Gilford School Superintendent Kirk Beitler
(Concord Police mug shot via Concord Patch)
In our legal system and under our constitutional republic, an individual charged with any crime is presumed innocent unless and until convicted under a finding that the charged offense occurred beyond a reasonable doubt.
Also under our legal system, in order for a law enforcement officer to make an arrest, the law enforcement officer must make a finding of probable cause that a criminal offense occurred. In other words, if there is no probable cause found, there should be no arrest.
That being said, if, as has now been reported in several media outlets, that the superintendent of the Gilford schools was arrested on July 6 in Concord and charged with simple assault and domestic violence simple assault, the question arises whether that individual should be allowed to continue in his position, with or without pay, until final adjudication of his case occurs.
In a very well-drafted employment contract in which the employing school district is properly protected, there would be provisions commonly called a “moral turpitude” clause, allowing the employer to suspend or terminate the employment of an individual based on breaches, or alleged breaches, of defined standards of conduct.
As of now, it is not publicly known whether the existing contract between the Gilford Schools and its superintendent has such provisions, but for argument’s sake and based on a review of prior government employment contracts in the Lakes Region, it should probably be assumed that no such provisions are in the contact.
And it is not known whether the Gilford School Board has adopted any policies to deal with employed personnel who are arrested for criminal offenses, including those involving physical violence.
It has been reported, but not yet confirmed, that the individual involved self-reported his arrest to the Gilford Schools and placed himself on “administrative leave” until his court case scheduled for October, well after the beginning of the upcoming school year. Whether that “administrative leave” is to be with or without pay has not yet been disclosed. Yet, it has also been reported, but not yet confirmed, that notwithstanding his placing himself on administrative leave he has appeared at the SAU offices on at least one occasion.
It seems to this writer to come down to an analysis of leadership: leadership by the Gilford School Board and of the SAU.
Is it an appropriate example to be set for the children and administrative personnel in our schools for the superintendent of the system to be arrested for a crime of domestic violence, based on a finding of probable cause that the offense occurred?
Or should that individual do the right thing and promptly submit his resignation?
