Skit Violated School District Policies; Administrators’ Roles Still Unclear

A controversial skit performed before 215 staff plus student council members at Natrona County High School in late August violated the school district's sexual harassment policy, according to the redacted report of the independent investigator.

However, the deletions of the names of participants and especially administrators, plus contradictory testimony still leaves some issues unresolved.

The skit was part of a "welcoming back" event in which two teachers parodied a “Saturday Night Live” sketch containing ribald jokes about themselves and other staff, sexuality, body parts, and a serial killer.

Powell attorney Tracy Copenhaver wrote the assertion is clear about the violation of the Natrona County School District's policy 4175 that "prohibits sex or gender-based discrimination or harassment and mandates that employees are expected to conduct themselves at all times so as to provide an atmosphere free from sexual discrimination or harassment."

"It is this investigator's opinion ... the verbal conduct of (deleted) and (deleted), as well as their actions, did have the purpose or effect of creating an offensive educational environment and were not welcomed by some of those to whom it was directed, and therefore constitutes sexual harassment in violation of Board Policy 4175," Copenhaver wrote in his Sept. 16 report.

"It is also the opinion of this investigator that neither (deleted) nor (deleted) intended their conduct or comments to be sexually harassing, but nevertheless, that was the effect of their conduct," he wrote. One of those who performed the skit was very remorseful, he added.

However, the role of the administrators is not so clear about who knew what or when. And some administrators apparently knew less than other administrators, he wrote.

Former NCHS principal Dean Kelly, who resigned the day after Copenhaver finished his investigation, said he knew nothing in an exclusive interview with K2 Radio.

Copenhaver wrote of his concerns about numerous contradictory statements made by one administrator regarding what he did an did not hear, and why thought it was inappropriate.

"This investigator is concerned about his statements that he knew it was inappropriate, which is why he held an administrative meeting, which none of the other administrators seem to recall.

"This investigator is concerted about the actions of (deleted) in apparently Sunday night decided to now allow (deleted) to do the introduction but failed to follow through, and then claiming that at 8:00 a.m. on Monday is the first that (deleted) knew (deleted) was going to do the introductions, when all the other administrators confirmed that had been assigned to (deleted) weeks prior.

"This investigator is troubled by (deleted)'s comments about starting an investigation and gathering information which, for the most part, has been denied by the other administrators as well as (deleted) and (deleted).

Copenhaver wrote the skit did not overtly violate the district's anti-bullying policy regarding students, but "it would seem to be common sense that staff would understand similar conduct would not be acceptable toward fellow staff members."

Likewise, the skit did not violate the policy about student clubs and societies, but it was not consistent with the requirements that such organizations contribute to the "improvement of the moral, social and educational experiences of the student body," Copenhaver wrote. "In fact, it was counter to those important standards."

Some other policies were not technically violated but did not meet responsible standards such as those relating to student conduct and educational experience.

Copenhaver wrote the skit violated the policy about academic ethics and expectations. "Some of the the staff being initiated were disrespected and many of the staff in attendance were uncomfortable and offended and we such, were also not respected."

Finally, one part of the skit could have been interpreted as being discriminatory against another's  religion. While that didn't happen overtly, Copenaver warned "this is the type of conduct that can easily turn into a discrimination claim and is one of the reasons why such forms of initiation should not take place."