1. With respect to Mr. Zandberg's use of District computers to conduct personal business, the District has recovered electronic files and/or documents from the District computer assigned to him while he was employed by the District, many of which are personal in nature, and not related to District business.(Big deal)
Several of these electronic files reflect employment searches by Mr. Zandberg, which were conducted on District time (Note to Management: when constructively terminating staff, you should expect they might start looking for work somewhere else. Having cover letters or resumes on one's hard drive does not mean they were developed on company time.), and several files appear to contain images (There are only three image files associated with my online resume. You must mean my online photo album. I hope you enjoyed the photos.) used to create the website www.markzandberg.com, on which Mr. Zandberg maintains his resume.
Mr. Zandberg notes on that resume that he has worked as a realtor for RE/MAX since 2005, at the same time as he was employed by the District (I was never told I could not have a second job and I never signed away my right to have such a second job.), and electronic files related to RE/MAX were found on Mr. Zandberg's hard drive as well.
Are you really so stupid as to make this an issue? I performed dozens and dozens of property searches with my access to real estate sites that I used for the benefit of the District. In fact, the District encouraged me to obtain my real estate license and even paid for the exam. They had full knowledge of my real estate license and took full advantage of the access it provided. Care to pick up three years of desk fees and dues?
The District also discovered files containing images of what appears to be various pages from Edmonds rental property (I do not have any rental properties in Edmonds.) and African safari websites referencing the name "Umsizi", which is an African name bestowed on Mr. Zandberg according to his resume.
Duncan, you have my utmost sympathy. The scant material you have to pull together to make a case against me is rather slim and insignificant. The District would be out of their mind to make a case to terminate me on this sort of evidence. Were you aware that there are teachers that tutor for additional income? Custodians that clean for extra income? Managers that sell public property for kickbacks and personal favors?
2. With respect to Mr. Zandberg's use of confidential or proprietary information, you will recall that in its denial letter the District simply stated that it was investigating whether Mr. Zandberg had been using proprietary and confidential information to benefit his personal business.
I define "business" as making a profit for performing some sort of task. I have never made any money peddling District information, access or property, unlike District management.
First, Mr. Zandberg himself raised a red (I prefer blue) flag as to that issue as he has already divulged attorney-client privileged information on his blog, which he apparently learned in meetings he attended with the District's counsel from Perkins Coie.
I never signed any sort of agreement that required me to withhold the truth or lie to the public to support District management's efforts to defraud taxpayers. When I left the meeting with Perkins Coie, everyone agreed that the property transaction was dead and that we would not be moving forward. Marla elected to move the transaction forward on her own. Exposing such is not privileged information. Marla acted contrary to the advice of AMEC, Reid Middleton and Perkins Coie.
He divulges this information in an attempt to discredit Assistant Superintendent Marla Miller with respect to a recent property transaction. (Marla discredits herself.) See "Rise above the confusion of conflicting rumors," dated September 19, 2007. Mr. Zandberg again repeated that privileged information on September 25, 2007.
Editorial: This is the first of two parts. I will include the rest of the District's letter when more time allows. Here it is.
7 comments:
Don't worry. This is just more of their witch hunt. All they are doing is making bigger fools of themselves and showing how desperate they are. Not to mention the waste of hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees for incompetent advice.
I close my eyes as I read this; I pull into vision a puffer fish. You know, the kind of fish that makes itself bigger to intimidate larger fish, trying to convince them not to eat it.
The District sounds a bit desparate. I've heard this before. Oh yes, "...the tone and content of your continuing communications toward the Edmonds School District has become increasingly aggressive and,...is deemed threatening and disruptive..." Never mind that the invitation to "communicate" was extended by Tam Osborne and was never rescinded. Never mind that there is no definition of "aggressive" or "threatening" or "disruptive." "Aggressive" means that I didn't just slink off into the mist; I continued to engage the administration in a dialogue about the bullying that I experienced and witnessed. I was INVITED to provide information about my research on bullying by Osborne (I have a copy of the e-mail). When that "communication" became uncomfortable to the District, I was again targeted for bullying even though I didn't work there anymore. Thus the no trespass order. I, rightly or wrongly, believed (and still do) that I had an obligation to my students and fellow faculty to protect them from these behaviors. "Threatening" means that as I recovered from the stress induced by the bullying, I was able to see clearly and speak of my mental state throughout the ordeal. The fact that I could say "hey, I was depressed and I felt terrible and it was an interesting experience but I'm getting better now" is what the adminstration finds "threatening." Perhaps it was threatening to them that I was recovering from the abuse and STILL hadn't "gotten over it." I was still trying to engage the District in conversation.
These words were used to scare, intimidate, marginalize, and to bully; anything the District says is supposed to be indisputable. There can be no other story.
And don't forget that if you disagree with them, you are taking your professional life in your hands.
OH. MY. GOD. I am trembling in my boots. ONCE I used my District computer to go to TicketMaster and order tickets for the Paul McCartney concert! Will I go to hell when I die? Tickets went on sale at 10AM (during my plann period). I printed them to MY color printer (which I bought with my own money so that my students could download color images for projects and which I kept supplied with color printer cartridges at about one a month @ $40 each). [It should also be noted that I played music to my students through computer speakers that I bought.]
How much money will be wasted doing a forensic search of my hard drive to find this out? I confess! I did it! Don't waste the money on the forensic hard drive seach! Use that money for something IN THE CLASSROOM!!!!!
I believe what 9/11 is referring to is a blow fish. All air, no substance.
Is Duncan so desperate as to call foul on Whistle-Blowing? Attorney-client priveledge went out the door when Marla cut a deal contrary to interests of the taxpayers.
What is the crime here? I think paying more than the appraised price is; and Whistle Blowing is not.
To the person who abused their computer access by ordering Paul McCartney tickets, I would recommend that you go to your computer tomorrow morning and quickly download all of the pornography you can find. This tactic apparently insulates your hard drive from any possible investigation.
It can't be pornography on its own. They like a bit of Fox sports with a "Steelers" update now and then.
Post a Comment