KM School Nurse Terminated

Following is the complete document on the findings of facts leading to the termination of K-M school nurse June Halverson. Termination was made official last Monday night at a special meeting of the school board. The vote was unanimous.

IN RE; Proposed Immediate Termination of Probationary Teacher June Halverson from Independent School District No. 204, Kasson-Mantorville

HEARING OFFICER'S FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
APPEARANCES


For Independent School District No. 204
Margaret A. Skelton, Attorney, Ratwik, Roszak, Maloney, PA., Minneapolis, MN Tessa S. Kowalski, Attorney, Ratwik, Roszak & Maloney, P.A., Minneapolis, MN Peter Grant, Superintendent Candy Ellingworth, School Board Chair

For June Halverson
Meg Luger-Nikolai, Attorney; Education Minnesota, St. Paul, MN Amie Krisnik, Attorney, Education Minnesota, St. Paul, MN June Halverson, Probationary Teacher Friend of June Halverson
"WHEREAS, a hearing on the proposed immediate discharge of June Halverson from her position as a probationary teacher at Independent School DistrictNo. 204 (hereinafter referred to as the "School District") was held on March 4, 2011, at 1:00 p.m. in the Kasson-Mantorville High School conference room at 101 16th Street NE, Kasson, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the School District employed the undersigned Independent Hearing Officer, Steven R. Rutzick, to conduct the hearing and submit proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions, and a Recommendation to the School Board of Independent School DistrictNo. 204 (hereinafter referred to as the "School Board"); and WHEREAS, the hearing was conducted according to Minnesota Statutes, Section 122A.40, subdivision 5, and testimony was given under oath administered by the Independent Hearing Officer; and pursuant to the request of June Halverson, the hearing was open to the public, except for testimony related to the private educational / medical data of a student; and 'WHEREAS, having heard the testimony of a parent. Superintendent Peter Grant, and June Halverson and reviewed the fourteen (14) exhibits of -the school district and fifty (50) exhibits in the notebook of June Halverson as well as the oral arguments by the School District's attorney, Margaret A. Skelton and June Halverson's attorney, Meg Luger-Nikolai, the Independent Hearing Officer hereby makes the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions and-Recommendation to the School Board.

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. June Halverson began her employment with the School District as a School Nurse on September 7, 2010, Ex.4

2. On , a student presented in the school nurse's office with chest pain. June Halverson's comments in her Health Office Visit Report state that the student had "chest pain" and that the "upper right side of chest pain increases when lying down." Ms. Halverson also noted that the student had an irregular heart rate and noted a heart murmur. Ex. 11. In addition, the student's blood pressure was elevated, Ex. B.

3. Ms. Halverson testified that she had never met the student before that day, , . While the parent testified that the student , Ms. Halverson testified that she was not aware of Ms. Halverson further testified that when she looked up the student's medical hi.story, she noted that it had not been updated in two years.

4. Ms. Halverson did not contact the student's parent to inform the parent of the student's visit to the nurse's office, the student's report of chest pain or her findings associated with the student's irregular heart rate, heart murmur and elevated blood pressure or to update the student's medical history,

5. Ms, Halverson released the student back to class. She testified that the student told her he had a physical therapy appointment either later that day (Friday) or Monday. Ms. Halverson testified that she told the student to report the pain to his physical therapist. However, Ms. Halverson did not call the parent to let the parent know of her recommendation that the student follow up with his medical provider.

6 When asked during the hearing if she thought it would have been a good idea to contact the student's parent and speak with her regarding her son's medical issues; Ms, Halverson responded, "[n]o,"

7. The parent only learned of her son's medical- issue when her son texted her a message. The parent testified that she copied, the student's text verbatim which stated:
I am having chest pain and they said my heart rate is 142 over 80 and when they listened to my heart they said I have an irregularity so I have no clue what that means.

8. The parent testified that she was concerned about this text message because she did not know where her son would have received a detailed medical information regarding his heart rate or who would have told him that his heart had an "irregularity."

9. Before the parent could respond, the student called the parent. The parent testified that the student's reports of chest pain were a "red flag" for the parent. The parent testified that the student has a high tolerance for pain and rarely complains about pain, even to her. It was a "red flag" for the parent when her son told her that he went to see the school nurse because of chest pain, as based on the parent's experience with her son, it, meant that the student's pain was quite bad.

10. While Ms. Halverson testified that the student ranked bis pain at a 2 or 3 out of 10 in the nurses office, she also acknowledged that she was not aware the student . The information regarding to the student's reported pain in the nurse's office is not documented in Ms. Halverson's Health Office Visit report. During her testimony at the hearing, Ms. Halverson stated that the chest pain was really coming from his neck. This was not documented in the Health Office Visit Report.



12. The parent provided the student's medical record from Mayo Clinic which characterize the student's pain as "[c]hest pain or discomfort," "[s]evere, crushing, chest pain indicating a high risk of sudden, death; requiring emergent intervention." Ex, 8, The plan of action was .noted as "[a]mbulance now." Ex. 8.

13. The medical record from Mayo Clinic states that the student stated his pain was 7/10 a few moments ago, now rating 4/10. The student described the pain to Mayo Clinic as a "weight" on his chest and while the student denied shortness of breath, he stated it was harder to take a deep breath. Ex. 8.

14. While the student and parent were still on the phone, the student's doctor's office called with: results of the student's medical tests from the previous week. The student and his parent then spoke with the student's doctor's office regarding the student's chest pain. Ex. 8. The student's primary care provider also told the student to go to the emergency room by ambulance. Ex. 8,

15. The parent told the student to return to the nurse's office so the parent could speak with the nurse on the student's cell phone. The parent informed Ms. Halverson that both the  Mayo Nurse line and her son's primary care provider had advised that her son go to the emergency room by ambulance. Ex. 8.

16. The mother testified that during the telephone conversation, Ms. Halverson denied that the student needed an ambulance and responded by saying that the student needed an updated chart. Ex. 8.

17. According to the parent, at this point, the parent stated that they needed to be taking care of the student and asked June Halverson if she would call the ambulance or if she [the parent] had to call the ambulance. Ex. 8. June Halverson told the parent to call the ambulance, after which, the parent did and her son was taken to the emergency room. Ex. 8

18. Three days after this incident, on the parent sent an email to Principal Jerry Reker, the email stated in relevant part: ...I want to express my extreme concern over the way things happened on Friday. I received the following email from on Friday: I am having chest pain and they said my heart rate is 142 over 80 and when they listened to my heart they said I have an irregularity so I have no clue what that means. Before I could respond, he called me. I connected him with Ask Mayo Nurse line. Through their evaluation, he was advised to go to the ER by ambulance. While we were on the phone with them, I received a call from his primary care doctor's office with test results from the day before. As I explained the current issue to them, they wanted to speak with I connected him. with his primary care providers' nurse triage staff and they too insisted that he go to the ER by ambulance. I kept on his phone and told him to go back to the nurses' office. When I was able to speak with the nurse, I told her what we were advised to do. She said "no, no, no. He's fine, he's walking and talking." I told her we were told by two triage nurses to bring him in. She stated that he only had on his medical chart and I stated there were other issues — as clearly there is something else going on- and she said that we needed to update his chart. I told her that there was not time to update his chart, we need to be taking care of him. I asked if she would call the ambulance or if I had to and she told me to. As you know, I did, blood pressure in the ambulance was 172/108 with heart rate of 120.
I understand that the nurse at school is the first line of triage but 1 want to make it known that when we communicate with health, care providers and are instructed to take action, I don't appreciate the school nurse counteracting that advise... Ex. :8.

19. Superintendent Grant testified that the parent relayed the same information (as set forth in the - email to Principal Reker) to him when he spoke to the parent after the; , incident.

20. June Halverson testified that Principal Jay Reker forwarded the parent's email to her. Ms. Halverson admitted that she sent the following email responding to Principal Jay Reker. The email states in relevant part: ...But" the situation did not call for an ambulance. When you have a student communicating symptoms, they can be very skewed. His blood pressure was elevated but not dangerously so. He was anxious and pacing that can elevate both heart rate and blood pressure...If she was not willing to share "underlying" illness which would have altered my decision (if he had cancer or heart valve) than I cannot make an informed decision without all the necessary information. But like in sales, the customer is always right so if she wants to call the ambulance that is her choice. If his B/P was up In the ambulance it was probably due to all the stress and anxiety. This is the fight or flight autonomic nervous system reaction. But I am not going to give the parents a $750 ambulance fee when the situation did not warrant it. That is why I told her that if she wanted to call an ambulance she can.,. Ex. 8.

21. At the hearing, June Halverson admitted that she did not call an ambulance for the student. However, she testified that she did not refuse to call the ambulance and that the mother of the student had already called the ambulance before she spoke with the parent.

22. June Halverson's testimony that the parent of the student told her at the outset of their telephone conversation that she had already called an ambulance for her son is called into question. This testimony is inconsistent with Ms. Halverson's own e-mail where she clearly states "that is why I told her if she wanted to call an ambulance she can." Ms. Halverson's testimony is also inconsistent with the parent's testimony and email to Principal Jerry Reker, only three days after the incident; and the information the parent gave verbally to Superintendent Grant. See above Findings.

23. Ms. Halverson admitted during the hearing that the student's primary medical care provider would have more information regarding the student's medical history than she had at the school nurse's office

24. By telling the parent that the student did not need an ambulance, after the parent initially relayed the primary care provider's instructions to send the student to the emergency room by ambulance, and by telling the parent to call an ambulance if she wanted one, June Halverson, in effect, refused to call an ambulance contrary to the instructions of the parent and student's medical providers on

25. Superintendent Peter Grant testified that June Halversons actions placed the District at risk for substantial liability. If the student had a serious medical issue, after the student was sent back to class or after Ms. Halverson failed to call the ambulance, the school would have been liable for her actions.

26. Superintendent Grant testified that calling the ambulance for a student does not cost the school district any money as the ambulance is paid for by the parent of the student's insurer.. Superintendent Grant also testified that if the parent or medical provider requests an ambulance for a student, the school nurse should call the ambulance.

27. ' testified about an incident where, in her position as school nurse, she did not call an ambulance for a student when the parent asked her to do so. This incident is not comparable to the incident with June Halverson because believed she was following the primary care provider's instructions by not calling the ambulance, testified that she did not call the ambulance because she was following the student's care plan, which had been developed by the student's medical provider. Further, after the incident, the parent did not complain to the school district that the incident was handled inappropriately. Even without the parental complaint, testified that she was verbally reprimanded by Principal Reker for failing to follow the parent's instructions. At the time of the incident, was not a probationary. employee, but was tenured

28. There is no evidence that any other staff member had an incident comparable to June Halverson's incident on

29. Superintendent Grant testified that soon after Ms. Halverson was hired in September 2010, Ms. Halverson had problems with On October 13, 2010, only a few weeks after working at the School District, Superintendent Peter Grant met with June Halverson and to give verbal recommendations on how to communicate better, specifically, that June Halverson and were to meet in person to discuss issues instead of communicating through e-mail. See Ex. 6. Ms. Halverson testified that were difficult to deal with and were conspiring to get her fired.

30. Superintendent Grant testified that during for students, Ms. Halverson used poor judgment in publicly reprimanding in the presence of others in an antagonistic and aggressive manner. As a result, she received a Letter of Directives on October 18, 2010, directing her to improve her professional relationships with Ex; 5.

31. One of the seven directives in the October I8th Letter of Directives directed June Halverson to build positive relationships with Ex. 5.

32. A second directive in the October 18th Letter of Directives directed June Halverson to provide a welcoming environment to . and avoid confrontation in the presence of volunteers, parents, students, and employees of the School District. Ex. 5.-

33. Less than one month later, on November 9,2010, Superintendent Grant once again met with June Halverson to discuss her inappropriate communication with , Kasson- Mantorville Education Minnesota Co-Presidents John Vossen and Heidi Diercks and Education Minnesota representative Jeff Hyma were present at this meeting. Superintendent Grant.1 reminded June Halverson of the October 18th Letter of Directives and reiterated the specific directives. See- Ex. 6. Superintendent Grant again told June Halverson to communicate issues in person with and to stop e-mail communications in order to eliminate the negative perceptions and intonations in the e-mail communications, See Ex. 6.

34. On December 2, 2010, June Halverson received a Letter of Reprimand for violating the October 18th Letter of Directives by emailing, in an antagonistic fashion, with . See Ex. 6. Superintendent Grant again directed her to improve her professional relationships with ' . Ex. 6. The December 2nd Letter of Reprimand informed June Halverson that all the directives she was previously given would remain in effect. Ex. 6.

35. At this point, June Halverson had only been employed with the School District for approximately three months and received two letters directing her to improve her performance. Superintendent Grant, testified that it is extremely uncommon for School District employees to receive two letters in their personnel file in less than three months of work.

36, On December 29, 2010, June Halverson contacted four former employees of the School District to request their assistance in gathering negative information about Ex. 9. In her email, she requests that they "say something about how I treated parents and students, ; general attitude of being superior, rude, boundaries, etc. this shows 'deliberate indifferences to the situation." Ex. 9. June Halverson then stated that with -"'it is simply that refuses to communicate and does things her own way which, puts the students at .risk," Ex. 9.

37. , testified that in this December 29, 2:010, e-mail, June Halverson was asking her for any "negative information" that had on . testified that June Halverson asked, her if there were other people who would be willing to share similar information, testified that in this December 29,2010, e-mail, June Halverson was asking her for anything she knew about the "personalities" of June Halverson's Sg,

38. June Halverson testified that she was attempting to gather negative statements about to support a whistleblower lawsuit she plans to bring against the School District.

39. Even is these statements were gathered to support a whistleblower claim against the School District, June Halverson's conduct in requesting negative information from four former employees about still violated the October 18th directives of the school district to build positive relationships with . and to provide them with a welcoming environment.

40. In that same December 29, 2010, e-mail, June Halverson shared private student data with people outside the District who did not have a legitimate educational interest in the student data. Ex. 9. June Halverson shared details surrounding a bullying incident involving two students of the School District, including student names and the facts of the incident. Ex. 9. None of the former School District employees to whom June Halverson sent this information had any legitimate educational interest in the student data. When asked if she thought it was a good idea to put student names, including first and last, in e-mail communications to people outside the School District, June Halverson merely responded that the names were "common names."

41. On January 3,2011; June Halverson attended a School Board meeting. At that meeting, June Halverson, directly or indirectly, made a December 8,2010; letter, written to Superintendent .Grant "by her attorney, available to school district employees and the media. Ex. 10,

42. The December 8, 2010, letter is five pages long and names both of Ms. Halverson'? The letter contains numerous allegations including, but not limited to, that Ex. 10. It was inappropriate for Ms. Halverson to make her lawyers letter available to anyone but school board members.

43. It was undisputed that in addition to school board members, Superintendent Grant's secretary, the business manager, and to the editor of the Dodge County Independent, a local newspaper; were given copies of the letter. There was conflicting testimony regarding whether extra copies of this latter were also left for members of the public to take.

44. Ms. Halverson testified that the school district employees that received the December 8, 2010, letter were ex officio members of the school board, but did not provide any further evidence regarding this assertion.

45. On the morning after the December 8,2010, letter was distributed, . about whom negative statements were made in the letter, approached Superintendent Grant, distraught by the letter. She expressed concern about , her reputation, and the effect of the letter on her family in the community. Superintendent Grant testified that the distribution of this letter disrupted the function of the and that the was "in chaos." The found in "impossible" to work with Ms. Halverson after reading the statements in the letter.

46. Ms, Halverson's conduct, in either directly or indirectly allowing this letter, containing negative statements about to be distributed to school district employees and especially the media, on January 3, 2011, violated the directive to build positive relationships with' and the directive to provide them with a welcoming environment.

47. Ms. Halverson testified that her proposed termination was in retaliation for complaints she made to the Board of Nursing on or about October 2010.

48. Superintendent Grant testified that the Board of Nursing complaint did not factor into the proposed discharge and that the basis for the discharge is fully set forth in the Notice of Proposed Discharge. Ex. I, Superintendent Grant further testified that he was not aware of any complaint to the Board of Nursing until receipt of the December 8,2010, letter from Ms. Halverson's attorney. The Board of Nursing did not contact the school district until January 2011 when it requested information from the school district. Since that date; the district has not heard anything further from the Board of Nursing.

49. On February 7,2011, the School Board Chair sent a letter to June Halverson indicating that the School Board would be proposing June Halverson's immediate discharge from employment with the School District. Ex. 1. The letter informed June Halverson of the right to a hearing before final action was taken on the proposed discharge Ex.. 1.

50. The factual grounds for Ms. Halverson's proposed discharge included that the inappropriately defied the instructions of a parent, the student's primary care doctor's office and another medical professional by not calling an ambulance for a student; she released private educational data without proper authorization; and she engaged in insubordination by publicizing negative comments regarding in violation of directives given to her. Ex. 1; Ex. 2.

51. Ms. Halverson's timely requested a hearing on the Board's proposal to terminate her probationary employment. Ex.3.

CONCLUSIONS

1. June Halverson. is classified as a teacher under Minnesota Statutes, Section 122A.40, because, as a School Nurse, she is a professional employee required to hold a license from the state department. Minn. Stat. §§ 122A.15, Subd. 1; 122A.40, subd. 1,

2. June Halverson's employment with the School District is probationary under Minnesota Statutes, Section 122A.40, because she is in her first year of employment with the School 1- District. Mimi. Stat. § 122A.40, subd. 5.

3. The School District fulfilled the procedural requirements of Minn. Stat, § 122A.40, subd. 5, for discharging probationary teachers by notifying June Halverson of the time and place of the hearing regarding her proposed discharge and providing her an opportunity to be beard in. defense against discharge.

4. Probationary teachers may be removed for "cause, effective immediately, under section 122A.44." Minn. Stat. § 122A.40, subd. 5. Minnesota Statutes, Section 122A.44, states that the "board must employ and contract with necessary qualified teachers and discharge the same cause." Minn. Stat. § 12A.44, subd. 1. As used in Minnesota Statutes, Sections 122A.40 and 122A.44, the term "cause" is undefined.

5. The School District presented credible evidence that June Halverson knowingly made an uninformed decision that placed a student at risk of substantial harm when she released the student from her care on , after he reported to her with chest pains and her evaluation revealed irregular heartbeat, a heart murmur and elevated blood pressure,

6. The School District presented credible evidence that June Halverson knowingly made an uninformed decision that place the student at risk of substantial harm when she decided not to contact the student's parent to gather up-to-date medical information and to inform the parent of the student's reports of chest pain, his irregular heart beat and elevated blood pressure.

7. While June Halverson believed the situation did not call for an ambulance, her belief was admittedly uninformed. June Halverson admitted she did not know the student, did not know that the student's medical history, including the fact that he , and admitted that she was aware that the student's medical chart in the school nurse's office l").ad not been updated for two years. According to her own email, without the necessary information, she "cannot make an informed decision." See Ex. 8.

8. The School District presented credible evidence that June Halverson's failure to call an ambulance contrary to the instruction of the student's parent, the student's primary care provider and another medical professional placed the student, at risk of substantial harm, placed the District at risk of substantial liability and constitutes "cause" for June Halverscn' s immediate discharge as a probationary teacher with the School District,

9. The School District presented credible evidence that June Halverson released private educational data without proper authorization.

10. The School District presented credible evidence that June Halverson contacted people outside the School District and requested their assistance in gathering negative information about personalities. June Halverson's conduct violated the directive to build positive relationships with - and the directive to provide them with a welcoming environment.

11. The School District presented credible evidence that June Halverson, whether directly or indirectly, made a December 8, 2010, letter, which included disparaging statements about ,, available to School District employees and a member of the media. While Ms. Halverson testified that the superintendent's secretary and business manager are ex officio members of the school board, there is no factual or legal support for this assertion. Minnesota law, including Minnesota Statutes Section 123B14, only provides that "a superintendent shall be ex officio member of the board." Minn. Stat. § 123B.14. June Halverson's conduct violated the directive to build positive relationships with; and the directive to provide them with a welcoming environment.

12. The School District presented credible evidence that June Halverson's direct or indirect, dissemination of the December 8, 2010 letter from her attorney, resulted in significant disruption of the functioning of the

13. June Halverson's conduct of releasing educational data to outside individuals and insubordination, including requesting assistance from former employees to gather negative information about and in making the December 8, 2010, letter, containing negative statements related to ., available to others and resulting in significant disruption to the , constitutes "cause" for her immediate discharge as a probationary teacher with the School District.

14. While Ms. Halverson asserts that the school, district's proposed discharge is retaliation based on her reports to the Board of Nursing, this allegation is not supported by the record. The issue regarding Ms. Halverson's failure to appropriately treat a student in the nurse's office was brought forward by the students parent. There is no evidence in the record that the parent" s report was motivated by anything other than the parent's strong belief that the school nurse acted inappropriately in the treatment of her son.

15. Further, Ms. Halverson does not deny the factual allegations raised against her. She does not deny that students are named in her December 29,2010, email sent to individuals who do not work for the school district. She does not deny that she sent the December 29, 2010, email to four former employees seeking information regarding personalities. She also does not deny that the December 8, 2010, letter from her attorney was distributed to the superintendent's secretary; the business manager and a member of the media. By her own admissions, the school district did not fabricate the allegations against her. Instead of evidence of retaliation, the record reflects that the cumulative effect of Ms. Halverson's conduct during only four months of employment resulted in the school board's decision to propose immediate termination of her probationary employment.

RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions set forth above, the undersigned Independent Hearing Officer recommends that June Halverson be immediately discharged from her position as a probationary teacher pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 122A.40, subd, 5.