Sanchez on Administrative Leave from Columbia High School
BTW, does anyone know the status of the suits and countersuits in the Seth Boyden case?
chalmers said:
So Ms. Winkfield's objection is that another former BOE member brought a report alleging potential criminal misconduct by the principal to the police after the report writer's supervisor (the Superintendent?) and the BOE attorney said to keep it quiet until they could conduct another investigation?
I like Principal Sanchez and hope he's exonerated by the facts, but the outrage over notifying the police about possible criminal misconduct confuses me.
People are saying you might be a criminal. Please give us your full name so that we may contact the appropriate authorities. I'm sure they will conduct a fair, professional investigation that, if you are innocent, will result in no harm or burden to you.
upthecreek said:
chalmers said:
So Ms. Winkfield's objection is that another former BOE member brought a report alleging potential criminal misconduct by the principal to the police after the report writer's supervisor (the Superintendent?) and the BOE attorney said to keep it quiet until they could conduct another investigation?
I like Principal Sanchez and hope he's exonerated by the facts, but the outrage over notifying the police about possible criminal misconduct confuses me.
People are saying you might be a criminal. Please give us your full name so that we may contact the appropriate authorities. I'm sure they will conduct a fair, professional investigation that, if you are innocent, will result in no harm or burden to you.
"We commissioned a report which indicates the school principal might have abused a student, but he's a nice guy and we don't think the report is accurate. Let's bury it and get another report. Maybe that one will come out better. Meanwhile, no one tell the cops about the possible crime against the student."
Formerlyjerseyjack said:
chalmers said:
So Ms. Winkfield's objection is that another former BOE member brought a report alleging potential criminal misconduct by the principal to the police after the report writer's supervisor (the Superintendent?) and the BOE attorney said to keep it quiet until they could conduct another investigation?
I like Principal Sanchez and hope he's exonerated by the facts, but the outrage over notifying the police about possible criminal misconduct confuses me.
--- outrage over notifying the police about possible criminal misconduct ... After other agencies with jurisdiction declined to proceed.
The agency charged with prosecuting criminal misconduct did proceed, at least for now.
chalmers said:
upthecreek said:
chalmers said:
"We commissioned a report which indicates the school principal might have abused a student, but he's a nice guy and we don't think the report is accurate.
That's not what the report said.
upthecreek said:
chalmers said:
upthecreek said:
chalmers said:
"We commissioned a report which indicates the school principal might have abused a student, but he's a nice guy and we don't think the report is accurate.
That's not what the report said.
"In December 2023, the BOE at the time became aware of a draft investigation report into allegations against Principal Sanchez from an incident in the spring of 2023. The incident was a student fight at CHS, in which Principal Sanchez tried to intervene for student safety. At the December 2023 meeting, our Board Attorney explained that the BOE should NOT consider the draft report. The reason was that the report was forwarded to the district even though the investigator had failed to follow protocol and submit the report to his supervisor for review and sign-off. The findings contained irregularities and claims that had not been properly vetted. Therefore the supervisor had serious concerns around the legitimacy of the report, and urged the BOE to not consider it, and wait until a proper investigation was done.
Because of this, as a BOE, we were advised that NO action should be taken at the time in connection with this flawed report. This enraged some of the Board members at the time, who believed that Principal Sanchez should be recommended for immediate termination that evening. When it was clear that was not going to happen, two then BOE members remarked that they would be “forced to take this matter into their own hands.” Shortly after, Principal Sanchez was placed on paid leave of absence pending a more complete investigation, and the matter was referred to the NJ Division of Child Protection & Permanency (DCP&P), which is standard protocol. DCP&P found no substantive cause for the complaint and refused to investigate. This decision is important. The agency that is tasked with protecting children determined that there was no substantive cause to take any action against Principal Sanchez.
Recently, in fact within this past week, the new external investigation was completed and provided enough clarity about the allegations to provide for a full reinstatement of Principal Sanchez as early as next week."
..................................
So, the DCP&P found nothing to investigate and a separate investigation found nothing to support the allegations and cleared Principal Sanchez.
The former BOE member that leaked the irregular draft report was also the same person that sued the district along with the Black Parents Workshop. Their suit was settled in 2000. Then this person ran for the BOE and served from 2021-2023.
yahooyahoo said:
The former BOE member that leaked the irregular draft report was also the same person that sued the district along with the Black Parents Workshop. Their suit was settled in 2000. Then this person ran for the BOE and served from 2021-2023.
What is "irregular" about the draft report and what evidence of irregularities have you seen beyond the Facebook post?
Going on the FB post and whats been in the news, Investigator #1 and the Prosecutor's office think there's something there. Investigator #2 and DCP&P think there isn't. But the villain according to Ms. Winkfield and some here is the person who notified the police. Isn't that what someone in a position of responsibility would do if there was an incident involving a potential crime by a faculty member against a student, even if there was a difference as to what happened?
I like Principal Sanchez and hope the facts show he did nothing wrong, but the rhetoric seems less about him than yet another round in the endless, pointless feud between BOE factions.
The Village Green has a bit more information.
One question that they asked District and have not received an answer yet is what investigative body produced the initial draft report as well as final report. I do think it would be helpful to this discussion if we have that information.
If this case proceeds to a trial, a lot more information will become public. If a grand jury chooses not to indict Mr. Sanchez, I’m sure there will be lots of unanswered questions, since I am not sure that all of the evidence they review will be made public. But that’s the way the system works.
Arguing about whether Malespina did anything wrong by providing a copy of that report to the police, seems kind of fruitless at this point. It’s done, and things are going to move forward. It may be worth reviewing at some point in the future when we know more about the nature of the report that she provided to the police.
Village Green with the prosecutor's complaint. Can't say what's true, though certainly quite different than the prevailing narrative. Incident occurred March 9. 2023 and an internal report was generated then. District got an outside investigator to make a report. As a result of the report's findings, Acting Superintendent Gilbert said he was instructed to contact Maplewood PD on December 22, 2023. No mention of any "leak" by a rogue former BOE member.
mrincredible said:
It was not, apparently, related to graffiti.
Haven't read many interim posts on this, but "Apparently" is an interesting term here, since personnel issues are kept pretty secret. Was your source "word of mouth"? or something more official? Are "Next Door" and the like considered reliable sources? Just curious.
Juniemoon said:
Haven't read many interim posts on this, but "Apparently" is an interesting term here, since personnel issues are kept pretty secret. Was your source "word or mouth"? or something more official? Are "Next Door" and the like considered reliable sources? Just curious.
I found out because an email came from Dr Gilbert to CHS families. Then I looked and found news accounts had been posted. This was the evening after Mr Sanchez surrendered himself for processing so it was all official communication.
I agree my post was nebulous. It was a very oblique commentary on all the speculation that took place in this discussion when Mr Sanchez was originally placed on leave.
It seems like the prosecutor has laid their case before the public and the legal process will move forward. I read the description of the video and what it allegedly shows and I think a lot of how this case proceeds is going to depend on that particular piece of evidence. It doesn’t make sense to me that the DCP&P would make a determination that no action was needed based on what the prosecutor said is shown in the video.
Having said all that, at this point I think I’m going to shut my mouth about this situation until something concrete actually happens.
mrincredible said:
I found out because an email came from Dr Gilbert to CHS families. Then I looked and found news accounts had been posted. This was the evening after Mr Sanchez surrendered himself for processing so it was all official communication.
I agree my post was nebulous. It was a very oblique commentary on all the speculation that took place in this discussion when Mr Sanchez was originally placed on leave.
It seems like the prosecutor has laid their case before the public and the legal process will move forward. I read the description of the video and what it allegedly shows and I think a lot of how this case proceeds is going to depend on that particular piece of evidence. It doesn’t make sense to me that the DCP&P would make a determination that no action was needed based on what the prosecutor said is shown in the video.
Having said all that, at this point I think I’m going to shut my mouth about this situation until something concrete actually happens.
Not a bad idea. Speculation can be an angry beast. But I have one more question: I'm curious where you "read the description of the video and what it allegedly
shows "
I no longer have kids at Columbia, so I admit I may not have the latest news. But there's that word "allegedly" again. Can you share your source?
The below FB update from Courtney Winkfield sheds a little more light on the situation. My thoughts:
Whatever contact occurred, Principal Sanchez was not breaking up an actual fight, but trying to stop a student who was looking to find someone to fight.
I would like to know what she believes was “flawed” and “unreliable” about the first investigation. The second investigation apparently cleared Principal Sanchez. Who conducted each one? What specifically were the differences in what was found? Why does she believe the second investigation is more reliable?
According to Ms. Winkfield, both the Superintendent at the BOE’s direction and her fellow former Board member contacted MPD in December 2023. Ms. Winkfield's issue seems to be with the fact that the former member provided the first investigation report to the police, when the BOE/Superintendent did not.
I want to briefly update and provide further information around two issues that have been shared in the last 24 hours.
- At our December BOE Executive Session on 12/21/23, we decided to direct the Superintendent to initiate a new investigation based on the flawed, unauthorized draft report we received that was unreliable and unactionable.
- We directed Dr. Gilbert to call the matter into DCP&P and notify Maplewood Police Department as per standard required compliance. This compliance call on 12/22/23 is reflected on the charging document released.
- Notifying MPD at that point does not trigger MPD to do anything and serves as a courtesy FYI.
- MPD did not take up the case based on Dr. Gilbert’s notification, which allowed the District to request a 3rd party investigation.
- That 3rd party led District investigation resulted in the final, authorized report received by the District last week paving the way for the Superintendent to reinstate Principal Sanchez.
- Meanwhile, sometime in late December 2023, Elissa Malespina took the initial, flawed draft investigation report to Maplewood PD. That is what triggered the actual MPD investigation.
- Without speaking to the specifics of the case, in my view, working to prevent a student pursuing to find and fight another student suffices as attempting to stop a fight.
Juniemoon said:
Not a bad idea. Speculation can be an angry beast. But I have one more question: I'm curious where you "read the description of the video and what it allegedly
shows "
I no longer have kids at Columbia, so I admit I may not have the latest news. But there's that word "allegedly" again. Can you share your source?
Fair question.
The description of the video is in the Village Green article. The description is provided by the Prosecutor’s office, hence my use of the word “allegedly”. The link to the article is in chalmers’ post from last night at 9:49 pm. The prosecutor’s statement contains a detailed description of what is seen in a video of the event. But I haven’t seen the actual video so I’m trying to maintain some objectivity.
I’ll take No Good Deed Goes Unpunished for $1000, Alex.
I guess my question --- does the V.G. article describe the extent of the alleged assault/battery?
https://nypost.com/2024/03/14/us-news/nj-high-school-principals-arrest-sparks-debate-in-hot-button-district/
I had not opened this thread until I read this Post report. The word “contentious “ to describe the district seems a tad off, considering the almost daily reports of school related issues across the country!
Back in the ‘60s when our four entered the system (all grads of CHS) we had many, many major concerns — deteriorating buildings, declining enrollment, and desegregation— and white flight westward — but I marvel, looking back, how the district endured and survived!
Folks moving into million dollar homes in areas formerly deemed way too close to Irvington and Newark won’t be able to afford to send the kids to private schools and will demand our students and staff get the support needed to do their jobs in this “contentious” society — where TV clips can destroy lives and careers.
chalmers said:
The below FB update from Courtney Winkfield sheds a little more light on the situation. My thoughts:
Whatever contact occurred, Principal Sanchez was not breaking up an actual fight, but trying to stop a student who was looking to find someone to fight.
I would like to know what she believes was “flawed” and “unreliable” about the first investigation. The second investigation apparently cleared Principal Sanchez. Who conducted each one? What specifically were the differences in what was found? Why does she believe the second investigation is more reliable?
Winkfield explained in her first statement that the BOE lawyer advised the BOE members that the report was "flawed" and "unreliable" and they should not rely on it to make any decisions.
yahooyahoo said:
chalmers said:
What specifically were the differences in what was found? Why does she believe the second investigation is more reliable?
Winkfield explained in her first statement that the BOE lawyer advised the BOE members that the report was "flawed" and "unreliable" and they should not rely on it to make any decisions.
Also, a little more specifically, she wrote that the investigator “failed to follow protocol and submit the report to his supervisor for review and sign-off,” leaving “irregularities and claims that had not been properly vetted.”
DaveSchmidt said:
yahooyahoo said:
chalmers said:
What specifically were the differences in what was found? Why does she believe the second investigation is more reliable?
Winkfield explained in her first statement that the BOE lawyer advised the BOE members that the report was "flawed" and "unreliable" and they should not rely on it to make any decisions.
Also, a little more specifically, she wrote that the investigator “failed to follow protocol and submit the report to his supervisor for review and sign-off,” leaving “irregularities and claims that had not been properly vetted.”
Is the investigator's "supervisor" the Superintendent? If the investigator didn't submit the report to his supervisor, what did he do with it?
chalmers said:
Is the investigator's "supervisor" the Superintendent? If the investigator didn't submit the report to his supervisor, what did he do with it?
I don’t know who the supervisor was. I inferred it was a direct supervisor who was supposed to review the draft before, as Winkfield wrote, the report “was forwarded to the district.”
“Forwarded to the district” is what I inferred the investigator did with the draft instead.
So the Ledger reports that the student is being represented by council. Why? Is she being charged with anything? If the principal was trying to prevent her from attacking another person, should she be charged with assault?
Or is a lawsuit against the district and Frank pending? If so, what damage did she suffe-- Oh, I forgot, maybe don't wanna waste a good grift..
If I was on the jury, it would be worth $10.00 or maybe $15.00 for emotional stress.
However, the district's insurance company will likely fold like a cheap camera and offer $50k to go away. Attorney gets 1/3 of that. If I am wrong, I would like to know if the attorney's work is pro bono.
Formerlyjerseyjack said:
If I was on the jury, it would be worth $10.00 or maybe $15.00 for emotional stress.
Having already decided for yourself what did or didn’t happen, you wouldn’t be on the jury.
DaveSchmidt said:
Having already decided for yourself what did or didn’t happen, you wouldn’t be on the jury.
--- and that is your contribution to the discussion? I know I wouldn't be on the jury. I learned that in 1994. I was called to jury on a drug case. During voir dire, we were asked if there was a reason for which we could not serve.
I volunteered my belief that drug cases were a waste of taxpayer money and I would practice jury nullification (big phrase for me). I was excused from that case and haven't been called to sunny, down-town Newark, since.
And then we go back to a question on page 1 of this thread. If there was a fight going on, or if there was a fight, gonna be going on, what was the principal's responsibility to prevent harm to either student?
Should he just yell at the kids? Let 'em go at it and rule for in-school suspension after things settle down? Should he use physical force to separate the tykes? What is his liability if he resorts to just telling the kids to stop and one gets seriously injured?
Now, take the same questions but have the setting be off school property.
Of course, this is now out of the hands of us, Dear Reader, and in the hands of the grand jury.
Formerlyjerseyjack said:
--- and that is your contribution to the discussion?
One of them. It was a reminder that nobody here knows the full story.
Mumbo jumbo… we know the principal prevented one very angry girl from causing harm to another person. How do you suppose he restrained her? By hypnosis? He had to physically hold her back! All this “we don’t know what happened “ nonsense is just pussyfooting around the reality of what goes on in high school. It’s the same nonsense that the school board turns a blind eye to out of district students. Again, I always say, talk to the students and you’ll understand what is really going on in Columbia.
the system is a mess. Mr Sanchez is most likely regretting the day he accepted that job.
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
For Sale
-
2007 Honda Fit $4,400
More info
--- outrage over notifying the police about possible criminal misconduct ... After other agencies with jurisdiction declined to proceed.
When I was a teacher, we were told to call security an do nothing else.. The kids would most likely "run out of gas" in 30 seconds or so. The district was majority minority and there were frequent student fights. Some were vicious and violent. The fights among female students were the most violent.
In any case, the kids did quickly "run out of gas" (Get winded and quit).