being agenda number six you may proceed morning chief justice and may it please the court counsel my name is william gleason and i represent the a college speed district eight o two president obama wrote in his novel the audacity of hope that teachers need to be accountable in the classroom and that school districts have to have the maximum flexibility to be able to remove those teachers who are ineffective in accordance with those wishes recently the illinois legislature has adopted something called the performance evaluation reform act of two thousand and ten and that act the legislature is specifically noting that quality teachers impact the ability of our students to learn on a daily basis they also took issue with the way that the teachers were being evaluated and were concerned that over a thirteen year period only point four percent of teachers in the state of illinois were being rated isn't satisfactory and removed from the classroom which brings us to the issues in this case this involves a fourth year probationary teacher who was given an on satisfactory performance evaluation on march one two thousand and five pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement in place there was an attempt to mediate her deficiencies as a teacher during these meetings about her performance as a teacher she requested a union representative pursuant to the illinois educational labor relations board and the first district the only public court has held that that was a protected activity under the on the educational act however for several reasons i would contend that was not a protected activity the first basis for that argument is even if she had a right under weingarten to have a union representative present it was waived by the collective bargaining agreement section three ten of the parties collective bargaining agreement specifically stated that an employee was entitled to have a member of the association present during any meeting where disciplinary action would take right in that situation in allergies this court looked at a sheriff's officer who demanded a union representative in an informal meeting with the sheriff looking at the collective bargaining agreement there the court said that sense that since the sheriff was able to only have a union representative for interrogations as defined by the uniform disciplinary act then it waived the right to have a weingarten union member present in any other situation with that holding in mind here decision about whether she was eight satisfactory teacher was already made prior to the meetings taken place so this meeting was to tell her the results of her evaluation and to institute a remediation plan to tell her how to i don't believe the union representative would need to have been present when the principal was observing the teacher in the classroom there was no interaction between the principal and the teacher at that point he simply observing her classroom and watching how she conducts her class and looking at her performance as a teacher there was no discussion or give and take between the principal and the teacher at that point all of the other meeting that went on for a month brief page twenty nine there footnote number three talks about the summit will opinion as i understand they may not understand that's why i'm asking the question view these post observation conferences teacher who was undergoing a remediation pursuant to section twenty four a of the only school code was entitled to union representative and in dicta they held that well if this was a nine ten year teacher perhaps we wouldn't have found that maybe we would have found that this was a meeting likely to lead to discipline was the actual holding it didn't say that it was investigatory per say well do you think that the i mean will take a close look at that decision but what if the if it collective bargaining agreement would be beautiful if there was no provision in there your honor perhaps but certainly not in this case where there is a distinct provision in there which would have waived the right it even if some until created it this collective bargaining agreement waive that right regardless because the status of the teacher one is tenured and the other is a probationary that doesn't have any effect with regard to our collective bargaining agreement but that was the distinction that i'm raising with regard to the summit hill case that was a tenured teacher and not a not a not a probationary teacher i also have another question did warning receive a september two thousand and four valuation by someone other than runyan  principal indicating that warning was excellent and professional and should that evaluation and consider there was an observation done in september of two thousand and four which was positive your honor but the end all be all right other than the principal yes your honor a different staff member and you were saying it was positive but the other overall somewhat of a valuation on march one two thousand five determined that she was not satisfactory she was on satisfactory because the it was in december two thousand and union warning i've tried to raise in their brief that she engaged in protected activity because she brought a union representative to a disciplinary meeting in december of two thousand and four your honor that was different than this particular issue yes your honor of so that's section three of the illinois educational labor relations act but i think the distinction which we're asking the court to draw is between meetings where we're talking about employees performance versus meetings where we're investigating employee for disciplinary situations contract interpretation in this case it presents a contract interpretation issue because i believe that the clear language of our collective bargaining agreement shows that even if they had a weingarten right in that situation they clearly waived it by the language that's in the collective bargaining agreement is it doesn't this case come down to a standard relation well there is a standard of review issue that your honor and i believe with regard to my first and second arguments about the effects of whether or not this is protected activity under sections fourteen and one or forty three it's going to be at the noble standard and usually it's a clearly erroneous standard because it's a mix question of fact in law however in this case the parties stipulated the fact that these were performance based meetings about her performance as a teacher and that she requested a union representative at him so since the facts are stipulated this presents appear question of law to the court the other question is the interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement or other factual matters that the court decided in just that there were other factual matters decided such as the motive under section on the third prong of the task however that would be a factual that would be a factual question the first two questions about whether or not she had the legal right to insist upon it whether it was protected activity into the act presents a legal question to the court her insistence of having a union rep there that this makes the point that that could be  since since the position of the district was that she didn't have it right that that could be taken into account as one of the factors is whether to dismiss the mirrors and insistence that a rep there you take that same position or was that one of the factors in determining that she should not move on or is that this is the senator's making that's the descends argument your honor my position isn't that we discharge her for and insisting upon this union representative representative in effect i so that was not even one of the factors mentioned the labor board found that it was but that's not our position that it was so bringing myself back to where i was if she didn't have the right to do it under the contract her insistence upon that right cannot be considered protected activity i think the first issue is holding in the and the short schomberg board of education case makes this clear and that case a teacher and sister upon her evaluation being reviewed and changed the court found that that's not protected activity because in that case the collective bargaining agreement had waived the right to do that an employee insisting upon a right which she doesn't have under the agreement is not protected activity it's certainly not concerted activity either she's not seeking to further a group  interest she's seeking to further her own individual interest so it's clear that that right is not protected this warning and the attorney general's office have said well it's irrelevant whether it was protected could sort of activity because she asked the union to assert the right on her behalf and as such it's protected under section forty three of the act as protected union activity i think that takes the reading of what protected union activity is much too far because otherwise she could have insist upon the had the union says that we bring in hot team to the meeting and that becomes protected union activists the underlying act which she was insisting upon need to be protected whether she has the union to enforce there or not is really irrelevant and i believe that the international transportation service case which i cited out of the d c circuit makes a very good point about why that's the case in the slippery slope that could be involved with another reading of that the second point which we bring before the court is that even without the contractual language that we had here there was no right under weingarten to a union representative to be present at a performance based meeting as i previously indicated section seven the national labor relations act is where the weingarten holden gets its roots from but weingarten made it very specific that this was a limited right and in fact specifically said that was a right that was not going to be guaranteed to  about work performance and how to print improve your performance and there was a standards and it did use from there that the meeting had to be investigatory the employee had to preprocess the union there excuse me there had to be a reasonable belief that disciplinary was imminent from the meeting and it couldn't in interfere with the legitimate prerogatives of the employer in this case i don't believe the meeting here was investigatory they weren't seeking to elicit facts from her or ask her about what was going on they had already determined that she was in on satisfactory teacher they were having meetings with her to tell her how to improve her performance that's not what an investigatory meeting consist is i don't think disciplinary action was reasonable for her to assume that first off we're back to the contract which specifically says performance is not this one the reaction so if you're just church for your  renewed for your performance that's not disciplinary action as specifically stated in our contract moreover the law court case from one nine hundred seventy six out of the fourth circuit says that discipline with regards to the non renewal of it on a probationary teacher is not disciplinary action a teacher doesn't have any right to further employment until their tenure so the term discipline doesn't have the same meeting the last point i would make is that in forcing an employer in this case to have the union representative present would infringe upon our legitimate interests as an employer w top is talking about with that problem in the test is that the employer's ability to walk out of the meeting if there's an insistence upon union representation and it doesn't want to permit it so basically we would have to have have walked out of the room and never met with the teacher however pursuant to our collective bargaining agreement we were order or we were required to attempt to remediate her it would be impossible for us to attempt to remediate a poor performing teacher without ever having a meeting or without ever talking with her so we didn't have the ability that employers are given under the weingarten standard to walk out of the room so for those reasons i don't believe that they showed that there was protected activity under sections fourteen one or for act and as such they never met the previous prima facia case before the illinois educational labor relations for the next one which i'd like to discuss with the court was the remedy that was ordered by the labor board in this case also before you get to that yes i'm back on this investigatory debate over the purpose of the meeting are you saying that it's only investigatory if it's if it's discipline like misconduct of discipline as opposed to whether or not you're going to keep or lose your job i believe based on what you've done or not done in the classroom i believe those are two different standards your honor and the first one i would believe is investigatory and the second one was was it reasonably going to lead to discharge an investigatory meeting is one where i'm seeking to elicit facts about what happened i'm seeking to determine what happened and you'll see holdings from federal courts and from the labor national labor relations board where if i walk into a meeting and just tell you you're just charge you're suspended but don't really i'm not seeking to elicit facts about whether you engage in the conduct that's not investigatory and weingarten's not implicated at all i got that part my question is whether or not did the teacher do x y and z or not that's a fact question and if it's tied to their performance and it's tied to whether or not they going to keep their job why is that not investigatory it's not investigatory because he's not he's telling her what to do he's not seeking information from her about what she did he already observed that but i thought you said the very beginning your first line was that was the purpose of the me was an attempt to remediate deficiencies but how do you agree mediate anything with another personal issue talk about it and talk about what they've done or not done what they need to do and not and they don't need to do is that not a fact discussion i don't believe it's a fact discussion your honor what happened was he determined that she had done certain things wrong and set up a meeting to discuss those things he had already determined that they were wrong what he was telling her was what she needed to do out into the future to make it correct he wasn't asking her whether or not she did those things wrong he had already made that determination in his evaluation so i don't believe it's investigatory at that point i hope i answered your honor smushing i think it thank you in this case the labor board ordered that miss warning be reinstated with tenure rights it's our position that the awarding of tenure to a teacher is a non deltaville duty of the board of education which should not be infringed by any other could mean made whole through front page her honor and i think it's an important distinction in this case as before there's even any discriminatory conduct taking place we had already rated her on satisfactory and we had already provided her with the notice under section twenty four eleven of the school code that she was going to be nine renewed but we're still attempting to remediate her performance so i believe it would be inappropriate specifically in this case as well and  you i don't believe it would be appropriate to reinstate her with at our district because she's i believe as a matter of law would be tenured if she was reinstated and i said i've run out of time so we would ask that  this court reversed the decision of the owner of the first district court and reverse the decision of the aisle rb and rule in favor of the board of education that miss warning has not met a prima facia case under fourteen one or forty three and that she's not good morning in may it please the court assistant attorney general and shall stand for the educational labor relations board and its chairman this is not a weingarten case weingarten raises issues of timing and an assertion of rights at the appropriate time by the employer all of which are lacking here the district had to assert its view that warning was not entitle to representation at the time she sought to bring representation to the meetings it did not do this in fact it acquiesced in her bringing the union representative to be clear of the district isn't without rights in these situations but it must assert its rights at the appropriate time it's not and after the fact assertion once litigation begins as the district attempted to do here a few critical facts should be noted here the district did not deny warning union representation but it a their representative with her to meetings with administrators beginning in december two thousand and four and continuing throughout march and april two thousand and five warning received a satisfactory evaluation her first three years in the district and then an excellent evaluation in november two thousand and four there's the or what does the or when and what happened when she brought union representative at which meeting your honor well the first time the union representative came out right that would be december two thousand and four i believe it shows that the district acquiesced and they may have even agreed for her to bring the union representative with her about point  don't believe the record reflects the details of how about meeting preceded or or that or the facts of that meeting but where i was reading this i thought i read about they told her don't worry you're not not sure the record doesn't reflect the ins and outs of that meeting she's then masters was a very different meeting a council it's explained to me that that was a total different issue it was a just investigatory meeting in december two thousand and four and it was a disciplinary action it wasn't related to the performance based actions that oh i'll agree with the last sentence it wasn't an evaluation meeting at that point but it was a to valuation meeting at that point it was it was a meeting about i believe there was some improper language alleged and so the language unary meeting and she had a right to have a representative there and nobody contests that that was not protect again activity at that point that's correct ok so that aside now ok the performance based meeting the government speaking to do you agree that she didn't have a right to have someone there and that was  no i don't i don't agree with that that board did not decide the issue as to whether she had the right to bring a union representation union representative to that meeting but will call here weingarten right because the weingarten cases or denial of union representation cases at that point and for labor practice could have been brought by the teacher gets the district if she believed she had the right to bring the union rep but there and it would have proca waded through before the board the issue would have been raised before the board as a weingarten issue and could have percolated that way but it wasn't because they allowed her to bring the union representative with or knew that they did it and discharge her because of it so we've totally taken this out of the weingarten discipline hearing were she you know had a right to have someone there it still was the same kind of form and we were so the union representative was there but it didn't change the hearing or the nature of the year but we don't even get into the question of  under weingarten or as counsel brought up these contractual limits of weingarten whether it was waived what kind of hearing was it was it was it disappointing was it not because that's not the whole issue in front of us because she brought the union represented whether that's interpretation that she doesn't have a right so there is a big difference i'll make two points on that with district could have forced the issue by denying her union representation and then put the issue before that properly before the board to determine whether she had the white my second and my second point on that as the court pointed out during the opponent's argument is that in some of health but not seven what the board talked about were guarding post observation meetings says the board rejected the argument that poe's observation conferences are not investigatory interviews but the board never determined it determined that in this case it didn't need to because she brought the union rep with her and because the district into the prongs of the anti union motivation and the pretext to us this is a classic pretest pretext case which is a question both of which are questions of fact decided decided by the board of things such as the principal who by the way never testified before the board and didn't explain that last memorandum he sent to the teacher due to the choices you've made and the evidence as it was laid out before the board and the factual determination made by the board on the anti union motivation by the district and just charging the teacher as well as the potential nature of its reasons given but do we have to assume or presume that that memorandum that says choices you made has to do with union can we not say that the choices that the teacher made was had to do with not that list listening to or following through on some of the recommendations court wouldn't leave you that do know about would give deference to the boy and that's a finding of fact made by the board under the manifest weight of the evidence standards so it wouldn't be and new issue that this quote but revealed to know about at this point that's a factual finding and not only that but combined with the course of hostility by the administrators towards her representation during march and april and let me if i can just make this big picture once she brought the union rep what they were in december things kind of went downhill from there for her she was her evaluator changed it wasn't ever whiny and before it was someone else who gave her the excellent performance evaluation she was placed she was given a point of valuation she was placed on a remediation plan she was she could be discharged by the end of it at the end of the year there was hostility by the administrators toward the union representation and then she was discharged after m because she brought the representative with her to the meetings with the district administrators  the principal and the other admin the other administrator throughout the course of the meetings during march and april derogatory statements toward the union representation that warning about with her join one of the meetings she was told to i believe sit down and shut up and not to say anything and then they permitted her to stay and they said well you can stay if you don't say anything at this point and then you have continuous comments by the principal talking about we don't really need a union representative here she just makes things more difficult and then there are multiple things as in that the letter from the prince about the memorandum from the principal which was back loaded them a brief talking about how warning failed to participate in an evaluation process that enabled them to communicate freely and her actions created areas to effectively communicate and the choices she made when mediation became  they started out by saying you're not entitled to union representation so without any direct evidence as has been asserted you know wasn't the board going to find as soon as that statement was made that everything else was pretext i want a union rep no you're not entitled to one so here they acquiesce you say well they can't you know they acquiesced they should have either proceeded or miss morley could have proceeded for a determination to write a determination was made she's entitled to a union rep or not a union rep when you are going to be the very same that based on these facts and the fact that they didn't think she was entitled to a union rep at the outset their reading after that would be protected well at that point the boy would have decided whether she had the right but at this point it could grasp his anti union motivation pretext case because they let her bring the union rep and then as we follow through discharge her because of it and what i'm saying is that even if exact argument would be made whether there were it would be made at that point but the determination at that point by the board would have been whether she had the right now i'm not sure in your scenario if she eventually discharged i mean we only get to that once there is you know action on the part of the discriminatory action on the part of the district just saying yes she's she's not intitled we're stopping you we're not meeting you with representation or no then we decide the weingarten issue but to go forward what happens after that and because of the union representation that's how unfair labor practice action waits up through the board at that point and also why so we're not we're we shouldn't be concerned with  acquiesced she brought the union rep with her and just charge her because of it after we had that she brought the union rep that's clearly straight forward protected union activity under fourteen a three under georgetown ridge firemen obviously are to engage  to engage to seek out in a company by a union representative to a meeting with school administrators is clearly protected activity under fourteen a three you're absolutely right justice scalia when we don't have to worry about weingarten and the contractual  waiver if you will of weingarten that the contractual argument collective bargaining agreement argument goes with weingarten we don't worry about it to be clear the board did not make the decision whether this teacher had a right to union representation this court activity i suppose had they said and gone forward with she brought the union route and you have to just sit there would be another kind of tangential issue that would have to be resolved separately but in this case she brought the union rep with her and that's clearly the protected union activity under fourteen a three that doesn't sound right what then why one kind of a hearing where she has the opportunity in a dispensary action to have a union represent a representative there which is a protected right and then have another kind of hearing where she doesn't have a right to have a union representative there so what's the difference i mean if she if she could or anybody could bring a union rep to any kind of a meeting where they don't have a protected right because they have board of the hearing body acquiesces then they all of a sudden now merge into a protected right but just because she brought him there or her there now it becomes a protected right but it's the districts it's the employer's responsibility to stop it and that's how it put in there you go see it legally and make sure that through the court system or the labor relations board that they stop whatever proceedings to remediate her helpers keep her job so she can go through the legal system to make a determination that's the choice the district made to not cut her whites off like that to continue to meet with her with her you know how to help or to but the district they can pick to litigate the weingarten issue from the get go and deny her union representation or they can go through and meet with her and say well we don't really maybe she doesn't have it but we're going to acquiesce and let her bring the young rapper then the horses out of the barn they don't get to go back after the fact and after they discharge him for bringing the union wrap and go back and retry the rights based issue but aside from that it does the record reflect that they twenty second of the morning that we're that's when the principal observed her classroom so it wasn't a meeting per se he came in and observed there was no objection in december and  when she i'm sorry when she met with the principal the first time to receive her value or to receive a valuation in the remediation plan at the end of that meeting the principal said we don't really need the union here anymore that that w at he said at the end of the meeting but the rock was there during the meeting that's correct that's what your position everything right because the district failed to stand on what it believed its rights were they could they could choose to have this percolate me the protective activity there was a variety of protected activity that occurred here first of all the assertion of racing complaints under the contract is a protected activity rachel warning and her union representative asked for the specific reasons for her performance in order to guide her in her mediation plan that was a contractual basis that the contract required those specific reasons she wanted to know those words reasons in order to improve if they didn't get is going to acknowledge that was that was her frustration throughout she had the one twenty minute observation by her principal she says give me the specific reasons what i'm doing wrong he refused to he gave her the one page remediation plan they met throughout that he observed her one more time during that two month period she kept asking throughout and even afterwards when she was asking what are the choices he would not tell her what the choices were that he made the other is these down you said that's all that protective activity that's what you said yes because she is standing on her rights of the contract the contract does that mean then as she had the right to the union representative at those meetings is there a difference between the hearing for just the reason for on to the contract for her to have it union representative and  of hill performance space meetings are investigatory meetings and under this contract the only reason those meetings existed was because of the contract as a non tenured teacher she is not entitle to have a remediation plan the late the school board did acquiesce they let her have the union wrap but then but you don't need to have i mean she didn't have the protected right to have she she did have a protected right to have one and that in the contract that is in that that is by the contract by the the existence of the meeting itself is by the contract but is it in the contract that she has the right to have a union representative it word for word no it doesn't  union representative therefore discipline it says no it if it does say that there are three articles there's three eight which refers to performance three nine on evaluation and three ten which is discipline in three ten it says that discipline is not performance based the core should read that discipline is conduct based it's not performance space to say that she has a right to a representative in a conduct investigation does not mean she does not have one in a performance one she has a right and both how much deference do we have to give to the majority's  indicates that the memo referencing choices were likely mourn the choices one of the choices being warnings or yours your statement protected activity and choices in the memo well rachel warning again went to meet with the with the principal and said what are the choices that i made he refused to tell her that there's hostility from december through march of having a union representative the other two reasons that they gave is that she was late to meetings and that she failed to come prepared to meetings the record evidence was clear she was never late to any meetings in fact the principal was the one who was late and she was always bringing of a union representative to that meeting was the rationale behind her getting discharged however the record clearly indicates that the union representative miss were speak he was instructed to be at the meeting by our director of human resources general walters so they're asking this court to believe that we discriminated against her for doing exactly what we told her to do so i think that that's would be an improper ruling of this court mr klink briefly just said that miss warning was attempting to assert contractual rights during these meetings what the record shows is that under the subsections in her evaluation she was insisting upon a rating for each individual subsection she had never asked for that before and in fact the district submitted on the better dividends that the union and the school district had agreed that it was not required to rate her that way so once again she's trying to insist upon rights that the union has already had negotiated away on her behalf lastly i'd just like to speak briefly to the issue about hostility towards unionization which they put forth the labor board the apollo corps both found that there was hostility towards unionization essentially because the district disagreed with their reading of the collective bargaining agreement i would submit to the court that there can never be hostility towards unionization there was a disagreement the fact that we read the collective bargaining agreement different doesn't mean that we are being hostility toward hostile towards union sion we are simply trying to assert our reading of the agreement there is no other evidence of hostility towards jena zation in fact i think the evidence shows pretty clearly that we continue to try and work with the union when we don't like the responses from union member we kept working our way up the ladder the last part is about the shifting rationale that they found in the evaluation which is done on march one two thousand and five he finds that she's in on satisfactory teacher  he writes the memo at the end of the school year he says that she's improved some instruction and that she still hasn't improved her communications part at all they found a shifting rationale because in an exception to the administrative law judges findings that there was improper that she was a satisfactory teacher of the district asserted while there was nothing in that memo that says she's a satisfactory teacher it only said that she improved in the area of instruction improving from on satisfactory doesn't necessarily mean that you're not satisfactory or if you're on satisfactory before if you've got a ten percent on a an exam and then got a forty five percent you've been proved i could even say you've demonstrably improved you've still failed and you're still on satisfactory and that was the sit the consistent rationale throughout this case is that the district attorney and that she was an unknown satisfactory teacher and that was the reason that it decided to not renew her contract or by acquiescence we tried to assert that she couldn't be there just your honor and we just continuously tried to work with the union but i don't believe that our acquiescence makes her right protected or in any fashion the fact that we permitted her to do it doesn't make the right any more protected or unprotected than it was to begin with at the point where the union representative showdown even though there was no protected right to have there you should have stopped the hearing and proceeded to work there through the relations is that something you would do to our every teacher's mediation i mean i don't think that that would be a reasonable thing for the district to do because i think we would go into the trick bag that justice thomas suggests where now if we decide to not renew her contract and never meet with her she's going to say well you wouldn't meet with me because i bought a broader union representative so either we either way that we proceed we're going to be determined to have engaged in unfair and unfair labor practice so i don't believe that that that is the  for specifics on the performance was was protected right under the contractor or creature of the contract i think is the phrase he used and secondly that the contract provided to her as a non tenured teacher the right to a remediation plan in the meeting and meetings on that and but for that the contract provision as a non tenured teacher at law she would not have had that sure you agree or disagree with those two points i disagree factually with the first point where he claims that she was trying to get specific information and as i stated when i first put up what she was trying to get was individual ratings she she didn't have the ability under the collective bargaining agreement to challenge the evaluation ratings she could only challenge the procedures so whether she was found on satisfactory her trying to challenge that she did not have the right to do and that's the same with that conduct of the teacher in gaijin in schomberg and i believe you said the second one was her simply showing up for the meeting we set up the second thing was that the contract provided her with the right to every asian play in the meeting them meetings it entirely it was what the contract said it was we could not not only knew her without one attempt to remediate her deficiencies there was nothing in there that said how we were to go about remediating those deficiencies and we provided her with the rights under that because we gave her a remediation plan before she even asked for a union representative at the march first two thousand and five meeting we had the plan prepared and gave it to her at that meeting so i don't believe that she could now come in and say well i was discharged for asking for the asking to be remediated because we took that under took that on our own to do it what one other follow for sure i don't know for using two different labels to say describe the same thing  i think we're talking about two two different things your honor and i could direct you to the pages of the transcripts if you'd be happy in page thirty two she said she wanted to be rated for each performance objective and page one thirty seven she went through each subsection and said is that w i'm on satisfactory is that what i'm on satisfactory what she was insisting upon was a rating for each thing for each subcategory and that was specifically not permitted by that it wasn't permitted by the contract and it wasn't permitted by the side letter agreement weight i think that the labor board can draw inferences but the inferences have to be reasonable there was nothing in the record to suggest that those choices were work or your aunt was anti unanimous or your choice to have a union  could have been anything they had to do if the inference has to be reasonable and based upon some testimony there was no testimony there that that choices meant anything so they essentially made an unreasonably good choices of related to the one page boy him it could about her performance ratings the ratings that she was given rather than sitting down with the plan and attempting to work on her deficiencies instead she wanted to argue about whether she was an on satisfactory teacher or not what she didn't have the right of the bargaining agreement to do so she continued to argue about the poor rating when what she should have been doing was saying what do i need to do to get better and that's not what she did so with these factors in mind we would ask that you reverse the