Cherry Valley-Springfield math teacher William Shaul, who was found by a hearing officer to have engaged "in flirtatious and unwelcome conduct of a sexual or romantic nature" toward a minor student in 2000, has won a grievance against the district to gain unrestricted access to the campus once again.

The grievance was filed on Shaul's behalf by The Cherry Valley-Springfield Teachers Association, and stated that the Cherry Valley-Springfield Central School District was placing restrictions upon a unit member.

On June 23, 2000, district superintendent Thomas Marzeski informed Shaul by letter that he would be restricted in his access to the school. He was told not to report to school any earlier than one half hour prior to the official start of classes, and was required to leave school grounds no later than 3:01, 15 minutes after the official dismissal of classes.

Shaul, the highest paid teacher in the district with a salary of $66,775, testified that he usually arrives at work at 6:20 a.m. and sometimes stays until 11 p.m.

An arbitrator, Peter Prosper, reviewed the grievance and filed his findings in a recent report. A background section sums up the conflict in a nutshell.

"The superintendent's action was based on a disciplinary proceeding (State Education Law, Section 3020-a) in which the Hearing Officer found Mr. Shaul guilty of conduct unbecoming a teacher for his actions toward two female students. The District stated that it was taking precautionary measures to protect female students from conduct...which might occur on school grounds outside the regular school day when there was no other adult employee to supervise [Mr. Shaul's] interactions with female students," wrote Prosper.

Shaul was found culpable twice during two separate 3020-a hearings. These procedures are the sole method by which disciplinary charges against tenured teachers are decided. The first hearing resulted in a $3,500 fine and the second in four months suspension from work without pay.

The hearing officer, Thomas N. Rinaldo, wrote in his decision that termination would be "too severe a penalty," after the second hearing, during which Shaul was cleared on three of four charges and found to have engaged in "flirtatious and unwelcome conduct of a sexual or romantic nature toward a minor student."

"We won the case," Shaul said at the time. "The three serious charges were dismissed. The hearing officer saw their case for what it was, something that could qualify as one of the great works of American fiction."

-ular instance," Marzeski said.

The hearing officer saw their case for what it was, something that could qualify as one of the great works of American fiction."

The district was required to allow Shaul to return to work.

"I want to assure people that with his past history, he will be closely monitored," Marzeski said.

Marzeski said at the time that he was disappointed with the results of the hearing and the laws governing the procedure. His reaction to Shaul's recent victory was similar.

"I am disappointed with the arbitrator's decision in this particular instance," Marzeski said.

"We won the case," Shaul said at the time. "The three serious charges were dismissed. The hearing officer saw their case for what it was, something that could qualify as one of the great works of American fiction."

The district was required to allow Shaul to return to work.

"I want to assure people that with his past history, he will be closely monitored," Marzeski said.

But Prosper has determined that the district's effort to make good on this promise is not acceptable.

"While it is understandable that the district wished to take cautionary action to prevent the abuse of female students, its impositions of restrictions on [Shaul] were violations of the collective bargaining agreement. To restrict one person in the bargaining unit from participating in activities that all others enjoyed is disparate treatment. Granted that he was found guilty of misconduct, and granted that the district believed it acted reasonably to protect female students...To deny [Shaul] access to his building does deprive him of benefits previously enjoyed. It also sets him apart from other teachers," wrote Prosper.

Prosper goes on to "reject the district's argument" that because Shaul alone was convicted of certain actions, he should be the only teacher to receive specific restriction.

The Cherry Valley-Springfield Teacher's Association is represented by president Margaret Bouck, a high school English teacher.

"This is not about Bill Shaul. I can't pick and choose which members to defend. This is about protecting the rights of teachers. Our rights are very clearly spelled out in our contract," Bouck said.

Bouck declined to comment on whether the contract includes guidelines for the manner in which teachers are expected to treat students. The contract, a public document, is vague with regard to the ethical behavior of teachers, focusing instead on their employment rights, but does contain a Maintenance of Standards Clause that requires teachers to follow school board policy.

Marzeski said all district employees are subject to provisions of the board policy, which is specific with regard to ethical standards. That policy reads:

"The Board of Education affirms its commitment to non-discrimination and recognizes its responsibility to provide for all District students an environment that is free of sexual harassment and intimidation....Generally, sexual harassment is defined as unwelcomed sexual advances, requests for sexual favors and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when," the policy reads, then lists three different scenarios, the last of which is, "Such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with a student's academic performance or participation in an educational or extracurricular activity, or creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive learning environment."

According to Bouck, the Teacher's Association did attempt to informally resolve the matter before pursuing a formal arbitration on behalf of Shaul.

She had no comments about Shaul or his actions.

Prosper wrote, "The district may take other steps to attempt to insure that [Shaul] does not repeat his actions, but those steps may not violate any of the terms of the collective bargaining agreement."

The report does not specify what these steps might be.

Marzeski said the current collective bargaining agreement is in place until July 1, 2003, and it is customary for proposals to be put on the table six months prior to the expiration of the contract.

"It is too early to project what's going to be proposed," Marzeski said when asked about the possibility of the district seeking changes to reflect a perceived necessity to restrict teachers who have been convicted of certain behaviors affecting minors.

In May, Shaul filed a lawsuit against the school, charging they illegally searched his room and seized property dating back to the start of his employment in 1969 he claims has never been returned. This suit is still pending.

Shaul did not respond to three telephone messages asking for comment.