I just found out over a few beers with a member of ESLT that I have been under investigation for about a month. I knew nothing about it - I believe that's called an ex-parte investigation?
The ESLT member swore me to silence because it's "confidential" but I'm tempted to march right into the acting head's office and demand an explanation. I don't want to mess this other person up though; he was drunk when he spilled the beans and I can tell he regrets it.
Any thoughts on how I should proceed?
Ex-Parte Investigation
-
TeacherGal
- Posts: 128
- Joined: Sat May 14, 2016 8:51 am
Re: Ex-Parte Investigation
I wouldn't want to get the guy who told you in trouble because then in the future nobody will want to give you any important information like this which you will want to know. And this guy may have more details about the investigation you will want to know. In fact, I'd want to get him drunk again and find out all the ways you are being investigated. So, sit back, think about things and use that information the best way you can.
I assume being investigated means being monitored. Well, use this opportunity to do the best work you can in every way. If the people investigating you don't know you know you're being monitored then they'll be even more impressed with your good work.
Are they looking into your past? Contacting references? Asking around about you? If so, that would bother me as it might create an air of suspicion about you.
I assume being investigated means being monitored. Well, use this opportunity to do the best work you can in every way. If the people investigating you don't know you know you're being monitored then they'll be even more impressed with your good work.
Are they looking into your past? Contacting references? Asking around about you? If so, that would bother me as it might create an air of suspicion about you.
Re: Ex-Parte Investigation
TeacherGal wrote:
> I assume being investigated means being monitored. Well, use this
> opportunity to do the best work you can in every way. If the people
> investigating you don't know you know you're being monitored then they'll
> be even more impressed with your good work.
> Are they looking into your past? Contacting references? Asking around about
> you? If so, that would bother me as it might create an air of suspicion
> about you.
About a month ago, the day before an external exam, my HOD organized an all day tutorial in the subject I teach. I taught my lessons as scheduled and we reviewed past paper 2 questions and I told them to review vocabulary but mostly, get to bed early, have a decent breakfast, take a brisk walk right before the test and relax. I did not participate in the all day tutorial because I thought it was a waste of time and I said so. My position was that this test has been two years in the coming, we spent the past month reviewing past papers and I didn't think a marathon review the day before would be of much use. Some teachers took offence so they apparently complained and an investigation was launched.
> I assume being investigated means being monitored. Well, use this
> opportunity to do the best work you can in every way. If the people
> investigating you don't know you know you're being monitored then they'll
> be even more impressed with your good work.
> Are they looking into your past? Contacting references? Asking around about
> you? If so, that would bother me as it might create an air of suspicion
> about you.
About a month ago, the day before an external exam, my HOD organized an all day tutorial in the subject I teach. I taught my lessons as scheduled and we reviewed past paper 2 questions and I told them to review vocabulary but mostly, get to bed early, have a decent breakfast, take a brisk walk right before the test and relax. I did not participate in the all day tutorial because I thought it was a waste of time and I said so. My position was that this test has been two years in the coming, we spent the past month reviewing past papers and I didn't think a marathon review the day before would be of much use. Some teachers took offence so they apparently complained and an investigation was launched.
Re: Ex-Parte Investigation
Never a good idea to refuse to do assigned work (putting aside immoral/illegal assignments, which this isn’t anywhere near anyway). Fair enough to speak your mind to leadership, but if their decision stands, you put on your big girl pants and get to work.
Having said that, if that’s the only blot in your copybook, it should end there, with a simple telling off. Unless your leadership is seriously mean (most aren’t), or the “investigation” revealed more problems, what is there for them to do?
Keep your nose clean, do great work, and move forward.
Having said that, if that’s the only blot in your copybook, it should end there, with a simple telling off. Unless your leadership is seriously mean (most aren’t), or the “investigation” revealed more problems, what is there for them to do?
Keep your nose clean, do great work, and move forward.
Re: Ex-Parte Investigation
sid wrote:
> Never a good idea to refuse to do assigned work (putting aside
> immoral/illegal assignments, which this isn’t anywhere near anyway). Fair
> enough to speak your mind to leadership, but if their decision stands, you
> put on your big girl pants and get to work.
> Having said that, if that’s the only blot in your copybook, it should end
> there, with a simple telling off. Unless your leadership is seriously mean
> (most aren’t), or the “investigation” revealed more problems, what is there
> for them to do?
> Keep your nose clean, do great work, and move forward.
Yeah it was a stupid move on my part and probably warrants an investigation. It's the secret - exparte - nature of it that bothers me.
> Never a good idea to refuse to do assigned work (putting aside
> immoral/illegal assignments, which this isn’t anywhere near anyway). Fair
> enough to speak your mind to leadership, but if their decision stands, you
> put on your big girl pants and get to work.
> Having said that, if that’s the only blot in your copybook, it should end
> there, with a simple telling off. Unless your leadership is seriously mean
> (most aren’t), or the “investigation” revealed more problems, what is there
> for them to do?
> Keep your nose clean, do great work, and move forward.
Yeah it was a stupid move on my part and probably warrants an investigation. It's the secret - exparte - nature of it that bothers me.
Response
The vast majority of most IE investigations are ex-parte, there is typically no benefit in informing, advising or including the IT in the process until its conclusion and leadership is going to impose sanctions. If there is no actionable outcome informing the IT prior to the conclusion just generates negative feelings towards the IS and leadership.
You actually have no right (unless its part of a published policy or regulation) to be informed or advised on an investigation, this isnt a judicial proceeding that regulates and prohibits various types of ex-parte communication.
What do you want the outcome of this to be?
There are 6 rationals for an IS to conduct an investigation, and the majority of them are spectacle pageantry and theatrics.
1) The IS wants to sanction or discipline you for cause and regulations and statutes require them to provide some standard of good cause. This is the exception to the above that most investigations are theatrics.
2) The IS wants to dismiss you for something subjective and they want to reduce or mitigate blow back and consequences if they can generate some type of other cause that is entirely objective.
3) The IS intends to discipline or dismiss you and they have faculty/staff of X number of ITs that they need the process to look objective, impartial and fair. The IS and leadership dont want to shatter the illusion that keeps ITs from realizing that their service/employment is at the discretion of executive leadership who can just as easily wake up, throw a dart at a board of faculty names, send a text dismissing an IT and then go back to sleep.
4) They are using psychological manipulation to incentivize and motivate the IT to increased performance, its classical conditioning and positive reinforcement costs more than negative reinforcement. Its cheaper to say "investigation" and then remove it than it is to provide compensation.
5) They want you to resign and ending an investigation is cheaper and easier than something like severance or adjudicating a labor claim. This could easily be a honey trap and stomping into the HOS office and making demands could be exactly what they want for a case of gross insubordination. They dismiss you not for the incident with the HOD that leaked to the other faculty and undermined the HODs image (who cant discipline or dismiss you), but for "aggressively" confronting the HOS who can dismiss you.
6) Placation: The HOD feels offended, went to senior leadership, and started the investigation to make the HOD feel better and supported. The investigation ends some time later after the HOD has had time to cool down, leadership recommends no action, and everyone moves on with you the IT none the wiser.
Do you have your exit strategy in place? I asked what outcome you wanted earlier, because while HODs and some of the tasking leadership wants you to do can be frustrating and asinine (and good for you for calling the HOD to task for what was essentially a massive waste of time running the rabbit hole), it sounds like you have gotten to the point where this appointment is no longer positive for you. Add to that, your frustrations are showing externally and its only a matter of time on this current course of action that your presence is no longer a positive benefit to the IS and they dismiss you for whatever reason. Either you need to change and repair this (and its probably a lot more work than you think) or this isnt going to get better and will end badly for you, and moving on sooner rather than later improves your options significantly.
I concur with @Sid, "what is there for them to do", the investigation in of itself is a show, and most of the outcomes end with you seeking opportunities elsewhere.
You actually have no right (unless its part of a published policy or regulation) to be informed or advised on an investigation, this isnt a judicial proceeding that regulates and prohibits various types of ex-parte communication.
What do you want the outcome of this to be?
There are 6 rationals for an IS to conduct an investigation, and the majority of them are spectacle pageantry and theatrics.
1) The IS wants to sanction or discipline you for cause and regulations and statutes require them to provide some standard of good cause. This is the exception to the above that most investigations are theatrics.
2) The IS wants to dismiss you for something subjective and they want to reduce or mitigate blow back and consequences if they can generate some type of other cause that is entirely objective.
3) The IS intends to discipline or dismiss you and they have faculty/staff of X number of ITs that they need the process to look objective, impartial and fair. The IS and leadership dont want to shatter the illusion that keeps ITs from realizing that their service/employment is at the discretion of executive leadership who can just as easily wake up, throw a dart at a board of faculty names, send a text dismissing an IT and then go back to sleep.
4) They are using psychological manipulation to incentivize and motivate the IT to increased performance, its classical conditioning and positive reinforcement costs more than negative reinforcement. Its cheaper to say "investigation" and then remove it than it is to provide compensation.
5) They want you to resign and ending an investigation is cheaper and easier than something like severance or adjudicating a labor claim. This could easily be a honey trap and stomping into the HOS office and making demands could be exactly what they want for a case of gross insubordination. They dismiss you not for the incident with the HOD that leaked to the other faculty and undermined the HODs image (who cant discipline or dismiss you), but for "aggressively" confronting the HOS who can dismiss you.
6) Placation: The HOD feels offended, went to senior leadership, and started the investigation to make the HOD feel better and supported. The investigation ends some time later after the HOD has had time to cool down, leadership recommends no action, and everyone moves on with you the IT none the wiser.
Do you have your exit strategy in place? I asked what outcome you wanted earlier, because while HODs and some of the tasking leadership wants you to do can be frustrating and asinine (and good for you for calling the HOD to task for what was essentially a massive waste of time running the rabbit hole), it sounds like you have gotten to the point where this appointment is no longer positive for you. Add to that, your frustrations are showing externally and its only a matter of time on this current course of action that your presence is no longer a positive benefit to the IS and they dismiss you for whatever reason. Either you need to change and repair this (and its probably a lot more work than you think) or this isnt going to get better and will end badly for you, and moving on sooner rather than later improves your options significantly.
I concur with @Sid, "what is there for them to do", the investigation in of itself is a show, and most of the outcomes end with you seeking opportunities elsewhere.
Re: Ex-Parte Investigation
@PsyGuy
Thanks for the well thought out response.
I think it's #6 - the HOD got his panties bunched up and wanted some satisfaction.
The outcome I want at this point is just forget the whole, finish the year left on my contract and move on.
In the States, at least in Florida, they have to inform the teacher if he is under investigation but I'm obviously not here.
Thanks for the well thought out response.
I think it's #6 - the HOD got his panties bunched up and wanted some satisfaction.
The outcome I want at this point is just forget the whole, finish the year left on my contract and move on.
In the States, at least in Florida, they have to inform the teacher if he is under investigation but I'm obviously not here.