I agree. Avery was an opportunist. The school should have controlled the situation. But please don't lie and say he wasn't paid during the season. He was. Period.
I agree. Avery was an opportunist. The school should have controlled the situation. But please don't lie and say he wasn't paid during the season. He was. Period.
The school internal investigation was conducted by an Employee Relations Coordinator. Not a lawyer. And the report was inaccurate. One sided. Take a look for yourself. Please provide a link to the article you refer to regarding payments.Yes, I do believe that there are people that do not do their job well. In all fields.
Truth tn wrote:
This is a blatant lie. Guy Avery charged 11 months of the year, as he stated in his tennessean interview regarding annual contracts. The first thing the county did was confirm the "pay" in the "pay to play" accusation. Parents submitted cancelled checks and emails to confirm this fact. Do you think a county with staff attorneys and a three month investigation would ban a coach without undeniable proof that he charged parents? Of course not. Use your instinct on this one.
Look at the way Avery interacts with the people from the county trying to talk with him. It's not the way a normal, healthy adult talks.
Seen it.
1. The Report begins with an inaccurate statement, saying, “Mr. Avery refused to comply with the investigation and to meet. (Appendix 1)â€
I am glad The Report included in Appendix 1 its email correspondence with Mr. Avery, in which he writes:
a. “Please communicate with me after you have interviewed everyone else in your investigation...â€
b. “Like I said, when you’ve completed all of your interviews, I am open to clarifying anything you sincerely seek clarity on...â€
c. “Please let me know when you’re done with all your other interviews regarding this matter, and I’ll be happy to arrange my schedule in order to meet with you for the clarity you are seeking.†â€In most cases, all I need is a 24 hour notice.â€
There is no place in any of his correspondence where he says he will not meet. Any reasonable person would understand that Mr. Avery is requesting to be interviewed last, so that he could address complete information. He does not want to be followed by other interviewees, who might provide new information that he is not privy to and to which he would not be able to respond.
Saying that an interviewee does not get to dictate the terms of an investigation is a valid point. However, issuing a report without interviewing the person being investigated is irresponsible and validates claims of bias and unfair treatment. The Central Office should not have a posture of, “lording over,†any interviewee, and should operate in the spirit of cooperation with all parties, complying with numerous School Board policies, concerning cooperation. Any defensive attitude, concerning who gets to set the terms of an investigation, is not a reasonable justification for completely leaving out Mr. Avery’s contribution to this, “investigation.â€
i just read that thing and the above poster leaves out his conditions for meeting. he was never going to meet. why cant he just be a normal coach and avoid all of that drama?
Wasn’t he banned from meets a few years ago and that’s why Brentwood made him a volunteer coach?
I’d like to see this thread title changed, since it’s not really about Hasty but is about the coach.
I don't know that he was actually officialy banned from the meets. The athletic director told him that he had to stay away from his athletes at either the regional or state XC meet years ago due to complaints from a local coach. The AD decided to make him a volunteer coach to sidestep the complaints
Not a member of the cult wrote:
I don't know that he was actually officialy banned from the meets. The athletic director told him that he had to stay away from his athletes at either the regional or state XC meet years ago due to complaints from a local coach. The AD decided to make him a volunteer coach to sidestep the complaints
Looks like that one blew up in his face. AD was on the State Track Committee, too.
AD on State Track Committee, yet, doesn't know his district's rules, does not know the TSSAA rules, (which do not prevent a private coach from coaching athletes before or after a race), and does not obey the rules he knows, like the district rule seemingly disallowing for-profits to use the track.
Truth tn is sadly lacking in knowledge of the facts. The only document he signed was one where he agreed to volunteer for the school. The document basically confirms he knows what volunteering means. The document does not even remotely deal with having him sign off regarding the district's compensation policy.
If you look at the emails, there were complaints, not about Avery, but about the AD, who allowed, not only Avery, but Kinder, to use the track. Avery was not privy to those emails and, therefore, did not know a policy was being broken. However, after an investigation in 2011, and another one in 2014, it is clear that Seigenthaler knew the policy. But, four months after the 2014 investigation, he details in an email that Avery uses the track. So, not Avery, but the AD is the one not in compliance. All he had to do was to tell Avery to not use the track. But, instead, he let him use it, even after two investigations. He should be fired.
He also knew Avery coached BHS kids, privately. But, because he was totally ignorant of the district compensation policies, regarding coaches, he brought him on as a school coach, without disclosing the district rules, and placed Avery in that position, where the policies would be violated.
He is certainly not a wolf in sheep's clothing, but rather, someone with a very high degree of integrity.
Just not well thought out. First, TSSAA has no rule against a coach, both coaching for the school, and being paid as a private coach for the same kids, as long as the principle allows it. In Williamson County, the county policies disallow it. Other counties do not disallow it.
Second, you are comparing apples to oranges. It is one thing when a football coach would charge for extra coaching. It is double dipping because he is already being paid for a job he was hired for. So, to coach an athlete for something he was already being paid for is double dipping. It is another thing when someone, like Avery, is not making his living from the school, but is already making his living outside of the school. The school hires him to volunteer, (that means to coach for free). So, he is not double dipping, concerning the athletes he is already coaching, privately. However, not just those who can afford it, but now those who cannot afford it and those who do not care to pay for private coaching, gain the benefit of having a coach who has expertise, where before, they had some inexperienced coach, who did not know what he was doing. (Just ask the kids at some of the other schools in the district).
So, last year, Brentwood had a private coach, who also was a school coach for pole vaulters. He knew his stuff. But, because of this crappy policy, the coach will no longer be coaching for the team. Who gets hurt? The kids who could not afford to pay for private coaching and those who did not want private coach. Now, they will have a coach lacking what Kinder had. Really really dumb.
Again, you just do not get it. Financial predators? Laughable. I guess schools should stop letting kids carry Apple computers to school to protect the other kids from being swayed to buy one. Dell should stop putting computers in school in case a student should see the brand and be preyed upon and influenced to buy one. Coke and Pepsi are out and so is Lays. How dare they come into a school and promote the consumption of their products by easily-swayed students. I guess the parents have no ability to say no to a private coach, who volunteers at school. they are all under a spell. Oh, brother!
First, the DMR was as a club team, not school team. Second, during the cross country season, Avery was delegated by the head cross country coach to lead and control the varsity team. So, Avery, while volunteering, was acting within his authority to control who ran, etc. This is done on every team everywhere. Finally, he was asked by the AD, who knew he coached these students, privately, to join the team. The AD did not know the district policy, which prevents a coach from being a school coach and receiving funds from those kids, as private clients. The AD's ignorance is what caused this. The situation has been remedied. But, if you are determined to be such a stickler, why don't you read it again and get a stinkin' clue, and place your righteous blame where it belongs, on the AD and Principal.
Honestly, Truth tn, you need to change your handle. You read the documents, but seem woefully lacking in your ability to grasp the facts. Did Avery charge his private clients throughout the year. Yes. Nobody contests that. Did he know it was a violation of district policy? NO!!! If you would read the both Quirk's Report and the Response to Quirk's Report, you will understand that Avery did not know he was violating a policy. Quirk's Report never says that he KNOWINGLY violated either policy. It also provides absolutely no evidence that shows Avery knew he was violating either policy. Get a clue!
You are as dense as the WCS staff is.
Who else thinks INTEGRITY and RULES are Avery? Who else knows that ignorance of the law or rules does not validate ones inability to follow them?
If you feel that strongly that ignorance of the rules does not validate ones inability to follow them, then, why are you not railing on the ones most responsible for violating the rules; the Principal and the Athletic Director? Until you do that, you lack credibility.
Rules wrote:
If you feel that strongly that ignorance of the rules does not validate ones inability to follow them, then, why are you not railing on the ones most responsible for violating the rules; the Principal and the Athletic Director? Until you do that, you lack credibility.
Not really. They are included in this assessment, and previous posts of mine have pointed that out. Further, because I didn't include those entities does't mean coach skates, that my comment wasnt accurate, nor that my credibility is in question, only that you don't like my post. Big difference.