By Dr. Bob Uttl<\/p>\n\n\n\n
When School District No. 5 Southeast Kootenay tasked its Director of Instruction, Mr. Glenn Dobie<\/strong>, to conduct two workplace investigations into Ms. T, his role was presented on the stand as that of an objective, independent investigator. Under cross-examination, however, Mr. Dobie\u2019s claims of independent fact-finding collapsed under the weight of his own sworn testimony and physical documentary evidence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In both the December 2009 (16 Allegations) and May 2010 (Stephanie Phillips Allegations) investigations, a distinct pattern emerged: Mr. Glenn Dobie swore under oath that he produced single, independent reports without management input\u2014only to be confronted with signed earlier reports and drafts (Exhibits 386 and 388<\/strong>) that contained conclusions that were erased or rewritten after secret consultations with Superintendent William (Bill) Gook.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Cross-examined regarding his First Investigation Report (dated December 16, 2009, covering 16 allegations) (RBD\/177-181), Mr. Dobie categorically denied receiving assistance from anyone, denied providing advance copies to management, and delivered an explicit defense of his independence:<\/p>\n\n\n\n QUESTION:<\/strong> Did you receive any assistance or any input from anyone as to what is in this report?<\/p>\n\n\n\n GLENN DOBIE:<\/strong> No. I did not consult with either Mr. Gook or Ms. Stuart, the Director of Human Resources. This was a confidential investigation. The only person who would be privy to this was the executive assistant, who was in a confidential position. And I would have trust that she did not discuss this with anybody.<\/p>\n\n\n\n QUESTION:<\/strong> So you did not provide any earlier copy of this report to Mr. Gook or to anybody else for comments?<\/p>\n\n\n\n GLENN DOBIE:<\/strong> No, I wrote the report and I submitted it, I believe. That’s my understanding or my recollection of the process.<\/p>\n\n\n\n QUESTION:<\/strong> Would it be appropriate for you to seek input on your report from somebody else prior to submitting your report? You know, you are an independent investigator.<\/p>\n\n\n\n GLENN DOBIE:<\/strong> Yeah, I’m independent and I’m not sure what value would be of having someone reading the report, other than grammatical or spelling, because they wouldn’t be privy to the information that I had gathered.<\/p>\nCross-examination of Mr. Glenn Dobie<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Immediately following these denials under oath, Mr. Glenn Dobie was confronted with a signed earlier version of his report dated December 14, 2009\u2014two days prior to his “final” report. After examining the document and his signature, Mr. Glenn Dobie acknowledged it was his, but claimed ignorance of the handwritten marginal comments filling the document:<\/p>\n\n\n\n QUESTION:<\/strong> Now, is this something which you wrote on December 14th and signed?<\/p>\n\n\n\n GLENN DOBIE:<\/strong> I would imagine it is, but it’s signed indeed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n QUESTION:<\/strong> That’s your signature down there, right?<\/p>\n\n\n\n GLENN DOBIE:<\/strong> Yes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n QUESTION:<\/strong> And whose handwriting is it on this document?<\/p>\n\n\n\n GLENN DOBIE:<\/strong> I don’t know. It’s not mine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n QUESTION:<\/strong> It’s not yours?<\/p>\n\n\n\n GLENN DOBIE:<\/strong> No.<\/p>\n\n\n\n QUESTION:<\/strong> And so you, in fact, gave this earlier version to somebody and that somebody provided some comments, correct?<\/p>\n\n\n\n GLENN DOBIE:<\/strong> Not to my knowledge, no.<\/p>\n\n\n\n QUESTION:<\/strong> Not to your knowledge?<\/p>\n\n\n\n GLENN DOBIE:<\/strong> No. I said no.<\/p>\n\n\n\n QUESTION:<\/strong> Who did you give this document to?<\/p>\n\n\n\n GLENN DOBIE:<\/strong> It was addressed to Mr. Gook. That’s who I assume I gave it to.<\/p>\nCross-examination of Mr. Glenn Dobie<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Mr. Dobie\u2019s sworn assertion that he never provided an earlier draft to Superintendent Gook or received outside feedback was directly impeached by the physical record (Exhibit 386<\/strong>). Next, when asked to explain why two signed reports existed 48 hours apart, Mr. Dobie offered no defense:<\/p>\n\n\n\n QUESTION:<\/strong> Okay. And so why did you give Mr. Gook this document on December 14th and then another different version on December 16th?<\/p>\n\n\n\n GLENN DOBIE:<\/strong> I don’t know. I don’t have an explanation why there’s two different ones, but I don’t know who the writing is.<\/p>\nCross-examination of Mr. Glenn Dobie<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Cross-examination then turned to the radical shift in conclusions between the two drafts. In the December 14 version, Mr. Dobie concluded that allegations had been addressed previously, that evidence was “conflicting,”<\/em> and that there was “no evidence”<\/em> for several core charges (including insubordination). By December 16, those exculpatory findings vanished from his conclusions, replaced by assertions of possibly “performance (non-culpable) explanations for the conduct.”<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n When asked to explain how his findings flipped over two nights, Mr. Dobie surrendered completely:<\/p>\n\n\n\n QUESTION:<\/strong> Can we please put up a respondent’s. keep this in a window, but if you can open another one, this respondent’s book of document, page 181. And so if we look at this December 16 one [Dobie’s December 16, 2009 Report], it has entirely different arrangement. There’s nothing about evidence being conflicting. Bullet points are different. It talks in the paragraph two about some culpable behavior. And then in the paragraph three, it says about non-culpable explanation. Can we flip back to the other document [Dobie’s December 14, 2009 Report], please? And here it says that there’s the evidence for 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 points [points 1, 5, 7, 8. 10, and 12]. Then it says that point 1 has already been addressed by letter of direction. Point 7 was one-time situation. There is conflicting evidence with respect to points 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, and 15. There is no evidence to support point 11, 14, 16. Point 13 was dismissed prior to the investigation. And if you can scroll down. And there’s absolutely nothing about non-culpable conduct. Could you explain the difference between these conclusions which you made two days apart?<\/p>\n\n\n\n GLENN DOBIE:<\/strong> No. At this point in time, after 15 years, the answer is no, I cannot. It’s a long time ago. I can’t.<\/p>\nCross-examination of Mr. Glenn Dobie<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Pressed further, Mr. Dobie conceded that an unrecorded discussion with Superintendent Gook likely took place:<\/p>\n\n\n\n QUESTION:<\/strong> Your testimony today is that the document December 14, that earlier document, you did not give to anybody else but Mr. Gook, correct?<\/p>\n\n\n\n GLENN DOBIE:<\/strong> That’s my recollection. That’s who it was addressed to.<\/p>\n\n\n\n QUESTION:<\/strong> And you have no explanation why you issued another one, very different one, two days later?<\/p>\n\n\n\n GLENN DOBIE:<\/strong> I. It’s a foggy memory now that I don’t recall if Mr. Gook spoke with me or if we did have a discussion. I can’t recall.<\/p>\n\n\n\n QUESTION:<\/strong> Okay. And that December 14 document, you again did not send it to Ms. T, correct?<\/p>\n\n\n\n GLENN DOBIE:<\/strong> No, I did not go to Ms. T. Not to my knowledge, it was addressed to Mr. Gook.<\/p>\nCross-examination of Mr. Glenn Dobie<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n While Mr. Dobie claimed he did not recognize the handwritten marginal notes on his December 14 signed report (Exhibit 386<\/strong>), SD5\u2019s legal counsel had independently confirmed in writing that those comments belonged to Superintendent Bill Gook himself.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n If there were any doubt that the December 2009 incident was a systemic practice rather than an isolated oversight, Mr. Glenn Dobie\u2019s cross-examination regarding his second internal investigation (Stephanie Phillips Allegations) (May 5, 2010) established an identical pattern.<\/p>\n\n\n\n First, Mr. Glenn Dobie, Director of Instruction, admitted under cross-examination that he reviewed zero primary documents<\/strong> in preparation for or during his second investigation:<\/p>\n\n\n\n QUESTION:<\/strong> …And again, would you agree with me that there is no list of any documents which you reviewed during this investigation or in preparation for the investigation?<\/p>\n\n\n\n GLENN DOBIE:<\/strong> To the best of my knowledge, yes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n QUESTION:<\/strong> And did you, in fact, review any documents in preparation or during this second investigation?<\/p>\n\n\n\n GLENN DOBIE:<\/strong> Not to my recollection, no.<\/p>\nCross-examination of Mr. Glenn Dobie<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Next, Mr. Dobie once again swore under oath that he had prepared no earlier drafts with different conclusions:<\/p>\n\n\n\n QUESTION:<\/strong> Did you prepare any earlier drafts of this report which had a different conclusion?<\/p>\n\n\n\n GLENN DOBIE:<\/strong> Not to my memory, no.<\/p>\nCross-examination of Mr. Glenn Dobie<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Once again, cross-examination confronted him with the physical proof\u2014Exhibit 388<\/strong> (CB06\/50-51)\u2014forcing him to recant:<\/p>\n\n\n\n QUESTION:<\/strong> Is this something you recognize as something you have written as an earlier version of your May 5th, 2010 report?<\/p>\n\n\n\n GLENN DOBIE:<\/strong> Yeah, I think, I believe so, yeah.<\/p>\n\n\n\n QUESTION:<\/strong> And now when you look at the conclusions, do you recognize or do you see that they are in fact different?<\/p>\n\n\n\n GLENN DOBIE:<\/strong> Yes, I do.<\/p>\n\n\n\n QUESTION:<\/strong> And do you have an explanation for why you changed your conclusions?<\/p>\n\n\n\n GLENN DOBIE:<\/strong> I don’t know if it was a change. I think it was, I’m interpreting this, but I believe I consulted with Mr. Gook as to what would be the appropriate recommendation because I wasn’t sure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n …<\/p>\n\n\n\n QUESTION:<\/strong> So would you agree with me that your report was not your independent work?<\/p>\n\n\n\n GLENN DOBIE:<\/strong> This report, look, I believe I probably consulted with Mr. Gook as to what’s the appropriate course of action based on my concern.<\/p>\nCross-examination of Mr. Glenn Dobie<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Finally, Mr. Dobie admitted that his “final” May 5, 2010 report contained zero disclosure that he had consulted Superintendent Gook or altered his findings:<\/p>\n\n\n\n QUESTION:<\/strong> And again, do you agree with me that there is nothing in this report which says that you consulted with Mr. Gook or with anybody else earlier and that this is a new version?<\/p>\n\n\n\n GLENN DOBIE:<\/strong> I would agree there’s nothing that states that. No, I think that’s correct.<\/p>\nCross-examination of Mr. Glenn Dobie<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n When SD5\u2019s Mr. Glenn Dobie, Director of Instruction, repeatedly submits secret drafts to Mr. William (Bill) Gook, SD5 Superintendent, allows the decision-maker to annotate his findings, modifies his conclusions, and denies it all under oath until confronted with hard physical evidence, his work ceases to be an investigation. It becomes an internal administrative execution.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n This double-pattern traps Mr. Glen Dobie in a fatal evidentiary dilemma: he either committed deliberate perjury under oath on two separate occasions, or he suffered from a massive, highly selective amnesia.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Under the established legal doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus<\/em> (“false in one thing, false in everything”), a witness whose sworn denials are directly impeached by physical records cannot be relied upon for anything<\/em>. Whether driven by active dishonesty or total loss of his memory, his testimony holds zero evidentiary weight, and his reports possess zero probative value.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Mr. Glenn Dobie\u2019s process violated every core principle of procedural fairness and administrative law:<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Ultimate Red Flag: Why Didn’t Superintendent Bill Gook Testify?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The single person on Earth who could have offered some other explanation for his handwriting on Exhibit 386 was Superintendent Bill Gook himself. School District No. 5 originally placed Mr. Gook on their official witness list to defend SD5 in these proceedings. Yet, when the moment arrived, they changed their mind and did not call him to the stand to testify and to be cross-examined.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n In law, when a party refuses to call its chief decision-maker after his direct interference is exposed, the tribunal is entitled to draw a binding adverse inference<\/strong>: they didn’t call Bill Gook because testifying under oath would have sunk the School District\u2019s 5 defense even further.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n A report ghostwritten in collaboration with top district management is not evidence\u2014it is a pretext. By exposing this two-part pattern of secret drafts, altered conclusions, and sworn testimony that was demonstrably false\u2014whether deliberately so or due to total selective memory failure<\/strong>, the record leaves only one inescapable conclusion: Glen Dobie\u2019s findings are a legal nullity.<\/strong> Glenn Dobie’s testimony has zero evidentiary weight, and his reports hold zero probative value.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Buy me a coffee<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nPart I: The First Investigation (16 Allegations) (December 2009)<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Part II: The Second Investigation (Stephanie Phillips Allegations) (May 2010)<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Conclusion: The End of the “Independent” Investigation Illusion<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n