Marshalling a Narrative

[XLFD]

You may have heard that Ludington Elementary School Principal Katie Eisinger was officially terminated on Monday by the school board.  The local paper had a fairly accurate depiction of what went on because they showed up at the meeting and tried to present both sides of the issue by what they said and did.  The Mason County Press article read more like a press release sent out by the Ludington Area School District (LASD), quoting the Interim Superintendent Mary Marshall and listing 6 charges that arose from what all eyewitnesses said was nothing.

The Ludington Torch believes Marshall, seen above in her best witch tribunal accoutrements, should have been the administrator under fire for violations of district bylaws, for the secondary investigation that she conducted, not the one we published in the article Eisinger exoneration, appears to have been comprised of legal research into how to fire a principal without having anything compelling to charge her with.  We cannot go to a hearing where great injustice has prevailed and just report facades and propaganda of the victors.

We have reviewed a video of the board's meeting, where Eisinger and her attorney had to deal with false representations of what policies said, of what her employment contract said, and of what were the facts of the case.  The prejudices of Marshall were palpable throughout the hearing held in open session, especially at the point when she said:  "Just moments before this incident, one of the student's former teachers saw him dysregulated and quickly, skillfully helped him to regain his composure.  That teacher demonstrated the standard of care required (1:29:30 in)."

The teacher she praised was Laura Holmes, the same person who initially told Marshall that she witnessed the incident (a lie) and then wrote that up, perpetuating the lie.  Marshall was not present when this incident occurred, so one wonders how she knew how she skillfully helped the student regain his composure.  Maybe that's what Laura told her, she wouldn't lie now, would she?  Problem was that throughout her prosecuting the case, Marshall portrayed Laura Holmes in the most beatific light, and yet Katie Eisinger was the very devil, violating vague bylaws that were subjective enough to drive a school bus through by someone skilled in subterfuge, like Marshall

This was not a fair investigation it was a political witch hunt led by Mary Marshall against someone who had been a dedicated principal, should you have listened to all of those people who came to her defense on Monday with unsolicited testimonials and tears.  Eisinger was a target for a small group of administrators who seem to have welcomed the opportunity to exploit an investigation sparked by a falsehood uttered by a teacher with an obvious grudge against her principal. 

When the board trustees talked this all over by themselves, some of them used the security cam video as a crutch, implying they viewed it and thought the contact was not appropriate for the situation, despite the fact that two teacher eyewitnesses saw nothing untoward happening in real time.  It seems unfair to justice that the jurors would have been able to review this footage outside of the tribunal, when Marshall wouldn't even introduce it in her presentation other than giving it a ton of credence (without showing it, naturally).  The legitimacy of this inquest should really be put into question for anyone who has any respect for due process, for the simple fact that the only physical evidence used to prove the point was not shown at the hearing.  

Truly, I should be able to show and tell you what the video points at, but the LASD and their FOIA Coordinator Mary Marshall have blocked all of my attempts to get the truth out.  The truth just doesn't work for them in this case, and so they will do their darndest to keep it to themselves and make the corrupt lies of Laura Holmes and Mary Marshall into the semblance of reality for as long as possible. 

We asked for investigation records associated with this February 26 event in mid-May and were given an extension for compilation of these records shortly thereafter, finally getting a response on June 9th denying access to the records because it was an ongoing investigation.  The revelation that the school issued a notice of termination to Eisinger on June 1, had me seek out that document and learn that the investigation had been over before that. 

Mary Marshall told us an easily verified flat out lie to hide public records a week before this unholy tribunal.  Marshall may think that telling lies is a feat of skill when done by Laura Holmes, but any reasonable citizen who doesn't want to see their local school district be at the center of a (very avoidable) costly, hysterical, political exercise, thinks it's a bad parting gift.  I presented my own case to the board, as written below in an email:

"Interim Superintendent Mary Marshall has committed intentional FOIA violations, and this letter is an effort to make the board aware of her deceit and of my intention to seek relief in the local court for her highly unethical acts as concerns the district's FOIA response where she certified that all investigative records requested were exempt using a false exemption.

Attachment 1 is Marshall's signed response on June 9. It indicates that all records associated with the overall investigation are exempt because she writes: "a public body may withhold records related to an ongoing investigation... It is acknowledged that this exemption applies only while the investigation is “ongoing,” and that this investigation is expected to conclude on June 15, 2026"

Imagine my shock at the June 15 meeting when we heard that Eisinger had been sent Attachment 2 on June 1st, the charges Marshall was seeking to take to that meeting so Eisinger and her attorney could address it. Due process requires that an investigation should be concluded before final charges are leveled against the accused, as does your own policy, sent to me as part of my request (Attachment 3, Policy 3139 Staff Discipline) which says investigations shall be made timely and: "After completion of the investigation, if discipline is to be imposed, the teacher shall receive written notice of the discipline and this notice shall also be placed in the teacher's file."

The June 1st notice signaled the "completion of the investigation" but I was told on June 9th that the investigation would not be completed until June 15 and so records of what was a completed investigation were withheld unlawfully and intentionally, since any long-term administrator like Mary Marshall would have known that she can't send a letter out like the one she did on June 1 without having a completed investigation. Frankly, when I sent my FOIA appeal by email to each trustee and sat with three senior trustees at the June 10 committee meeting to discuss the troubling issues of that and another FOIA response, Marshall and Mike Hart defended their investigation as ongoing, their exemption as proper.

The June 1 letter indicates I was lied to, this happened in person with everyone knowing that the investigation was not ongoing. That letter also indicates every aspect of an investigation would have been over in early March; it's apparent that the district's goal was to extend the faux investigation period by over 100 days so that the predetermined result would not take place until after summer vacation was here so the aftereffect would be minimal.

The problem is that multiple violations of the bylaws happened in all of this prevaricating, and if the district is consistent with enforcing minor and/or questionable violations as they did with Principal Eisinger, I want future iterations of the board to hold all who were responsible for all of the impropriety in this fiasco to account.

But as I have little faith in the school board to hold a fair administrative appeal of my FOIA response after what happened on June 15, I will be taking this to the circuit court and asking for the records (which still haven't been provided) and seek punitive damages for the district acting in bad faith, willfully and intentionally failing to comply with FOIA, which could cost the district up to $9500 more.

Two days after this meeting, and after sending a reminder to Mary Marshall immediately after I reviewed the meeting and witnessed her duplicity in asking her to produce the responsive records, I have got nothing in return. If I am not contacted and given all records responsive to my request by this weekend, I will pursue litigation. I would also ask the board to reconsider their vote regarding Principal Eisinger held that night on account that this dishonest interim superintendent and her highly biased and engineered investigation was as lax on the truth as she is.