.”

At 3:00 am Wednesday morning, November 11, 2009, a complaint was filed by Brighton Collegiate High School and the following assertions were made:

“On or about October 30, 2009 the Charter School's principal was informed that one of the Charter School's teachers might have engaged in inappropriate conduct of a non-sexual nature with a student. The Charter School has a "zero tolerance" policy regarding inappropriate conduct with students, and the principal immediately called Brighton law enforcement, performed his own investigation, and terminated the teacher's employment on November 3, 2009.

While the teacher's conduct toward the student was inappropriate, the Charter School's administration had no reason to believe that the student in question or any other student at the Charter School was ever in danger.

The Charter School has had difficulties in the past with sexual contact between staff and students. The last such incident of sexual contact between a student and teacher at the Charter School occurred nearly two years ago in December 2007. In the two years since that time there have been zero instances of sexual contact between staff and students at the school.

The incident that was reported in late October 2009 involved inappropriate communication between a staff member and a student, but it did not involved sexual contact. Again, the Charter School's administration has no reason to believe that this or any other student was ever in danger.

The District knows that the Charter School is represented by counsel. On or about November 6, 2009 the District's attorney contacted the Charter School's principal and requested a meeting to discuss this incident. The Charter School's attorney instructed the principal not to meet with the District's lawyer unless he was present, and the Charter School's attorney called the District's attorney that same day and left a voice mail indicating his willingness to discuss the matter with her.

For reasons that are unknown, the District has interpreted the Charter School's request to have its attorney present at meetings with the District's attorney as "obstructionist" behavior, and on November 10, 2009 the board of education of the District met and voted to instruct the Superintendent of the District to "seize control" of the Charter School.

Pursuant to the Contract and the Charter Schools Act, management of the high school is vested exclusively with the Charter School. The District has absolutely no authority to seize control of the school.

The Superintendent of the District has summoned the Charter School's principal to meet him at his office on November 11, 2009 at 7:00 AM. On information and belief the purpose of this meeting is to implement the District's plan unlawfully to seize control of the school.

Thus, Brighton Collegiate High School makes a motion for a Temporary Restraining Order Against School District 27J and Order to Post Security.” (security is $1.00)

On Thursday, November 12, 2009 a representative from School District 27J told the Gateway News that indeed the Charter School had asked for a temporary restraining order and that a hearing will be held on November 17, 2009 at 1:00 pm in the Adams County District Court. If a temporary restraining order is granted against 27J then 27J will begin with their attorneys to prepare for the future hearing which would decide if the restraining order would become permanent or not granted at all.

If the temporary restraining order is not granted, then 27J will move to take over the management of the Charter School immediately. The district is committed to insure the safety of all students and insure that academic instruction will continue uninterrupted.