Commentary 14- Somerdale Mom

Somerdale Mom Fights Ban From Kids' School

Tuesday, January 15, 2008


By MATT KATZ
Courier-Post Staff

SOMERDALE
When 11-year-old Matthew Dieterle played trumpet in the Somerdale Park School holiday concert, his father held a cell phone in the air so his mother, who was home, could hear him play.

When it was time for parent-teacher conferences, Laura Dieterle told her husband, David, what to ask their children's teachers. And for Matthew's first basketball game, David Dieterle had to cheer loud enough for both parents.

"It wasn't the same when my mom wasn't there rooting for me," Matthew said. "She always used to be there all the time, and now she can't come on school property. So yeah, it's tough."

In a move that some education law experts say may be the first of its kind, the Somerdale school board unanimously voted in September to ban Laura Dieterle, 37, from school grounds.

The board cited "health and safety reasons" and the district's attorney says that Dieterle has demonstrated "violent tendencies" after repeated confrontations with school staff.

But Laura Dieterle, who is a school crossing guard employed by the Somerdale Police Department, believes she is nothing more than an active parent who angered the district by asking about a lawsuit related to a sexual harassment complaint against the superintendent.

Two weeks ago, Dieterle sent a letter to the school board, which she hopes will be considered at a meeting Wednesday, promising to stay away from board meetings for the rest of the year if she's allowed to attend some activities.

"They're only little once, and this is the time they need us the most," Dieterle said, describing how she was even forbidden from dropping off medication for her 6-year-old daughter, Brittany.

In barring Dieterle, the district's attorney cites a ban, upheld last year by a federal judge, that limited a Shawnee High School father's presence at the Medford school after alleged threats to his son's wrestling coach.

In that case, the father could still attend his son's matches as long as he didn't speak to staff or students and notified school officials when he arrived and left.

"The only times I've seen where there's real outright bans on showing yourself at any school thing at all is when the person is a registered sex offender," said Tom Hutton, staff attorney for the School Boards Association in Washington, D.C.

Board attorney John Kennedy said Dieterle has been repeatedly confrontational with school staff and she failed to conduct herself in a "respectful or professional manner."

"And there was concern that she was doing this during school hours," said Kennedy, who represents the 470-student, one-school, K-8 district. "So there was concern with regard to the safety of not only the staff but the students."

The conflict between Dieterle and the school, documented in written warnings and legal threats from the superintendent and board attorney, reached a tipping point in November 2006, when the police were called.

Business Administrator Kelly Peters accused Dieterle of pulling off a storm drainpipe cover in front of the school. Dieterle said she saw the cover was loose over an open hole and, concerned about children's safety, she complained.

A confrontation followed, during which Dieterle called Peters a "wench," Peters told police.

No charges were filed at the time. Superintendent Debra Bruner warned Dieterle in a Nov. 6, 2006, letter that she could soon "lose all visiting privileges to our school."

Undeterred, Dieterle continued to attend board meetings to ask about a lawsuit against the district, board and superintendent filed by a former buildings and grounds supervisor, Joseph Fallon Jr.

Fallon claimed he was fired in 2003 in retaliation for a sexual harassment grievance he filed against Bruner claiming she repeatedly brushed her body against his and pet his arm.

The wrongful termination suit was settled in April and is sealed by the terms of the settlement, Kennedy said. Legal fees were $41,118.99. But, before it was settled, Dieterle made more than 75 copies of the lawsuit to pass out to residents.

And then in September, she did something she believes was the final straw that prompted the ban: She wrote about the case in white marker on three sides of her car, and then parked it at the building on the first day of school.

"I needed support from more people to ask, "Why are we paying for this lawsuit? How can I trust my kids are safe?' " she said.

That same day, the district filed a criminal mischief charge against Dieterle for the drain pipe incident 10 months earlier, and demanded between $300 and $2,000 for repairs.

Dieterle pleaded guilty to a lesser nuisance charge, which she said she now regrets. The restitution matter is still in court.

By late September, the school board voted 6-0 to ban Dieterle from school property. Kennedy denies that Dieterle's constant questions about the lawsuit had anything to do with her banishment or the drain pipe charges. He said there was a "confrontation" but he declined to go into specifics.

One ally, neighbor Tom DiPaolo Jr., who blogs about Somerdale for courierpostonline.com, described Dieterle as a "wonderful" person and mother.

"She's passionate about her kids, she's passionate about what goes on at that school, but she's not a danger to anyone," DiPaolo said.

Reach Matt Katz at (856) 486-2456 or mkatz@courierpostonline.com

Original Referenced Link


My Commentary:


The thing that bothers me about this case is that it highlights the dictatorial powers that school boards possess. Apparently without a court hearing, this woman was banned for "violent tendencies" and not acting in a "respectful or professional manner." Who determines the meanings of those vague, subjective terms? Since no objective proof was required to have been presented to any impartial entity like a judge, almost any behavior can be construed as exhibiting "violent tendencies" or acting in a "[dis]respectful or [non-]professional manner." Such is the nature of government-run schooling. Never-the-less, on this specific issue, it seems that this woman really pushed the envelope because she was given plenty of notice "documented in written warnings and legal threats from the superintendent and board attorney". Also, the school board vote was 6-0. You would think that if she was treated unjustly, at least 1 or 2 board members would have voted no.

This case highlights the contradictory nature of "public" education. Everyone has rights, yet no one has rights. The schools are owned by everyone and no one. As a taxpayer, and an owner, this woman has a right to act in any manner she chooses on her own property, short of physically assaulting someone. Yet the next person has a right, as a taxpaying owner, to demand that she not behave in a fashion she disapproves of on her property. Multiply this times every parent in the school and you have anarchy. So, you end up with an elected school board with the power to enforce its idea of everyone's proper behavior (among other things). Democracy, in other words. Everyone's freedom is subordinated to the latest majority whim as determined by six people. (Multiply this scenario times 300 million and you have a dictatorship.)

So this woman is separated from her child for at worst rowdy behavior, while her child remains in a school that she continues to pay for. But the school board has an impossible job. They must balance the rights of some at the expense of the rights of others. Public education. If this were a private school, none of these conflicts could occur. The owners would set the terms on the property that they, and only they, own. People who send their children there must observe the owner's rules. If the owner's rules of conduct are broken, the parent is in breach of contract and tossed out, along with her child and her money. End of said parent's obligation to the school, and vice-versa. The parent is free to seek out other educational institutions more to her liking. End of story.

The public school system is a bad system run mostly by good people. Maybe its time to question the not-to-be-questioned. I see many people, in op-eds, letters, etc., advocating school choice. A recent letter writer in the Star-Ledger called outright for the abolition of the public schools, to be replaced with a totally private, competitive school system funded by student vouchers. This is getting really close to my position. But this is the unmentionable. This is the "radical". And this is the solution.

Posted by: Zemack on Sun Jan 20, 2008 8:59 pm