Challenging our public school district’s obedience of county ‘health’ ‘orders’: District’s FINAL ANSWER: Obey ‘orders’ because they’re ordered, ‘health orders’ are whatever we say they are, questioning our ‘orders’ is harassment risking discipline

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.

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.”
**

Update 1: School district’s final answer: The district’s Assistant Superintendent for HR finally responded to my three employee grievances by email:

Jul 21, 2021, 9:30 AM
Mr. Herman,

My apologies for such a delayed response. Your grievances were received via email on Monday, June 14, 2021. Upon review, the District does not consider what was submitted as contractual grievances, rather considers them district complaints. Per the District complaint process, two of the complaints were previously received on September 23, 2020, and appealed on October 2, 2020. Here is a final response to your complaints as submitted:

1) Response to: “HUSD ordering employee practices under threats of terminaiont (sic), $1,000 fines” – The district considers this related to your complaint submitted to the District on September 23, 2020, and appealed on October 2, 2020. The Board upheld the original district decision, and considers this matter closed.

2) Response to: “face coverings” – The district considers this also related to your complaint submitted on September 23, 2020, and appealed on October 2, 2020. The Board upheld the district decision, and considers this matter closed.

3) Response to: Claim of violation of AR 4040 – as stated in my May 27, 2021 email, the directives to cease communication to “all staff” was to avoid the violation of 4040 were in alignment with the District’s authority to direct the work of employees, per HEA Article 3. My email communication did not state you had actually violated the policy. It was meant to bring to your attention that a continued pattern of communication to all staff who did not solicit 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. The email was not disciplinary, and no actions were taken. The District considers this matter resolved and closed.

At this time all matters by the district are considered to be resolved and closed.

Kind regards,

(name omitted)
Assistant Superintendent, Human Resources

**
My summary of the district’s response:
Teachers, staff, students and families will follow “health” “orders” because they are ordered. A teacher’s citation of the definitive law’s ESSENTIAL LIMITS to dictatorial ordering authority under threats of $1,000 fines per violation, being locked in jail for a year, and being fired will not be discussed, nor even acknowledged. The district’s order to obey orders is final, with this issue now considered resolved and closed. The district will not respond to questions about our mutual Oath to “support and defend” the US and CA Constitutions of limited government, nor answer how Oath-sworn teachers report violations, despite the district administering the Oath. The facts that all California high school students learn “just follow orders” is an illegal defense of policy, and that all California middle school students learn to “Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of primary and secondary sources” (page 81, which the district refuses to do) are not relevant to the district’s authority to demand teachers “just follow orders” or be fired.
“Health” “orders” are whatever is ordered. We will not respond to requests for documentation of what is ordered as “safe and healthy,” nor even acknowledge the question was asked despite our legal obligation to explain how all policies are within the limits of the law. District claims that “whatever” face coverings exceed OSHA health standards are authoritative, unquestionable, will not be documented, and are to be obeyed without discussion under threat of being fired.
If teachers ask further questions how our “health” “orders” are lawful policies for teaching and learning within their Professional Learning Committees addressing the worst student productivity decline in district history (measured by doubled student failure rates), they will be disciplined up to termination “because” such questions “harass and/or disparage others’ political beliefs.” The district can ignore multiple requests to cite what the teacher communicated that was harassing and/or insulting, and the district has dictatorial and final censorship authority without need to show evidence under this resolved and closed issue.
It seems that I will need to take this issue to court for resolution unless there is a broader political breakthrough exposing the illegality of “pandemic” “health” “orders.” The district has threatened “disciplinary action” for further questioning of district policies directly connected to our school’s teaching and learning, with their last and final response leaving that door open.

**

Update 2: Attorneys: I’m still in contact with two groups of attorneys central to these legal challenges. I’ll have to get representation or a referral soon, or I’ll have to look for an attorney on my own.

**

Up next: What attorney(s) will take this case?