Abstract
This case describes the struggle of a small school employee association located in a right-to-work state as it attempts to continue exercising influence after a political turmoil caused the composition of the school board to change. This case presents many elements that foster discussion of basic employee rights such as freedom of association, free speech, and due process. As such, this case is designed for usage in educational leadership programs and is particularly pertinent to provoke discussions regarding school politics, employee association authority, preferences in hiring practices, and employee dismissal procedures. Students of educational leadership enrolled in school law, human resources, and/or multicultural education courses can engage in discussion of multiple aspects of course content.
Keywords
Setting
Navajo Unified School District (NUSD) is an Arizona public school district located in the central portion of the Navajo Nation. The Navajo Nation is the largest of all of the Indian nations and covers approximately 17,553,559 acres (Choudhary, 2002), which is equivalent to an area greater than 25,000 square miles. The geographic boundaries of this region include portions of Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah and encompass an area roughly equivalent to the size of West Virginia. According to the 2000 census, there were 180,462 Navajo living within the reservation boundaries, which translates to a population density of less than 7 people per square mile (Choudhary, 2002). The remoteness of the majority of Navajo land coupled with marvelously scenic areas such as Monument Valley, the backdrop for many Western movies, give the typical tourist a sense of serenity as well as distance from the complexities of mainstream America. Although serene, the notion of simplicity quickly dissipates for those who make the commitment to work on the Navajo Nation. Remaining for any length of time, a person rapidly learns of the complicated intersectionalities of citizenship and legal jurisdiction. Education matters are often fraught with overlapping jurisdiction of federal, state, and tribal laws. Some pertinent examples of this phenomenon are embodied by the multiple interpretations of laws such as the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 and the Navajo Preference in Employment Act (1990).
The community in which NUSD is located is one of the larger reservation communities with a population of approximately 7,000 people within its chapter, which is the Navajo equivalent of a town limit. Students are bussed from distances up to 50 miles one way. Typical of communities located in the central portion of the Navajo Nation, trips to the nearest border town for vehicle maintenance or shopping entail a minimum of 200 miles round trip. A total of 35% of the residents of Navajo proper live below the poverty level per 2000 U.S. census statistics, and the unemployment rates for the chapters surrounding Navajo average approximately 25%.
Data on the total Navajo Nation population aged 25 and above indicate that 26.3% of the population has attained a high school diploma or general equivalency degree, which is comparable with the U.S. average of 28.6%. In Navajo, 66.4% of the same population group has achieved a high school diploma with 10.7% obtaining a bachelor’s degree or higher. The educational attainment of White residents of the Navajo Nation shows a different trend with 96.0% having graduated from high school and 66.8% having earned at least a bachelor’s degree (Choudhary, 2002). A large number of these White residents work in schools, public health institutions, and other service organizations.
Historical Context
Under the Navajo’s Treaty of 1868 with the United States, the federal government was obligated to provide one teacher and a school for every 30 Navajo children. However, Johnston (1966) claimed that by 1890 merely an estimated 2.35% of the Navajo population aged 20 years and above had received any exposure to the White system of education (as cited in Bailey & Bailey, 1986).
In addition to increased federal government attempts to compel Navajo children to attend school in the early 1900s, livestock reduction in the 1930s and 1940s was a major source of contention between the Navajo people and the federal government. Livestock was a major source of income and food for the Navajo: Forced reduction had great economic implications for the people as well as significantly eroded any semblance of trust with the federal government as illustrated in the following quotes taken from excerpts from a meeting of Navajo spokespersons in Monticello, Utah, in 1938. Mr. Todachine, a representative from Aneth, Utah, stated.
I appreciate that this meeting was called for the benefit of the Navajos to defend themselves. We all know that if we are to live, we have to work the same as white people. We make a living with livestock, and now the Indian Bureau opposes that. Now the Indian Bureau is trying to make the Indians make a living on ten acres of land. You can see that they have modern machinery at Monticello, and they have more land. Indians have to have stock in connection with the farm. (National Archives Record Administration [NARA], Denver Branch. Excerpts from the report of W. W. McClellan, Jr., concerning the Protest Meeting held by Navajo Indians at Monticello, Utah, on May 20, 1938)
Below, Mike Low, representative of Greasewood, Arizona, shares his beliefs on the importance of the land while illustrating the connectedness to it, which is intrinsic to the Navajo culture.
My people, I will speak. I want you to know that land is the main thing. It is true that the Indian Bureau is taking things from our heart. Collier said that the land does not belong to us. But it is not true. The land is the same color as my face, so I know it is my mother. (NARA, Denver Branch. Excerpts from the report of W. W. McClellan, Jr., concerning the Protest Meeting held by Navajo Indians at Monticello, Utah, on May 20, 1938)
With this ongoing politically asymmetric relationship, it is understandable that a Bureau of Indian Affairs–sponsored study conducted from 1946 to 1947 (Thompson, 1975) reported that the Navajo people received little exposure to the Anglo system of education from 1890 to the post–World War II era. In this report, Dr. Sanchez found that nearly two thirds of the Navajo people had still received no educational services up to that point in time (Thompson, 1975). In an effort to remedy the dire shortage of school facilities available for the Navajo people, in addition to expanding the existing facilities on the reservation, the latter 1940s brought increased efforts to send more Navajo students to off-reservation boarding schools (Boyce, 1974). The largest of these schools was Intermountain Indian School, formerly located in Brigham City, Utah, which had a peak annual enrollment of 2,350 Navajo students (Coombs, 1962).
During the 1950s, there was also an increase in the number of public schools operating on the Navajo Nation, and in the 1960s, tribally controlled schools began to emerge on the scene with the birth of Rough Rock Demonstration School. Rough Rock was “the first school to have an entirely Navajo governing board and the first to teach Navajo language and cultural studies” (McCarty, 2002, p. 2). The number of tribally controlled schools increased in the 1970s as the political arena transitioned to an increased focus on Indian Nation sovereignty. Two federal laws that aided in the growth of tribally controlled schools were the Indian Education Act of 1972 and the Tribally Controlled Schools Act of 1988 (Hale, 2002). Presently, school systems serving the Navajo Nation include 14 public school districts, including NUSD; 59 independent Bureau of Indian Education (BIE)–funded schools (including both tribally controlled and BIE-operated schools); and 3 private schools (Navajo Nation, 2010).
Case Narrative
NUSD has a total of 400 employees serving 2,500 students: 180 teachers, 190 support staff, and 30 administrative staff. A total of 98% of the support staff is Navajo. Approximately 65% of the elementary teachers and administrators are Navajo, but the demographic split at the high school level is 65% Anglo and 35% Navajo. The student population is 99% Navajo with the vast majority receiving free and reduced lunch. Historically, school employees as a whole have been a disenfranchised group with no collective voice in the decision-making process. Each of the five school board members is Navajo and is related by clan in one way or another to the Navajo employees.
The Navajo Education Association (NEA) is an Arizona Education Association local affiliate and, although located in a right-to-work state, is nonetheless charged with improving wages, benefits, and working conditions for both its certified and classified members. All initiatives, however, are also carefully evaluated with respect to another key goal of the organization, which is the improvement of the quality of educational services provided to students. During the 1998-1999 school year, the NEA’s leadership did not take the administration to task on a number of critical items, including employee working conditions and salaries. Unfortunately, this had been the trend for several years. However, in the fall of 1999, a new leadership team was elected to the NEA. This team was more action oriented and began addressing the school board regarding employee concerns during the public comment portions of board meetings. The new team also recruited heavily, began acting swiftly on employee concerns, and provided quality representation in the grievance process. This employee-centered approach resulted in the total membership growing from 75 members in the fall of 1999 to nearly 150 members in the spring of 2001. This boom in association enrollment set multiple state membership records for the Arizona Education Association. A large portion of the growth in this association was attributable to the NEA leadership giving voice to employees who had been previously marginalized and often even abused by the administration.
In January of 1999, the local school board moved the high school principal, Dr. Begay, to the superintendent position giving him a salary increase of approximately US$35,000. This brought the superintendent’s salary to nearly US$100,000. At the same time, nonadministrative employees were told that they would receive a 1.3% salary increase, which was far below the rate of inflation. The superintendent’s salary became the focal point of union newsletters and public comments at board meetings. Pay equity was a theme that resonated with all employees.
Due to strong alliances formed between the association leadership and three of the five school board members, the majority of the board was provided with an information pipeline, which enabled them to hear viewpoints vastly different from those presented by the district-level and building-level administrators. For instance, although the elementary school principal Mr. Jones was cordial with the NUSD Board members during board meetings, he referred to them as “a bunch of idiots” in an openly recorded meeting between union representatives and two principals. The association president provided the NUSD Board president with a copy of the recording. The association’s ability to dialog with and influence multiple school board members resulted in the largest teacher pay increases in the history of the district. Teachers received up to a US$5,000 increase for the 2000-2001 school year, which gave the NEA even more momentum for recruitment while increasing their political power.
Superintendent Begay was inexperienced and committed a number of improper fiduciary acts without obtaining board approval. These acts included hiring people at salaries above where they should have been on the district salary schedules, using the district’s revolving credit accounts to make payments to employees and other individuals, and failing to provide documentation for expense vouchers. In addition to financial mismanagement, at times Dr. Begay exhibited gross incompetence. For example, he lost his district-issued keys, including the district master key, which was a major security breach and ultimately cost the district in excess of US$60,000 to rekey all of the buildings.
Another concern reflective of Dr. Begay’s judgment, which posed a serious liability for the board, was that he improperly dismissed the high school principal. He purportedly affixed a stamp of the board president’s signature on summary charges and a dismissal letter. The board placed Dr. Begay on administrative reassignment to his district-subsidized home where he was to remain during the district’s normal hours of operation. He was required to turn in all district property including keys, credit cards, and his assigned vehicle. Furthermore, he was not to make contact with any district employee pending the outcome of an investigation of his behavior. The district had been advertising an assistant superintendent position for several months and at an August 2000 meeting, Mr. Smith was hired as the assistant superintendent. Dr. Begay was placed on administrative reassignment and Mr. Smith was reassigned as the acting superintendent of NUSD. Attorneys were involved and a draft of formal felony charges (Appendix), which included the loss of the master key and the three other examples cited above, was filed with the Offices of the Attorney General and Auditor General for the State of Arizona. As Dr. Begay was from a nearby town, he was considered “home grown.” At this point, the community fractionated into two camps: one consisting of people who were loyalist, or pro-Begay, and another that encouraged Dr. Begay’s removal from office. The public comment portion of school board meetings became very heated and frequently lasted several hours with confrontational exchanges between community members and board members.
Those community members who supported Dr. Begay successfully voted the three board members who had drafted the statement of charges against Dr. Begay out of office in the November 2000 general election. These were the same board members who were responsive to employee concerns in the previous years. The new board was sworn in at the first regular meeting of January 2001. These members had campaigned on the issue of reinstating Superintendent Begay if elected. Both sides of the community, those who supported Dr. Begay and those who were against his reinstatement, continued to make their voices heard at board meetings. At the March 2001 board meeting, one of the newly elected board members refused to speak in English or to have anyone else provide a translation. The same board member referred to non-Navajo speakers (Anglos) as “handicapped.” The association leadership argued that the practice of excluding non-Navajo speakers from participating in school board meetings was in violation of Arizona law, and a complaint was filed with the Arizona Civil Rights Division.
One of the first items that the new board put on their agenda was the reinstatement of Superintendent Begay who had been on leave for almost a year. During the public comment section of a board meeting in early 2001, the association president presented the board with the district policies that verified that the superintendent was the chief financial officer of the district and that the board could not properly reinstate the superintendent until the statement of charges filed with the Auditor General’s (AG) office had been resolved. When the board realized that it was an improper step to reinstate Mr. Begay until the charges against him were resolved, they changed strategies and posted a meeting agenda, which contained a proposed settlement offer of US$91,000 to the superintendent without seeking resolution of the felony charges.
In April 2001, Navajo and Anglo union members picketed in front of the school board meeting demanding that the superintendent not be reinstated and that he not receive a settlement of US$91,000 as compensation. Coincidentally, this was the annual meeting where contract renewals for teachers would be announced. Mr. Smith, the acting superintendent, provided the board with a recommendation to renew the contracts of all 180 teachers. Again, union members and community members made multiple public comments at the onset of the school board meeting. A prominent female Navajo elder spoke against the local association and referred to them as “agitators.” She also presented a petition that she had circulated within the community, which contained signatures in support of the removal of the NEA president.
At 2:00 a.m., approximately 8 hr after the meeting had begun, the school board discussed whether to delete the names of four Anglo teachers from the list of teachers whose contracts would be renewed. All four of these teachers were association activists who had made public comments against buying out the previous superintendent’s contract and who had also participated in the peaceful picket that same evening.
Prior to making their decision on whether to nonrenew the association member’s contracts, the board consulted with their attorney. They were told that the board could not legally nonrenew tenured teachers without providing them with a statutorily mandated corrective action period. The attorney also instructed the board that, to dismiss a tenured teacher for cause, they would need to follow due process procedures, which included a hearing on the charges. In spite of this, the board chose to disregard the attorney’s advice and nonrenewed all four teachers, including two who were tenured.
Teaching Notes
The Learning Objectives of the Case
This case describes the struggle of a small school employee association in rural Arizona as it attempted to engage the school board and administration in dialog to improve the quality of education for the community’s students. This case illustrates the fact that, even though some 40 years ago it was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in Pickering v Board of Education (1968) that public school employees are entitled to free speech rights regarding matters of public concern, school districts often retaliate against employees for exercising these rights when their opinions diverge from those of the board and administration.
With this context in mind, one particular application of the present case is with classes studying personnel policies and school law issues. Oftentimes, board members and school administrators must balance the school district’s duty to fulfill its administrative role with certain employee rights such as free speech (Mount Healthy City School District v. Doyle, 1977; Pickering v. Board of Education, 1968), freedom of association, due process rights, and property and liberty rights as they pertain to contracts (Board of Regents v. Roth, 1972; Perry v. Sindermann, 1972). This case also illustrates a potential claim against an entity that, while acting under color of state law, infringes on the Constitutional rights of others (Title 42, 2010).
The case also presents an opportunity to discuss educational leadership. Of particular interest are issues of power and authority, ethics, and the interaction of school, district, and board leadership. One compelling discussion topic is where power emanates in the case; who the main players are and where their power comes from. Furthermore, questions of legitimacy of leaders are an aspect of this case. The importance of identifying stakeholders and balancing the demands of different groups can also be incorporated in a discussion of leadership. Clearly, ethics are an element of the case. The actions of Dr. Begay raise ethical questions, as do the actions of the school board in nonrenewing teachers. Students in educational leadership programs can weigh the demands of the community with the actions taken in the case and consider the ethical dilemmas present in the case facts. Finally, the interactions of the district and school board in the case raise interesting issues for the distribution of leadership throughout the district. Compelling questions in this area include the following: How are leaders selected? What aspects of the educational process do the board and district have control over? and How do these entities interact in times of crisis?
Resources
The following list of electronic resources may facilitate greater understanding of both present day and historical contexts surrounding the case.
BIE
National Indian School Board Association
http://nisba.skc.edu/?q=node/7
Native American Rights Fund
Navajo Court Cases
Navajo Nation Bar Association
Journal of American Indian Education
Wicazo Sa Review
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/wic/
American Indian Higher Education Consortium
Case Analysis Questions
Give your opinion as to what the role(s) of the board, the administration, and the employee union should be in a “just” school district.
How would you describe an equitable “balance of power” between the board, the administration, and the employee’s union?
Review the attached statement of charges against Dr. Begay. Which, if any, of these charges do you think warranted his dismissal from employment?
Did the board act properly and with justifiable cause when they dismissed the four teachers? Defend your response. Do you think race played a factor in their decision?
Imagine that you are the board’s attorney and you must defend them from a civil lawsuit, which has been filed alleging discrimination based on violations of the dismissed teacher’s rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. What defense(s) could you claim?
Imagine that you are the teacher’s attorney and you must present a federal civil rights case, which alleges violations of the dismissed teacher’s rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Based on the information included in this case, what evidence could you present?
Consider how the events of the case illuminate issues of how leaders maintain legitimacy? Who are the important stakeholders in the case? What control do these stakeholders have over leaders’ actions and their ability to stay in positions of authority?
Footnotes
Appendix
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.