CMS firing runs counter to deputy's testimony

EDITOR'S NOTE: This is the fourth of eight articles about the termination hearing and ultimate firing of Jann Gibson, principal of Cutter Morning Star Elementary School. The Cutter Morning Star School District held the hearing from 5 p.m. Friday to almost 1:20 a.m. Saturday. Board members voted at the end of the hearing to fire Gibson.

The decisions by the Cutter Morning Star School Board to accept the reasons set forth by Superintendent Nancy Anderson for the termination of employment of Jann Gibson, former elementary school principal, and to ultimately fire Gibson run counter to testimony from other school employees and sheriff's Deputy Mark Kizer.

Anderson said she had no knowledge of an incident in April in which a male elementary school student was paddled and his mother filed a report against the employee who carried out the paddling, Kent Wasson, a physical education teacher and coach at Cutter Morning Star. She confirmed during questioning Gibson was suspended on Oct. 11 due to two investigations by the Arkansas Department of Human Services for suspected child maltreatment.

The parent testified on Friday she filed a report with the Arkansas State Police Crimes Against Children Division. The report against Wasson was investigated in the spring and he was cleared of the allegations. The parent also claimed she was previously investigated by DHS based on a report made by a school official.

According to letters Gibson received from DHS on Nov. 27, the parent filed a separate claim four months later against her on the same date, Oct. 6, as another parent filed a claim for a paddling carried out by Gibson in the current school year. Gibson observed the paddling by Wasson in April.

Wasson was suspended at the same time as Gibson, four months after he was cleared by DHS. The DHS letters to Gibson stated "the allegations were not supported by a preponderance of evidence" and were determined to be "unsubstantiated."

The Sentinel-Record follows The Associated Press privacy guidelines and does not identify possible juvenile victims of abuse, or the names of their parents, which could potentially identify them. Both parents stated who testified Friday stated their names during the hearing and the names of both children were publicly stated multiple times by various officials.

Kizer, a veteran law enforcement officer of more than 20 years, said the first parent showed him pictures on her phone of the child's bottom several hours later to ask him if the red marks he sustained from the paddling constituted child abuse. He said the parent pulled her son's pants down in private just enough for Kizer to observe any possible bruising.

"And there was no red marks," Kizer said. "There was nothing. I looked at her and I said, 'There's nothing.' She said, 'You're good with this?' I said, 'I'm fine with this. I don't see any problems whatsoever. I mean, you approved it. I think a child gets a spanking, you're going to have a red mark. That's just the way it is.'

"And she was really nice about it. She gave me a hug. Everything was fine. That was the last thing I heard about it until two weeks later."

The parent said she showed pictures on her phone of bruising on her son to Gibson and could not recall if she showed Kizer. She said she did not show any part of her son to Kizer in person.

Kizer said he learned of the DHS investigation from an agency official while he was working off duty at Oaklawn Racing and Gaming. He said he relayed the information to Anderson, but said she acted like the situation was not a concern.

"I was not aware of the corporal punishment being administered in April, nor was I aware of the bruising that occurred, nor was I aware of the DHS investigation that was opened up on one of my employees," Anderson said. "I was only notified of that in August the next school year when I came back and received a letter from DHS."

Wasson was not suspended in August. Gibson confirmed she did not document the corporal punishment of the child in August, but the parent said she did consent to the paddling and the elementary school does not have a policy for the reporting of corporal punishment.

Gibson's attorney, Robert Newcomb, of Little Rock, asked Anderson if she had any conversations with Kizer about the incident in April.

"Not to my knowledge," Anderson said.

"In August, when I visited with Deputy Kizer, he said that he told me, but I do not remember that conversation ever occurring," Anderson added.

Newcomb said in his closing argument he felt it was not believable for Anderson not to remember if any such correspondence occurred.

"It is interesting to me that Dr. Anderson said she does not remember that conversation happening, but didn't want to say it didn't happen," Newcomb said. "'I don't remember it.'

"That doesn't make sense for a woman who seems to have a big deal about wanting to know about any investigation. It isn't logical that she is telling the truth. She has no credibility on that."

Kizer said Anderson questioned him about the incident in August. He said she only hinted at the incident at first.

"She goes, 'I know everything that goes on in this school. I've got eyes and ears everywhere,'" Kizer said. "I said, 'I don't know what you're talking about.'

"Finally, she started telling me about the paddling and she accused me of sleeping with Ms. Gibson."

Kizer said she told him she would have conversations with Garland County Sheriff Mike McCormick. Kizer said he took her statements as a threat to his job.

Anderson was the fourth and final person called to testify by the administration's legal representatives, Jay Bequette and Cody Kees of the Bequette & Billingsley law firm in Little Rock. She was questioned and cross-examined for more than an hour.

Kizer was the first of nine individuals called by Newcomb after Anderson testified. Anderson was not recalled. Kees asked Kizer to confirm Anderson appeared upset about the DHS investigations.

"No, she was angry at me because she was trying to get me to say stuff that -- it was like she was trying to put words in my mouth," Kizer said. "I was not going to let that happen."

Kizer said he was called by his bosses at the sheriff's department at 7 a.m. on a Saturday morning to inform him he was placed under a gag order and was unable to speak about Gibson's suspension. He said Newcomb had to call the sheriff's office to obtain permission for Kizer to speak at Friday's hearing.

Newcomb provided a letter to the board before the meeting requesting President Mark Rash and Secretary Donna Fincher recuse themselves from the hearing for public statements they previously made in support of Anderson. He was unable to address the request on Friday until 30 minutes into the hearing.

Rash delivered a statement in defense of Anderson after the board's meeting on Nov. 21. He said critics of the board and Anderson should "take a hike."

"Transparency is a relationship between this board and that superintendent," Rash said. "If she does it, it is because we asked her to do it or she came to us to ask permission. If she spent a dime, we told her to spend a dime."

Fincher made lengthy remarks in a Facebook post on Nov. 22.

"We are done dealing with your ridiculous accusations and you are welcome to 'take a hike' if you don't like what we represent," Fincher posted. "He stated that Dr. Anderson answers to the school board only. She is doing exactly what she has been told to do. She is, as you would say, very transparent with us.

"We know every dime that she spends. We know and have approved every hotel she has stayed in and every conference she has attended because we have given her the authority to do what she needs to do for this school ... for your kids."

The board was represented on Friday by attorney Sharon Street. She was charged with conducting the hearing and advising the board on matters of law and procedure. She read Newcomb's letter into the record.

"If the board can assure everyone under oath at the start of the hearing that they have not expressed public support for Dr. Anderson or that their spouses have not expressed public support for Dr. Anderson, I have no objections to them hearing the case if they not also had conversations with Dr. Anderson about the facts of the case," Street read from Newcomb's letter.

Rash and Fincher each answered questions from Street to say they were not aware of the superintendent's reasons for termination, did not direct Anderson to seek termination, did not consult with Anderson before the hearing and did not have preconceived ideas about their final ruling. Both board members said they could deliver unbiased decisions.

"Mr. Newcomb, based on that, I am not going to ask them to recuse," Street said.

Local on 12/20/2017

Upcoming Events