Gorey Gaelscoil debacle - astonishing legal smackdown

Read the IT article this morning. Took forever for this case. Mediation could have sorted this much sooner but sounds like the BOM dug their heels in in the hope the Principal would give up.

What is puzzling me is how the judge thinks reinstatement is the best remedy here. After 11 years would the Principal want to go back? Compensation for the lost earnings, career setback etc would be more appropriate to my mind.

His reputation is destroyed as well as losing 12 years of teaching experience/principal experience, then he's likely going to face rumours and staff brought in while he was suspended,he might find the school isn't a welcoming place, he needs to sue the hole out of the chair of the board for what they did to him

You hear of cases, anecdotally, where the sides ruin each other financially through their unwillingness to compromise. Not sure what the ex-Principle’s mentality was but it certainly seems like the Chair and BOM were of the mind ‘he’s wrong, he’s out, whatever it takes, it’s black and white and that is that.’ I suppose it’s easy to fight these things to the death when your house isn’t literally at risk if you lose.

Disgraceful waste of tax payer money on all this. If they still weren’t happy with him after the original incident was resolved, there were mechanisms they could use to monitor him.

The parents did not see it as an assault. After talking to the principal they accepted his apology and were satisfied that the matter was resolved. They wrote to the BOM twice through their solicitor to clarify this, but never got a response. The BOM were clearly too focussed on conducting a vendetta against the man to bother with the facts.

Where does it say he assaulted a student ? He was accused of assault - the parents of the child in question did not agree that he had assaulted their child and wrote to the BOM outlining that. He was put on leave while the allegation was “investigated” by the BOM. The BOM did not investigate the alleged assault as in they did not reach a judgement on the issue nor did they follow due process but actively withheld relevant documents from the principal. The BOM subsequently terminated his principalship after they accused him of fraud in relation to the returns. Returns that the BOM signed off on and which arose due to the reporting structures that the Dep had in place at that time.

So what has emerged from this incident is that the principal was not found to have assaulted the student nor did he commit fraud but rather made an administrative error due to the deps reporting structures. This smacks of a pure witch hunt on behalf of the BOM and the judge was correct in his assessment of the boards culpability and in particular that of the chairperson. It is very telling that the parents of the child in question did not view the incident as an assault and that the BOM did not reach a decision on the alleged incident yet we still have posters who accept without any evidence that he assaulted the student and is not fit to teach. This person has had their reputation and entire career ruined by the BOM and the chairperson in particular.

You are correct, it depends on the context and the details. Obviously context isn't important to some judging by a couple of remarks above.

From the High Court judgement:

The single child incident in January 2012

54. An incident occurred in January 2012 which lay at the root of everything that

followed. The best evidence of what happened on that day is given by Mr. O'Suird himself.

He stated as follows in his affidavit prepared for this court.

"26. On 11th January, 2012, an incident occurred while I was teaching First class in

the school. I disciplined a pupil (who I shall refer to as pupil A) in front of the class,

who then returned to his seat and deliberately stamped his feet while he did so. I lost

my temper, approached pupil A, banged his table with my fist and physically pulled

him towards me by his jumper in order to remonstrate with him. What I did was

entirely wrong, and I feel great shame in relation to it to this day. The incident passed

relatively quickly but I cannot excuse my actions in any way. It was extremely stupid

and represented an unacceptable failing on my part".

27. The following day, I learned that parents in the school were aware of the incident.

[Pupil A's parents] approached me and I discussed the incident with them in a fully

open and transparent way on 13" January, 2012, in the presence of Mr. Ni

Shullebhain. [the deputy principal]. I agreed with him that I would ask Muinteoir

Fionntan who was the learning support teacher to take first class for the time being.

28. On 14th January, 2012, I discussed the incident with Ms. Ni Dhuinn by telephone,

and explained what had occurred. I suggested that I could meet the parents of the

class as a group but Ms .NiDhuinn instructed me not to. At that time I felt Ms. Ni

Dhuinn was quite supportive of me".

29. On 16" January, 2012, I met with [pupil A's parents] again. In broad terms they

were satisfied with the meeting and that matters had been properly resolved. They

accepted my apology and they were happy that [pupil A] had not been hurt or injured

during the incident. They considered it to be a minor incident".

Malcolm Byrne, now a senator, was a member of the Board and the chairman of the Board's Disciplinary Panel which heard Mr. O'Suird's case. His role in this debacle is hardly a glowing endorsement for someone now debating legislation.

You are correct context is important. As a BOM member the amount of red flags is off the charts. There are structures and procedures in place to deal with such issues as alleged assault. Structures and procedures that ensure a fair and equitable hearing for all those involved, that any resultant disciplinary action is warranted and complies with relevant employment legislation. Not alone did the BOM not follow due process in terms of the time frame to address such issues , did not forward relevant documentation to the principal’s solicitor as required but did not actually investigate the issue at all. There was no formal response on behalf of the BOM to the alleged assault. There are huge safe guarding concerns in relation to the BOM.

Once the principal was on administrative leave the investigation into the alleged assault simply stopped and instead a fraud investigation on pupil returns to the dep took precedence. In what world ???? Pupil returns to the dep which the BOM had signed off on - an administrative error due to the dep reporting structures takes precedence over an alleged assault of a student. My own opinion based on my experience is that the whole situation stinks - that BOM have a lot of questions to answer.

As a former BOM member, I agree that there are lots of red flags. I have seen firsthand how difficult it an be to remove a Principal who was clearly underperforming. I am simply amazed at what happened here. Fair play to Mr. O’Suird for fighting on, it cannot have been easy. I suppose he had little choice, he was effectively unemployable as a teacher.

I would consider the referral to the HSE to be reasonably justified, particularly if it had happened quickly. I suspect that the Principal was well provoked, but nonetheless he did catch a pupil by the jumper. Having said that, I would have expected a expected a written warning, at most.

I would love to have more information on how the Chairperson of the BOM was appointed and how she held on to that position for the duration of this whole sorry saga. It would also be informative to know whether the second principal was in any way connected to a member of the BOM.

I can see why the BOM would make a referral to the HSE - they came back with the view that it did not constitute physical assault but that the BOM should investigate to ensure it didn't happen again - which again is completely reasonable and justified. However not allowing the principal give his account , with holding relevant documentation from his representative , not complying with the HSE's recommendation , not interviewing former BOM members in relation to the returns just smacks of a vendetta.

In diocesan schools the chairperson is normally the patron's representative so appointed not elected. Not sure if the same system exists in the Gaelscoils. I would love to know if any and if not then why none of the other BOM members raised concerns about the lack of due process and the shoddy handling of the situation.

A small cabal of parents had it in for the Principal, and they made the initial complaint about the incident with pupil A. Somehow the chair of the BOM had an animus (the judge's own word) towards the Principal and the BOM rowed in with her in conducting this appalling vendetta against a very dedicated, hard working principal who was an excellent teacher and very popular with the pupils. The BOM's disregard for due process, common sense and natural justice was staggering. A whole lot of harm was done to the Principal, his family, the school, plus there is a massive legal bill to paid, ultimately no doubt by the taxpayer. As remarked above, there's a politician in the middle of all of this, a BOM member who chaired the subcommittee who fired the Principal. It's a disgrace.

Is there a typo there in paragraph 27? "...in the presence of Mr. Ni Shuillebhain. [the deputy principal]. I agreed with him that..." Is it supposed to be 'Mr. Ó S' or is it 'Ms.' and 'her'?

Also, how do you get the High Court Judgement. I tried various search terms here: https://www.csol.ie/ccms/highCourtSearch.html?execution=e1s1, but nothing was found.

Where was the department of education and Minister at that With this going on 11 years, surely a principal on suspension must have raised some flags in the department after several years let alone over a decade