Repercussions

It may now start to become clearer to the reader just how important was the leaking of one particular document. Somewhat like the first crack in the wall of a dam, once that little bit of information came out, it became so much easier to find out more. Even as I write this page, more facts (and I do mean “facts”) are reaching my ears. From where I sit, the view of Blackpool Council is becoming clearer – and it is not a pretty sight!

Earlier, I referred to the author of that leaked file: Linda Marsh acted as the Investigating Officer for the Council (by whom she was employed), and it was her job to carry out an “independent” investigation to see whether there really was a case to answer against the Assistant Head. To establish the answer to that question, she carried out a series of interviews with staff at the school, and with the LEA. As referred to earlier, there were 11 interviews with school staff recorded in the document. But this only accounts for approximately one sixth of the school complement, so was this a fair cross section of the school community? It appears not.

To begin with, the fateful meeting between Mrs Coupe and Mrs A that immediately preceded the suspension was attended by two other staff members. One of these was the Deputy Head Teacher Val Brookes, who supplied a statement supporting her Head Teacher. The other one was Roger Farley – and he did NOT provide a statement. Could this be because he had already supplied one for the Grievance lodged by Mrs A? For whatever reason, Linda Marsh did not see fit to take a statement from an important witness. Or if she did, it was never included in her finished document!

But there’s worse: because there were TWO other statements taken from staff members that never reached the published document. The reason why is because these particular witnesses were NOT prepared to support the views of Mrs Coupe, and refused to speak against Mrs A. It has even been reported to me that one of these witnesses was asked by Linda Marsh to change his statement to show Mrs A in a bad light! This teacher subsequently left the school, and has provided written evidence of Linda Marsh’s shameful conduct.

It could not get much worse, could it? Or then, maybe it could…

Let’s take a look back at how the news broke over the conclusion to the suspension, once agreement had been reached through ACAS. On 6 July 2006 The Citizen newspaper announced “Two teachers involved in the dispute will not return to Marton School – but will continue their careers at other schools without ‘any obstacles’ it was revealed. …(The dispute) involved the suspension of assistant headteacher, ********, and the absence of another, un-named teacher who has been on long-term sick leave.” That other teacher was Jill Reidy, who was signed off with stress in February 2005, and has been unable to resume her teaching career since.

But hold on a minute! We also know that BOTH teachers were subject to a confidential agreement at the conclusion of the suspension business, and BOTH received financial compensation. So why are there now TWO teachers affected here, when we have already established that only ONE was suspended, and that the leaked Disciplinary file was intended to look at that ONE suspension? Perhaps maths was never my strong point, but would you agree that something doesn’t quite add up?

For the answer to that question, let us return to the redoubtable Linda Marsh. As I have said, her brief was to look at whether there was a case to answer over the suspension of Mrs A. This was her conclusion:

“5.6.4 Consequently I conclude that both individually and collectively the allegations may be considered to be gross misconduct.”

But then she continues:

“5.7 Additional Conclusion
Throughout the investigation, witnesses referred to the behaviour of staff other than *********. From the information contained in the witness statements, the behaviour of Mrs Jill Reidy, Mrs Janet Connor and Mrs Lisa Taylor could be deemed to be serious misconduct, and a disciplinary investigation into their actions may need to be considered.”

That statement should NEVER have been included in that document. This is like a barrister in a court of law opening the case for the prosecution, pointing to the public gallery, and singling out three other spectators to stand up in the dock with the defendant! Marsh made a personal observation as a result of the enquiries she made, and that single statement alone makes a complete mockery of the “independent” tag to her report. None of these three members of staff were aware that they were ALSO subject to any investigation until the report was published in March 2006. But why were they picked out in any case?

Mrs Reidy was a union representative with Mrs A, and had therefore backed her in her confrontations with Mrs Coupe, but then she had been off sick for five months before the suspension took place. Ironically, it was Linda Marsh’s own department (Human Resources) that would have been charged with the duty of welfare throughout Mrs Reidy’s sick absence.

Mrs Connor was a support assistant, charged with caring for a child with SEN (Special Educational Needs), and unlike Mrs A or Mrs Reidy, was directly employed by the LEA. She had complained to the LEA about Mrs Coupe, but without result, so she made the decision to remove her children from the school. As a direct result of that action, David Lund removed Mrs Connor, and placed her in a different school.

Mrs Taylor was also a support assistant, in the employ of the Council, but her circumstances were slightly different: She was the parent of a child in Mrs A’s Year 6 class, and she was also Mrs A’s teaching assistant, so when the suspension took place she found herself in a unique position. Ruth Coupe wanted her to lie to her own daughter about the reasons for her teacher’s mysterious absence, but she refused to do so. I should add that Mrs Taylor was also a governor at the school and a representative of the public services union UNISON. She was certainly extremely well qualified to know all about the various conflicts that had been building up since the arrival of the new Head Teacher, and she had been vocal in her support of Mrs A. Now with her own daughter upset, demanding to know why she couldn’t see her teacher to say goodbye for the last time, Mrs Taylor was placed in a very emotional position. Ruth Coupe did not take refusal lightly, and made several threats of disciplinary action should she find that Mrs Taylor had “gone public”. The pressure of that last week was too much. Mrs Taylor became ill, and has been signed off work with stress ever since (over two years). So she too has been in receipt of the care and attention of Linda Marsh’s department!

Please note that Mrs A, Jill Reidy and Lisa Taylor were ALL trade union representatives – whose duty it was to represent the voices of their colleagues in discussions with their respective managers.

So here is the answer to another question: Why were there TWO settlements made once the suspension issue was concluded? Because the LEA had caused TWO teachers to be investigated, and were therefore responsible for clearing their names to allow them to resume their careers. So far as Mrs Connor and Mrs Taylor were concerned, both were still employees in receipt of their salaries, so the question of careers did not enter into it.

This only leaves one other person, also subject to unwarranted criticism in Linda Marsh’s report, and now about to re-join the repercussions of Blackpool Bungling Council’s shameful conduct: Mrs L, former Head Teacher of Marton Primary School.


TO BE CONTINUED