Tuesday, December 7, 2010

The Strife Between Co-principals

On November 25, the Register-Star reported that Steven Spicer had filed charges against his co-principal at Hudson High School, Thomas Gavin, accusing Gavin of second degree aggravated harassment for an incident that took place in the hallway outside a Board of Education meeting on November 22. At a hearing this morning, the charges against Gavin were dismissed by the district attorney.
Along with the legal insufficiencies, there are also factual inconsistencies that warrant a withdrawal. I have personally viewed a video of the alleged incident, provided to me by defense counsel, and it portrays a different scenario than what is contained in the sworn complaint. It is alleged that the defendant “pointed his finger in your complainant’s face several times while yelling.” The security video does not have sound, however, it does not show the actions alleged, namely, that Mr. Gavin pointed his finger in the complainant’s face. The video shows Mr. Gavin walking towards the exit motioning for Mr. Spicer to meet him in the hallway, from a distance of approximately 15–20 feet away. From the moment Mr. Spicer meets Mr. Gavin in the hallway up until Mr. Gavin exits the building, there was no physical contact nor was there any finger pointing, and the entire encounter lasts approximately 10–15 seconds. Mr. Gavin was not in alarmingly close proximity to the complainant. It is based on all of the foregoing that the people are hereby withdrawing the present charge against Thomas Gavin.

1 comment:

  1. Thanks, Carole, for following this story. It is very important. But I urge people to do two things: read Security Officer Bob Rockler's statement in the RS story and consider the responsibilities of the Board of Ed and Superintendent in this matter. Rockler captures more of the reality of the situation -- tense and angry -- and whether or not it met the (odd) criterion set by the DA is irrelevant to the Board and Super's duty to run a school district. I was there. Gavin was out of line and putting him on "administrative leave" was more than justified. --peter m.