Tried and convicted, yet still being paid

By Jennifer J. Foster

You might remember that earlier this week, Republican gubernatorial candidate Bradley Byrne spotlighted a case from Leroy, Ala., in which a teacher convicted of a sex scandal involving a 14-year-old student continues to receive her paycheck, nearly 16 months after a jury found her guilty.

Byrne pointed out the case as a perfect example of how imperfect the Alabama Tenure Law is—and why it is critical that it be reformed. (Read Byrne’s statement Source.)

Well, CNN has picked up the torch:

Former teacher Charlene Schmitz is behind bars in a federal detention center in Tallahassee, Florida, serving 10 years for using texts and instant messages to seduce a 14-year-old student.

She has been fired from her job as a reading teacher at the high school in Leroy, Alabama.

But she is still collecting a paycheck.

Schmitz is appealing her federal conviction—and her firing. State charges filed in connection with the case are pending. Under the law in Alabama, she is still entitled to her $51,000-a-year salary while she appeals her firing.

School officials are not happy that they now have to pay both Schmitz and her replacement. But her attorney says they must obey the law.

Did you catch that? A convicted felon has raked in about $63,000 since being found guilty.

It gets worse.

Schmitz can continue to collect Alabamians’ tax dollars until her employment appeal is heard ... but that can’t happen until her criminal case is fully resolved—and that means exhausting all avenues for appeal.

Schmitz is appealing her criminal conviction. If a federal appeals court refuses to hear the appeal, she could pursue it to the U.S. Supreme Court.

If, on the other hand, her appeal is heard at any point along the way, and her conviction is overturned, that means a new trial ... then new appeals ... and on and on.

But that’s not all. Once the federal case is resolved, prosecutors will proceed with the state’s criminal case against Schmitz ... which means another trial, and, almost certainly, more appeals.

CNN puts it mildly: “The criminal appeals could delay the employment appeal for years.“

Meanwhile, Schmitz continues to rake in the dough.

Let’s be conservative and estimate that it will be five years from the time of Schmitz’s first conviction and the dispensation of her final appeal on the last criminal charges. Taxpayers of this state will have handed over more than a QUARTER MILLION DOLLARS to her while she sits in jail—a quarter million dollars that could, and should, be used to educate students in Washington County.

That is absolute lunacy.

Schmitz’s lawyer maintains that “the theory behind the law is good. If a teacher feels that he or she is unfairly fired or accused of something by the board, they get a chance to have an outside arbitrator hear the case while continuing to collect pay to support their families.“

Well, the theory behind the law might be good. But it is as poor in practice as it is good in theory if it makes no distinction between baseless accusations made by disgruntled students and federal convictions based on admissible evidence and delivered by a jury of the teacher’s peers.

The Tenure Law needs to be reformed so that teachers who are convicted in court no longer draw tax money away from students and schools who need it. In the event that their appeals are successful and the convictions are vacated, the new Tenure Law can make allowance for those teachers to be paid the back salary they would have earned in the interim.

Think about it: This is how Schmitz is being punished. She isn’t free pending the resolution of her appeals. She’s sitting in federal prison while they are pursued.

Why shouldn’t we expect the same protections for our tax dollars?

Quick take on Obama’s Cairo speech

By Jennifer J. Foster

You’ll hear more from me about this in my print column tomorrow, but I wanted to mention one thing about President Obama’s speech to the Muslim world (transcript and video here) I couldn’t fit in to the paper.

I say in my column that the most interesting part of Obama’s speech, for me, was this line:

But I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly the things we hold in our hearts, and that too often are said only behind closed doors.

I analyze that statement for you in the column, but in the meantime, since I’m all for a new era of cultural understanding, here’s what I wonder behind closed doors:

Regarding suicide bombers: The willingness to sacrifice one’s life for principle is not unique, thank God, to violent Islamic extremists. America was founded, and democracy has been constantly defended, by courageous American men and women who were willing to make that conscious choice. What is unique, and what will forever separate Islamic militants from our Armed Forces, is the militants’ willingness – indeed, their intention – to target innocents. Why aren’t peaceful Muslims more outraged by their actions and more determined to stop them? Why don’t they treat them like the cancer they are on Islam?

Regarding Israel and the Palestinians: How can the hatred of one’s political enemy be so great that generations of mothers would rather tolerate seeing their children caught up in indiscriminate, ubiquitous violence that threatens their lives than develop, forge and honor a political compromise that could keep those children safe? How can hatred for a stranger trump love for one’s own flesh and blood?

Regarding religious tolerance generally: Why is it that the religious beliefs of Christians in this country are increasingly painted as extremism and condemned as intolerant themselves? How is it possible to practice religious intolerance in the name of tolerance?

Look for my print column tomorrow in the Opelika-Auburn News, or online on Monday.