The former principal of a "large Auckland school" employed a relative facing allegations of a sexual nature, despite knowing he had been interviewed by police.
The principal was censured by the Teacher's Disciplinary Tribunal after being found guilty of serious misconduct over a series of employment and vetting failures. The principal, school, relative, and other parties are under permanent name suppression, meaning they cannot be identified.
The principal's relative worked as a teacher aide and even attended an overnight school camp.
He had already worked at the school in a casual capacity between 2017 and 2020 in roles that did not require police vetting. He was one of several employees related to school staff.
In December 2020, he was offered a role as a teacher aide under a fixed-term contract, to start in the next year's first term.
Told of allegations
After he accepted the job, but before he started working, the principal was told her relative was the subject of recent complaints to police and had spoken with officers.
The tribunal described these allegations as being "of a sexual nature". A request was made to the police vetting service in January 2021.
No criminal charges were laid over the allegations, and he denied them.
He was allowed to start work that month, before the vetting results were received. During this time, he worked with a specific student, as well as others when that student was not at school.
In March 2021, police told the school the vetting was incomplete while information was being verified, and instructed it to reapply in May. According to the Tribunal, this never happened.
He continued working at the school and attended a school camp.
He was re-employed as a teacher aide in 2022. When he started in January, he did not have a completed police vet. The principal didn't submit a police vet until March, and the results were released in May.
During his second stint, the relative also worked as an assistant coach for a sports team, attending training and games outside school hours.
The teacher aide resigned after a story about them was published in the media.
That month, the principal asked the deputy principal to create handwritten notes outlining the steps taken to comply with the safety-checking requirements, knowing he had not done so.
There was also a handwritten document titled "Teacher Aide Interview” where he constructed questions and answers. Another "Referee Check" document also outlined a discussion with an unidentified reference. None of the documents were dated.
'Errors of judgement'
In its findings, the Tribunal said the principal "acknowledged errors of judgement" and made a flawed decision, "influenced in part by her familial relationship".
She also offered an "unreserved apology" for the impact on students, staff, and the community.
She said the lack of transparency did not reflect professional standards.
The Tribunal found the principal had prioritised her relative's privacy and job over her legal and professional obligations.
It also found she failed to carry out a proper risk assessment or manage the conflict of interest.
"Members of the public, armed with the facts and knowledge of the relevant legislative requirements, expect children’s workers within schools to be Police vetted with appropriate safety checking and risk assessments.
"In the circumstances, the omissions in the respondent’s risk assessments reflect adversely on her fitness and are likely to bring the profession into disrepute."
The principal was censured and banned from taking up school leadership or management roles for two years. She was also ordered to pay $36,450 towards the Complaints Assessment Committee’s prosecution costs and $15,286.48 to the Tribunal.
SHARE ME