Challenging our public school district’s obedience of county ‘health’ ‘orders’: District begins ‘disciplinary action steps;’ I respond for district choice to cite their unsubstantiated claims, withdraw the claims and censorship, or face my attorney (23 of

Perhaps the most helpful communication is a summary of events to the most recent article, the specific updates when they occurred, and preview of coming events (articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23).

Summary (links = full documentation): The California “lockdown orders” we were all told were necessary to “flatten the curve and keep hospitals running” have lasted since March 3, 2020. The California Emergency Services Act (ESA) is derived from California Government Code 8558 (b) that requires “beyond control” hospitals to authorize emergency dictatorial orders. Because Californians never received comprehensive hospital data, our government and corporate media “leaders” are lying in omission. Because problematic “positive cases” were substituted for “beyond control” hospitals, our leaders lie in commission. All testimony I’ve received from ~20 medical professionals here in NorCal report all hospitals they know of have been fully within their control throughout the “pandemic.”

As a NorCal public school teacher, at the start of our school year in September 2020 I inquired to our district’s leadership and teachers’ union how their negotiated policy to “obey” county “health” “orders” is legal given the above reasonable limits to dictatorial authority. I cited our mutual Oath to “support and defend” the US and CA Constitutions. I reminded the district I merely ask them as educated professional adults to perform what we expect from all our Californian Middle School students in our State teaching standards: “Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of primary and secondary sources.” (page 81).

After two requests, the district contact person responded by ignoring my questions, and that employees are required to obey “California mandates” “to protect you” under threat of being terminated. I emailed our district superintendent, school board members, my school principal and two interested teachers that we teach all high school students in our US History classes that the district’s position of “just following orders” is an illegal defense, and asked again how ESA limits are being honored.

After continued district silence, I filed three legal complaints: federal, state, and a grievance for district violation of worker safety to support apparent dictatorial and illegal policy under direct threat of employment termination, $1,000 fines per violation, and one year imprisonment.

Our union responded with support to ask the district, and to communicate privately that they wouldn’t pursue the grievance to arbitration because the working conditions were negotiated in good faith. The grievance process finished with district and union agreement the complaint didn’t qualify as a grievance.

I appealed the district’s answer to our community school board for what the district redefined as a “written complaint.” From October 2 to December 18 2020 the district was silent, despite policy promising a response within 30 days of the board’s receipt. After this December 13 reminder they were out of compliance for a response, the superintendent answered that the school board upheld the district response without comment.

I also received a “non-response” after nearly 5 months from my complaint to the US Department of Justice regarding unlimited government. My complaint to the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing complaint was fielded with a phone call response in December, with their promise to follow-up, and silence since then.

In March 2021, our NorCal public school superintendent sent all staff an email citing county deaths from COVID nearing 1,300 with 80,000 “cases.” He also asked for our professional responses to an upcoming survey. I responded with three basic questions: how many of our staff and students have died of (not with) Covid, what is the data for overall county deaths given controversy over causes of deaths, and how many staff and students have been injured by vaccines. He ignored my questions twice, which I then shared with our school’s ~100 teachers as Chair of a school Professional Learning Community (PLC) on broad educational topics directly affecting our school’s teaching and learning. A few teachers have communicated support, but our Social Science Department found no interest in this topic when I emailed them in inquiry.

Our district superintendent then answered my questions, and concluded with: “If you do not agree with the state and county guidelines or if you believe we are not following them, please pursue your questions and concerns with the appropriate agency.” I responded I would do so, and report my findings.

I followed up with 14 CA government agencies over 6 weeks, with all ignoring the question of how the limit of “beyond control” hospitals was being honored for “emergency” dictatorial authority, and CA Senator Glazer’s office stating the 60-day limit applied only to “non-safety” related orders. I hadn’t considered an American legislature would surrender forever dictatorial powers to a governor or elected officials without a time limit, as public recourse would be limited to recall (as is happening with Governor Newsom) or electing other legislators.

School district and CA government “answers” are therefore intentional lies of omission to claim they answered a question about ESA to “justify” dictatorial government while leaving out any consideration of crystal-clear letter and intent requiring that our hospitals are “beyond control.” The 14 CA government agencies claim dictatorial power to close businesses, stop social gatherings, force masking, force humans to forever remain no closer than six feet from each other, and with forever power until legislators or governor say otherwise, and while lying in commission that “emergency powers” are authorized by unreliable “positive” “cases.”

At the end of April 2021, I wrote a lengthy and fully documented report of those 14 CA government agencies’ responses, and emailed it with a cover letter to district leadership, school board members, teachers’ union leadership, our PLC members, and school teachers. The district’s Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources immediately responded with threats of disciplinary action for unspecified violations of district policies, as did my school principal. The district has yet to respond to my questions regarding their undocumented complaints as the “foundation” to their threats.

I appealed to our teachers’ union for relief (and here, here). After 4 emails and 15 days of silence from our union President and VP, I sent this email to 14 of the Board of Directors of our teachers’ union. Our President and VP then responded for a next step “to gain clarification regarding matters within our scope and discuss next steps, if any.” We Zoom-met, and our union President met with district Assistant Superintendent of HR on May 25, 2021. The district emailed me claiming my PLC report somehow “harasses or disparages” my colleagues “based on their political beliefs,” yet fails again to provide any documentation or explanation despite the union and my requests.

I filed three employee grievances for apparent contract violations, with our contract requiring my silence of proceedings. On July 8, I spoke by phone with our teachers’ union president, who reported that the district is again considering my Grievances as employee complaints, with HR Assistant Superintendent admitting failure to address my requests for the district to document and explain their complaints.

On July 9, 2021 our teachers’ union held a Zoom conference with ~100 teachers to explain the tentative agreement for work conditions for 2021 – ‘22 school year for staff, students, and families to obey “the most restrictive health measures” “ordered” by state, county or federal government. I asked the first question for our union to explain how the state has ordering authority given the strict limits of “beyond control” hospitals, with union president, VP, and another union board member responding they are still representing my question, but all legal information they’ve received is that there is no requirement to oppose ordering authority until proven in court.

My school district’s final answer to my three employee grievances came on July 21, 2021:
Teachers, staff, students and families will follow “health” “orders” because they are ordered.
“Health” “orders” are whatever is ordered. We will not respond to requests for documentation of what is ordered as “healthy,” nor even acknowledge the question was asked despite our legal obligation to explain how all policies are within the limits of the law.
If teachers ask further questions how our “health” “orders” are lawful or healthy, they will be disciplined up to termination under the “reason” that such questions “harass and/or disparage other’ political beliefs.”
On July 24 I responded to the district’s formal initiation of “disciplinary action steps” that lead to termination for unprofessional conduct by offering the district choice to finally cite their unsubstantiated complaints against me, withdraw the complaints and censorship, or face my attorney.

**
Update 1: District begins “disciplinary action steps” that lead to termination for unprofessional conduct.

July 23 email from district Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources to our teachers union President that cc’s me:

For further clarification, Mr. Herman’s April 25, 2021 email communication (attached) was sent to all HHS staff. Per board policy 4040, work email shall not be utilized by employees to communicate on topics outside of the HUSD employee related scope of work. At this time the district is expressing concern that Mr. Herman’s continued use of work email in this manner may result in further progressive disciplinary action for violation of this policy. The district has directed Mr. Herman to refrain from using work email to share communication with government or political bodies on topics not related to the HUSD employee scope of work.

Additionally, progressive disciplinary steps in general for policy violations are as follows:
Written letter of concern/warning
Written letter of reprimand
Notice of Unprofessional Conduct/Notice of Unsatisfactory Performance
Recommendation to Board for dismissal for failure to improve conduct/performance, or demonstrated egregious acts of misconduct
The district considers the communication to direct Mr. Herman’s appropriate use of work email as an expressed concern and warning to avoid a board policy violation.

Please let me know if you have any additional questions.

Kind regards,
(name omitted)
Assistant Superintendent, Human Resources

Update 2: My response offering the district choice to cite and explain their accusations, withdraw the accusations and censorship, or face my attorney.

My July 24 response:

(Assistant Superintendent name omitted),
After 3 months of HEA and my requests, it is now time to either cite and articulate what I wrote that violates policy, or withdraw HUSD’s threats of “disciplinary action” and censorship of our PLC’s work to address the worst decline in student academic productivity in likely district history (as measured by ~doubled failure rates).

Cite and explain the violation HUSD claims, or withdraw the multiple accusations against my professionalism and our HHS teachers’ academic freedom in our HHS Solutions PLC.

HUSD’s failure/refusal to substantiate claims against my professionalism appears to be per se defamation. I would strongly prefer not to engage HUSD in a legal venue to defend my professionalism, but I will do so if necessary.

HUSD’s accusations:
April 26: HUSD claims I used district email to “communicate political views and discontent”: cite the “political views” and “discontent” or withdraw the accusations. Explain the context and content of the email that is a problem, because our committee teachers see we are asking the fundamental question connected to the worst academic decline in district history. Our PLC’s email asks the question which is listed first in HUSD/HEA’s contract Article 25.E.1 (Academic Freedom) to express “An understanding of our democratic tradition and its method” by asking the first American question of how governing policy is within the limits of law cited by Governor Newsom in California Government Code 8558 (b) that requires “beyond control” hospitals to authorize emergency dictatorial orders. Our PLC asks in good-faith honor of our mutual Oath to “support and defend” the US and CA Constitutions of limited government. We are all Oath-sworn to support and defend the political view of limited government under our Constitutions guaranteeing Natural Rights.
April 26: HUSD claims I “communicate as if you are representing the district, your school, or colleagues at your school.” Cite and explain the problem of my PLC work as chair or withdraw the complaint. Explain the content and context of the email that is a problem, because our PLC see this as following-up what Superintendent (omitted) requested: ask CA government agencies the questions that HUSD declined to answer regarding “beyond control” hospitals and 60 days of emergency ordering authority. I promised to report back, and after 6 weeks of work communicating with the 14 most authoritative CA government agencies, I sent my report to HUSD leadership, HEA leadership, and HHS teachers (PLCs share what they find important to the school’s teaching and learning). In my communications I identified myself as a chairperson of a school committee. Our PLC concludes that because all 14 CA government agencies refused to explain how emergency “health” “orders” honor the clear and explicit legal limits that require “beyond control” hospitals, HUSD and HEA should be supporting getting our questions answered. Our PLC notes that Californians never received comprehensive hospital data (a lie in omission), and that problematic “positive cases” were substituted for “beyond control” hospitals (a lie in commission). All testimony I’ve received from ~20 medical professionals here in NorCal report all hospitals they know of have been fully within their control throughout the “pandemic.” HUSD refusal to explain our workplace policy’s legitimate authority other than “just follow orders” is taught to all California high school students as an illegal justification for authority. Moreover, all California middle school students learn to “Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of primary and secondary sources” (page 81), which HUSD fails/refuses to do. Again, I hope I do not need to present this basic civics lesson in a legal venue against HUSD, and will do so if required.
April 26: regarding that I “communicate as if you are representing the district, your school, or colleagues at your school,” explain in context and content of my report that I promised HUSD and HEA leadership to deliver after Superintendent (omitted) direct request, how does this HUSD complaint not violate these HUSD CORE VALUES?
Well-Supported Staff: We enhance the capacity of every employee to promote equity and model service excellence.
Collaborative Leadership: We develop leaders at all levels who creatively tackle our challenges and communicate with integrity and transparency.
Data-Informed Decisions: We use multiple types of data, including stakeholder voice, to inform decisions and monitor progress.
April 27: Principal (omitted) claimed our PLC’s report “appears” to violate “collaboration time should be teacher directed and focused on standards based instruction, and/or school, and/or district goals” (Contract Article 10.D.4). Cite and explain the violation or withdraw the accusation and censorship. Our PLC teachers are shocked and dismayed that (principal) and HUSD fail to see our work addresses the single most important teaching and learning topic of the school year of doubled student failure rates, upholds HUSD/HEA’s contract Article 25.E.1 as previously stated, that HUSD teachers are expected to accept censorship without citation based on “appearances” to school “leaders,” and that “just follow orders” is the “new HUSD normal.”
May 27: HUSD claims my report is “harmful or inappropriate matter” that “could be construed as harassment or disparagement of others based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, sex, gender, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, or political beliefs.” Cite and explain the violation or withdraw the accusation and censorship. Our PLC teachers are astonished that our obvious question of policy legality in a PLC report along with official government responses is interpreted by HUSD as somehow harassing or insulting others based on their political belief. What political belief is offended, and how? Please recall: all employees are required by Oath to have the political belief of limited government under the Constitution.
May 27: HUSD complains: “The District does not perceive your communications to be work related with other staff members, and contains your communications shared with governmental officials.” Cite in context and content with explanation how our PLC report to address a doubled student failure rate is not “work related.” Also, explain the problem with reporting the answers from the most authoritative 14 CA government agencies after Superintendent (omitted) request, and that I promised to do.
May 27: HUSD claims I communicated “Your personal opinion regarding the health order” rather than asking HUSD to demonstrate legality of policy given “just follow orders” is in prima facie violation of our mutual Oath to “support and defend” the US and CA Constitutions of limited government. Cite this “personal opinion” or withdraw this claim. If you have a “personal opinion” to cite, then explain how it is not in honor of our mutual Oath.
May 27: HUSD claims I “forwarded” a “personal opinion” to other staff and faculty that “was not perceived as professional and appropriate use.” Cite the “personal opinion” in context and content, and explain how this communication is not professional and appropriate, or withdraw the claim. I find zero “personal opinions” in our report other than in light of honoring our mutual Oath.
May 27: HUSD gives “direction to cease forwarding messages to your Instructional Leadership Team.” Explain what this means or withdraw the direction. On its face, this is blanket censorship and HUSD harassment to not “forward” any “messages.” Who is the “Instructional Leadership Team” and how did I “forward messages”?
July 21: HUSD claims “Upon review, the District does not consider what was submitted as contractual grievances, rather considers them district complaints.” Cite and explain how each and every of my three Grievances are not protected by our Collective Bargaining Agreement.
July 21: HUSD claims our PLC report to teachers was “personal opinions related to your communication with government bodies was unrelated to the regular school business, and was perceived by other employees as personal opinion in nature.” Again, cite and explain the “personal opinions” or withdraw the complaint. Cite and explain in content and context how our PLC report to address a doubled student failure rate is “unrelated to the regular school business” or withdraw the claim. If you keep this complaint, include an explanation how HUSD is not in violation of Article 25.E.1 (Academic Freedom) for our PLC to express the first American historical question of “An understanding of our democratic tradition and its method” to challenge apparent illegal policy of “just follow orders” without citation of source law. Cite and explain the “perception” that our PLC report is “personal opinion in nature” or withdraw the claim.
July 21: HUSD claims “My email communication did not state you had actually violated the policy.” Cite and explain the policy violation(s), or clearly state my communications did not violate policy, and withdraw all complaints and censorship.
July 23: HUSD claims our PLC report was “on topics outside of the HUSD employee related scope of work.” Cite and explain how our PLC report directly addressing policies connected to the worst decline of student academic success measured by failing classes as outside HUSD’s “scope of work,” or withdraw the complaint.
HUSD claims that my two other grievances as already decided and closed (requesting explanation of policy legality given clear limits to emergency ordering authority, and HUSD’s refusal to provide documentation to their apparent claim that “whatever” face coverings exceed OSHA safety standards). I promise to review these decisions with an attorney.

I have requested from HUSD since April to substantiate their claims, and request a response to each and every claim listed above by 5PM July 30, 2021. Any claim not cited and explained or withdrawn will be subject to review by my attorney.

HUSD gives every teacher our mutual Oath to sign. HUSD has ignored my repeated requests as the issuer of the Oath to inform me how to report violations. I admonish HUSD that failure to address our Oath to the US and CA Constitutions to support and defend limited government rather than dictatorial “orders” outside limits of “beyond control” hospitals will also be a topic I address with an attorney.

**

What’s next: I’ve initiated contact with a willing and able attorney. This communication will reveal much for the power of We the People.