If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.
Cardinal Richelieu (1585-1642)
By Dr. Bob Uttl
An investigator looking into allegations of employee’s misconduct is expected to adhere to strict principles of natural justice, impartiality, and procedural transparency. Mr. Glenn Dobie’s investigations into Ms. T directed by School District No. 5 Southeast Kootenay’s Superintendent William (Bill) Gook demonstrates the exact opposite of what is required in workplace investigations.
Mr. Dobie’s First Investigation December 16, 2009 Report revealed that Mr. Dobie suppressed evidence, copy-pasted exactly the same findings under two different allegations, and manufactured misconduct worthy of further investigation out of entirely normal, accepted conduct, according to his own under oath testimony.
Mr. Dobie’s investigation of the Allegation #3 and #6 fit the overall pattern of Mr. Dobie’s stunningly biased, non-transparent investigations, trampling over all principles of natural justice.
Mr. Dobie’s Copy-Paste Findings and Conclusions
Allegation #3 charged Ms. T with failing to engage/supervise students, relying on Educational Assistants (EAs) to teach, and misusing her computer during instructional time. The Allegation #3 and Mr. Dobie’s corresponding findings and conclusions were:
3. Failure to engage and supervise students during instructional and classroom time and instead leaving teaching duties to be fulfilled by educational assistants, and/or using the computer for non-teaching related matters when you otherwise should be teaching or supervising students.
There is conflicting evidence to support this statement. Four students stated that Ms. T leaves the classroom between one and three times per week for approximately one to five minutes. One student wasn’t sure if Ms. T left the classroom and one student stated no. The Educational Assistant also stated no. However, the Educational Assistant stated that Ms. T was ‘oblivious’ to what is happening in the classroom.
Conclusion: The evidence is conflicting but it is reasonable to conclude that Ms. T has left her classroom on a weekly basis (approximately one to two times per week) for periods of approximately two to three minutes . According to the students, the EA has remained in the classroom.
Glenn Dobie’s First Investigation December 16, 2009 Report
Allegation #6 charged her with failing to provide adequate supervision, specifically alleging she was unaware of student attendance, ignorant of students waiting in the hall for discipline, and leaving her entire class unsupervised. The Allegation #6 and Mr. Dobie’s corresponding findings and conclusions were:
6. Failure to provide adequate and appropriate supervision of students, including not being aware of when students are attending or not attending your class during the school day; not being aware of what students are doing when you ask them to wait in the hall for disciplinary or other reasons; leaving your entire class unsupervised for periods of time during the school day.
There is conflicting evidence to support this statement Four students stated that Ms. T leaves the classroom between one and three times per week for approximately one to five minutes. One student wasn’t sure if Ms. T left the the classroom and one student stated no. The Educational Assistant also stated no. However, the Educational Assistant stated that Ms. T was ‘oblivious’ to what is happening in the classroom.
Conclusion: It is reasonable to assume that Ms. T has left her classroom on a weekly basis (approximately two times), for a periods of approximately two to three minutes.
Glenn Dobie’s First Investigation December 16, 2009 Report
Despite these being two distinct sets of charges, Mr. Dobie relied on exactly the same interviews with the same students and the same EA, pasted the exact same text block as his “findings” as to what the students and the EA told him, but, inexplicably, for Allegation #6, Mr. Dobie deleted “According to the students, the EA has remained in the classroom.” and gave a reader false impression students were left unattended by any individual with supervision authority.
To be certain, Mr. Dobie’s record of interview with the EA, Stephanie Phillips (who was assigned to Ms. T’s class for the afternoons), on November 26, 2009, clearly shows that when asked, the EA said “No”, Ms. T. does not leave the classroom:
GLENN DOBIE: During the afternoon, are there times when she leaves the classroom?
Glenn Dobie’s Interview with Stephanie Phillips, November 26, 2009
STEPHANIE PHILLIPS (EA): No.
Mr. Dobie made no mention of his efforts, if any, to investigate other allegations, for example, the allegation of computer misuse and did not mention them.
Mr. Dobie’s Omission of Ms. T’s Testimony
Mr. Glenn Dobie conducted an interview with Ms. T. Ms. T (a) acknowledged leaving the classroom once with the EA, and (b) was clear that she did not leave the students unattended:
GLENN DOBIE: Point #3 -Supervision of students during instructional and class room time. Over the past several months, have you left the classroom and left students unattended?
MRS. TURNER: Can you give us specific times?
GLENN DOBIE: I can’t. There were comments made by several students that Ms. T left the classroom unattended for 3-5 minutes.
MRS. TURNER:: Without specifics, it’s hard to answer.
GLENN DOBIE: Let me rephrase the question. Can you recall ever leaving students unattended in the classroom?
Caucus
MS. T: There was an incident on September 18th. I had left my class at the end of the day with an EA so I could hand out instruments. That’s the one that I ‘m aware of. It hasn’t happened since. I received a letter regarding it on September 23.
GLENN DOBIE: During reading and writing, has there been a time when the students have been left unattended?
MS. T: No.
Glenn Dobie’s Interview with Ms. T, December 7, 2009
Thus, when questioned directly about whether students had ever been left unattended during reading and writing instruction (afternoons), Ms. T gave an unambiguous answer: “No“. Exactly the same answer as the EA provided.
Yet, when the final report was written, Ms. T’s explicit denial was completely omitted from the summary of evidence. Mr. Dobie framed the entire finding as a conflict solely between the students and the EA, writing the respondent out of her own record.
Mr. Dobie’s inexplicable omission of this key evidence and failure to note that it exactly agreed with the evidence of the EA is nothing short of stunning, and gives at minimum appearance of bias.
Mr. Glenn Dobie Omitted That Student Responses Were Recorded by Principal Karen Giles
Under oath, Mr. Dobie later testified that the records of his interview with witnesses were taken by his executive assistant. However, later he revealed that notes of his interview of students were made by Principal Karen Giles in her office at the school. Although Mr. Dobie testified that he did not know who made each allegation against Ms. T, Principal Karen Giles herself testified that she was either an author or a conduit of each of the 16 Allegations against Ms. T.
Having Principal Karen Giles—the accuser or conduit of the accusations—acting as scribe while students were interviewed was grossly inappropriate. Principal Giles was in a fundamental conflict of interest and severely contaminated student witness accounts through her mere presence and resulting demand characteristics, particularly given that she was the very teacher instructing those same students every morning.
Mr. Glenn Dobie Under Oath Demolishes His Own Report and Conclusions
The fatal blows to Mr. Glenn Dobie’s credibility came when he was forced to defend his findings and conclusions under cross-examination.
When pressed on basic operational realities of elementary schools—like whether teachers ever need to step out for 2 or 3 minutes for a washroom break—Mr. Dobie conceded that such breaks happen, no relief system exists, EA presence provides “simple coverage”, and if there is no EA, simply notifying a teacher next door “to keep an ear out” is acceptable:
QUESTION: So, for example, when the teachers need to go to the bathroom, that happens? That they go to the bathroom for two or three minutes?
GLENN DOBIE: If they have to go to the bathroom, yeah, they would. And from what I understand, teachers, if they have an education assistant, that’s a simple coverage. Or if not, teachers, if I recall, would notify the teacher next door that they have to quickly go to the bathroom just to keep an ear out for that class.”
Cross-examination of Glenn Dobie
Mr. Glenn Dobie further admitted that there is no district protocol or system to cover short breaks:
QUESTION: Is there any system in School District 5 where teachers can call somebody when they need to go to the bathroom… that somebody would come and relieve them of their duties for 3 minutes?
GLENN DOBIE: No, not that I’m aware of.
QUESTION: And I take it there are no bathrooms in each classroom, correct?
GLENN DOBIE: That’s correct.
Cross-examination of Glenn Dobie
When asked how often teachers leave the room or what the district standard was, Mr. Dobie admitted he was relying strictly on his own personal memory and experience and had no idea how often other teachers in the district leave the room:
GD: “All I can reflect on is myself. I recall maybe in 15, 20 years in a school building maybe doing it once or twice. I don’t know. I can’t speak for other teachers on how often. I just don’t know.”
Cross-examination of Glenn Dobie
While Mr. Dobie may have a bladder of steel, it is widely known that need for bathroom breaks vary widely among people, between young and old teachers, between men and women, and that Mr. Dobie’s bladder individual performance is not the standard adopted by the School District No. 5.
Mr. Dobie’s Stunning Double Standard
Mr. Glenn Dobie testified under oath that having a teacher next door “keep an ear out” through a wall—with zero line of sight—is acceptable coverage for a quick break. Yet, he made it sound as if Ms. T stepping out for a few minutes with an Educational Assistant physically inside the room supervising the class was somehow problematic behavior that needed to be addressed.
As detailed in earlier blog post, Mr. Glenn Dobie initially issued December 14, 2009 Report, forwarded it to Mr. Bill Gook and then radically changes the report summary conclusions and issued a new report dated December 16, 2009. Because neither Mr. Dobie nor School District No. 5 gave the reports to Ms. T, the two reports were discovered only eight years later once the litigation started.
With respect to Allegation #3 and #6, Mr. Dobie initially — in December 14, 2009 Report — concluded: “There is conflicting evidence with respect to Points… 3, … 6, … In contrast, in December 16, 2009 Report, Mr. Dobie concluded:
With regard to other items of investigations (Points… 3,… 6,…) I believe there may be performance (non-culpable) explanation for the conduct. Whatever the explanation is it is clear that these matters must be addressed in order to ensure student learning is not compromised…
Mr. Glenn Dobie First Investigation December 16, 2009 Report
Conclusion
By Mr. Glenn Dobie’s own admission under oath:
- Having an EA in the room is “simple coverage.”
- Even indirect, wall-separated “auditory” coverage from a neighbor is acceptable.
- There are no in-class toilets and no relief systems available.
- His standard for misconduct was based on personal opinion, not district policy.
Because supervision is explicitly built into an Educational Assistant’s job description, leaving a room with an EA present is not a failure of supervision—it is an official, accepted operational practice.
Mr. Dobie’s conclusions with respect to Allegations #3 and #6 are null and void; Mr. Dobie failed to substantiate either of them.
An investigation report must be built on evidence, clear particulars, and objective policy standards—not copy-pasted text, omitted denials, witness priming, absurd double standards, and personal anecdotes.