According to Berkeleyside’s earlier article about this, the accusations made by the student under penalty of perjury and cited in the court documents included:

* In April, Smith “spanked” her buttocks. Two weeks before that he said, “Maybe we can be in contact outside of school so I can share some feelings with you.”
* Smith asked the student what she wore to bed and responded, “Oh, you don’t sleep naked?”
* The student said, “He always hugged me goodbye and… would put his face in my chest and/or rub my back.”
* Smith came to the student’s classroom at different periods of the day, or had a student proctor send for her to visit his office.

If any of this is even remotely true, this Anthony Smith guy sounds like a sexual predator who shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near children of any age.

Love the way the BUSD pulls a Scott Walker and blames the union.

There is something disappointing in the way that many outlets have reported this story.

The family has made public a number of allegations against Mr. Smith. As they are often reported, they paint a rather horrible picture of quite serious sexual harassment or perhaps even assault. These allegations are repeated in this federal filing. They are nothing to take lightly either by minimizing the severity of what is alleged or in assuming guilt.

The school district conducted a disciplinary investigation regarding these allegations. They found that Smith had done some things that were unprofessional — but there is no indication he was found guilty of all that is alleged. Indeed, the district seemed to find that those errors that could be pinned on him didn’t seem to rise near to the levels alleged — but we are left to guess at their actual findings were because the findings are not an open record.

Alameda County Superior Court considered whether to turn the easily obtained temporary restraining order into a permanent restraining order. Hearing the facts, the judge asked the parties to take some more time and work out a deal among themselves. This is merely a circumstantial data point but it does rather strongly suggest that the factual findings against Mr. Smith did not rise to the level of severity suggested by the allegations.

The strongest indictment we find in the public record is four contextless words “the more credible witness”. The more credible witness as to what? Might we be blessed with the precise context in which this phrase was deployed or are we to understand it confers a kind infallibility on any context in which is redeployed?

So, what is often lost in the public discussion is that people often understand these news stories to mean that all of the allegations against Smith in all of their severity have been found to be true. In the public documents and public statements, though, there is no evidence of that, and circumstantial evidence against it.

Bruce Love: One of the problems of reporting this story — which we have been doing since September 2010 — is that the school district has refused to comment publicly on any aspects of the case. This is clearly frustrating and the lack of voice from that side of the fence may be contributing to your sense that articles in the media are one-sided or “disappointing”.

I understand your sentiment. And yet I’m not willing to assume that there *aren’t* issues related to collective bargaining agreements here. I’m a new and involved parent in BUSD and I expect to be here for 11 more years. I have already experienced both terrific teachers and administrators and HR policies/staffing choices that leave me shaking my head and wishing for some serious culture change at BUSD.

I am deeply dismayed that this child felt so unsafe at Berkeley High and I support her family in seeking greater transparency through this lawsuit. I think it benefits the larger BUSD and Berkeley community.

Keep reading that code. The employee can demand a hearing and ultimately BUSD doesn’t get to decide alone. It’s a judge, BUSD’s rep, and the employee’s rep. Where the employee and BUSD can’t come to terms, in other words, it’s basically up to a judge. To try to fire him over whatever facts they found to be true, they would have to believe a judge would uphold their decision.

(See the sections following the 449333 that you cited.)

Read it again. The context is there. It clearly means: the more credible witness to all the remaining allegations, except the allegation of uncomfortable hugs.

That’s not clear to me. The paragraph has been used to imply that but it very easily means something quite different.

It is plausible that Smith could not be convicted of a crime, which requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. But he can be dismissed or suspended based on the preponderance of evidence. (Incidentally, in my last post, I meant that he should be dismissed and inadvertently said suspended.)

A judge using basically a preponderance standard couldn’t even bring himself to issue a permanent injunction. Whatever is going on in this case, it ain’t a simple matter. It’s not so cut and dried. And, basically, to fire him needs a judge to agree.

Totally untrue. There is testimony by the student and by Smith, and there is a finding by the investigator that the student’s testimony was more reliable. Based on the testimony they heard (and you did not) they decided that Smith had engaged in unprofessional conduct.

All I’m asking you to please consider is that on the one hand BUSD agrees he did something he ought not to and on the other hand we have a list of allegations — and we don’t have enough information to say those two (that “something” and those allegations) are one in the same (modulo “hugs”).

Really?

Wouldn’t a staff member caught having sex with a minor have to register as a sex offender and be barred from working in public schools?!?

Sharkey, I believe that when you make comments like this:

I get the feeling that if Berkeleyside did an article on WWII you’d find the time to write a few thousand words about how Hitler really wasn’t that bad of a guy.

You have not merely crossed but gone very, very far beyond the line of any pretense of civility. If you have any decency, you ought to apologize and strive to avoid repeating the mistake.

BL 1, Sharkey 0
I’m sorry Sharkey, I have to award a point to BL as you veered off into Goodwin’s Law territory. You must be extra vigilant as BL will wear you down, and next thing you know you’re jabbering on about Nazis.

Do you understand that the plaintiffs are not suing for the dismissal of Smith?

The Prayer for Relief in the suit asks for 1. Money. 2. Money. 3. Money. 4. Changes in Policies Procedures and Training. 5. Money. 6. Etc.

How do you reconcile your understanding with the earlier court’s hesitancy about a permanent restraining order? What do you think Huyett’s motive is for what is alleged? BUSD acts as though they are pretty darn confident Smith not didn’t commit a firing offense. I don’t see even plaintiff disagreeing with them (in court).

Sharkey, please refrain from commenting about Bruce. Your petulant tone in this regard tarnishes the quality of the highly readable comments you have posted in other contexts.

Pretty please, with sugar on top.

Why wouldn’t plaintiff include dismissal in their injunction demands?

“…So, what is often lost in the public discussion is that people often understand these news stories to mean that all of the allegations against Smith in all of their severity have been found to be true.”

That this serious matter became fodder for BLT-L’s labored contrarian posturing is a sad thing.

Everyone I discussed Anthony Smith’s coverage with, clearly understood the difference between allegation and proof. And we didn’t need BLT-L managing the dialogue with self aggrandizing cautionary tales about how “we people” usually react in public discussion.

The story, the true causes for concern, in the Smith allegations, are the murky process, buck passing and lack of action by BUSD. And how well that situation mirrors the felon and gun issues at BHS, before public outrage kicked BUSD’s well meaning asses into action.

I’m glad Lilah’s family is doing something – it takes guts to face up to something like this, especially if you get shut down the first time. While it’s not altogether comforting that my school isn’t taking bigger steps, it’s good to know that people know how to stand up for what’s best for present and future students.

Berkeley Unified School District also continues to stonewall the public about the compensation levels of its employees which the California Supreme Court ruled is a matter of public record. They continue to stonewall the press in their attempts to make this information a matter of public record. This self-serving arrogance on the part of school district administrators to hide their true finances from public view and scrutiny is not only an attack on the taxpaying public but also on journalistic inquiry which is a cornerstone of a free society.
Berkeleyside should join other journalists in an attempt to pry this information from self-serving administrators. It’s a basic cornerstone of public debate. If school teachers are so woefully under compensated as we have heard for decades, then it would seem to be in the interest of the unions to disclose this data to elicit more public support and sympathy.

Four years after the California Supreme Court ruled that the pay of government employees is public record, some cities, school boards and special districts still make it difficult to obtain and display data showing how much taxpayer money they spend on workers.

[...]

In Alameda County, the Berkeley Unified and Oakland Unified school districts have yet to comply with multiple requests.

Other government entities have released only partial data, including Oakland, Berkeley, San Francisco, San Ramon, Walnut Creek, Fairfield and Palo Alto.

“It’s insane, absolutely asinine” that some governments continue to balk at making compensation data readily public, said Tom Newton, executive director of the California Newspaper Publishers Association.

“The Supreme Court said that public pay is the public’s business. That’s everything. The public should get to see every single penny of what public employees get paid,” Newton said.

http://www.insidebayarea.com/oaklandtribune/localnews/ci_17916681?source=rss

The “reform” industry is taking the place of community stakeholders.

Wether or not Anthony Smith is a child abuser, I do not know. That he is a clown, I do know.

On my first visit with him to discuss class changes for my son he informed me very sternly that his name was “Mr. Smith”, not Anthony or Tony.

When I mentioned I had left several voice mails (all unanswered) he blithely responded: “Oh I haven’t checked my voicemail in days.”

Whoever the deep thinkers at BUSD were that decided Slemp was a too much of a liability should also cut Smith loose. Is he worth enraging/waking us citizen taxpayers up? Why jeopardize your sweet deals?

Why would I apologize, Thomas? While I was attempting (and failing) at humor through exaggeration and abuse of internet “laws” of discussion, the general premise still holds true.

Even a school staff member having sex with a non-minor student seems like something you’d at least get fired for!

Fraternizing with the kids is an abuse of power and not OK no matter how old they are.

Good point. Imagine if the hundreds of thousands of dollars (guestimate) going towards the defense of Mr. Smith were being spent on school supplies, campus renovations, or developing new curriculum.

Our public school system in America is a wasteful mess, but unfortunately there are a lot of people who profit off the way things are run right now and will do everything they can to prevent change.

Read Laura Menard’s post before commenting on it. It specifically says that this student was a minor:
“then get caught again having sex with a minor on campus.”

According to BL/TL, it is not enough to show the facts warrant dismissal.
We also have to psychoanalyze the plaintiffs in the suit and decide why they are not suing for dismissal. This is an irrelevant, obstructionist point.

Bruce, it is simply not a case of being either fully or substantially vindicated. since this is a case of he said/she said, there is no proof that Smith was guilty of sexual harassment. Of course there is no proof of something that occurred behind closed doors. that is why “more credible witness” is germane. BUSD says she is the more credible witness. they say he violated district policy which is presumably the anti-harassmet policy.. they are too wimpy to terminate him without proof and a creep like Smith will always act behind closed doors with weaker victims and be sure that there can be no proof. so until they figure out how to be brave and stand up to the union (and yes, this is about the union contract which stipulates that the worst that can happen to Smith is that he be involuntarily transferred) they are stuck with him. Of course he could be involuntarily transferred into the district offices and then the adults would have to tolerate working alongside him. It does not seem like anyone wants to do that so they are keeping him at the high school where he can victimize youngsters instead of peers. In a real court perhaps they will do what is often done in real courts – a judge or jury will evaluate who is lying. In stating that he had violated district policy, BUSD clearly determined that Smith was lying but failed to act on that. This is why you hear almost no one suggesting he is actually innocent. Failure to act on a determination that someone is lying just really is not the same thing as vindication. They should give him a broom closet office in the basement of the district office building without a phone or computer and make sure he sits there 8 hours a day. we already know that people who prey upon children do so in secret, yet the union ensured that those people have an iron clad job. Read the contract. Read laws about sexual harassment. It is all there. and if this case does settle, you can bet it will involve sealing the record…so Smith can go elsewhere and get another job with his past buried in Berkeley. that’s what creeps do. And that is what our school district is heading toward…again. It is not the first time.

He should be fired because he is incompetent counselor.