Trending
JERSEY SHORE -- Pending the possibility of an appeal, Serena Henry is out as Jersey Shore's athletic director following a personnel hearing that lasted almost five hours Tuesday night.
The hearing, which was requested by Henry to be held in public, was in response to her dismissal by the district administration earlier this month.
Despite her claims that she performed her job in spite of being "targeted" by the administration, Henry was unable to convince the school board, who were tasked with deciding if the dismissal should stand or if she should remain in the position she has held since 2019.
Attorney Fred Holland presided as the hearing officer for the proceedings, which he explained would be similar to a hearing in a court of law although the rules of evidence would be more relaxed.
At the center of the administration's termination of Henry as the district's AD were four incidents which they alleged highlighted her incompetence according to Section 514 of the Pennsylvania Public School Code.
The code, Holland explained, gives the school board the right to "remove any of its officers, employees or appointees for incompetency, intemperance, neglect of duty, violation of any of the school laws of this Commonwealth or other improper conduct."
"We will be presenting tonight the replete record of evidence substantiating multiple incidents that ring the bells in the statute...pointing to incompetencies, neglect of duty and other improper conduct on the part of this employee in the performance of her duties," said attorney J. David Smith, who represented the district in the proceedings.
"There are multiple instances, over a period of time, more than a year, where there have been failures in important aspects of this employee’s job to include purchasing of necessary equipment and uniforms for athletics, scheduling transportation, scheduling games and violating directives of the administration relative to her performance," Smith said.
Smith cited three incidents of prior discipline for Henry leading up to the termination, which resulted in a
one-day suspension in April 2022; a two-day suspension in May 2022; and a four-day suspension in November 2022.
"Suffice it to say that the evidence will be substantial that this employee failed to adhere to the duties of her position; that she was given an ample opportunity to perform and that she failed to do so, thus justifying termination for any of the three areas cited or all of the areas I have cited," Smith said.
Smith provided a binder for board members with documentation and written testimony to substantiate the district's reasons for Henry's termination. Superintendent Dr. Brian Ulmer also gave oral testimony at the hearing for the district.
Henry, who claimed that she had not been informed about what she needed to bring to the hearing, did not have her attorney with her or any witnesses to speak for her.
Three items in the athletic director's job description were also cited specifically in reference to the district's claim that she failed to perform her duties. They involved arranging transportation for athletic events, scheduling and maintenance of the athletic calendar for events and practices and the ordering and maintenance of uniforms and athletic equipment and supplies.
In one instance, the district said that Henry had not followed procedures for the purchase of soccer uniforms by not filing a purchase order for the items. Another involved Henry not responding to emails within 48 hours of receiving the communication.
"I learned again after addressing that with other disciplinary incidents that there was continued evidence of failure to respond to communication," Ulmer said.
At the start of her presentation, Henry thanked the board for the opportunity to tell her "side of the story," noting that "this has been the first time I've had this opportunity in my discipline to provide an appeal process."
"All the rest of my disciplines I did send to the PHRC (Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission) because there was no appeal process," Henry said.
Henry, who claimed that she had been "targeted" offered explanations for the incidents cited by the district.
The situation that resulted in her one-day discipline could have been resolved with a phone call, Henry claimed, adding that "it was more important to discipline me with a one-day discipline."
For her second discipline, there was a directive given to Henry to answer phone calls within 48 hours.
"You’ll see that the directive was for 48 hours listed as voicemails, and phone calls. I was disciplined for not answering an email within 48 hours, according to the directive. The directive does not state emails," Henry said in her defense.
For the third discipline she had received, Henry stated that she had defended it "completely" providing documentation and responding within 48 hours. She noted that other administrators had told Ulmer that they had agreed with Henry's defense, a statement which Smith objected to as hearsay.
"I cannot bring those people as witnesses because they are obligated due to their contracts at the open house tonight," Henry countered, referencing the fact that the district had open houses scheduled at the same time as the hearing.
Henry's explanations of the charges against her ranged from not knowing the correct procedures to clerical errors to blaming someone else for the issue. She claimed she was "targeted" by the administration and held to standards that other employees were not and that some of the directives were "changed to fit the discipline."
"Once a disciplinary issue was issued, the only thing was the case that I was actually taking off for those days of discipline. There was no corrective action. There was no communication like, 'hey, what's going on here' or 'this is what I want to see,'" Henry said in response to a question from board member Michelle Stemler.
"A lot of the discipline here could have been prevented with just a phone call," Henry added.
Henry indicated that her last three evaluations had been distinguished, satisfactory and most recently another distinguished.
She pointed to the fact that of 15 athletic teams, 12 made it into the post-season competitions with 10 moving to playoffs.
"I do my job to benefit our athletes and our students...At the end of the day, these items that I am being disciplined for are disputable," Henry contended.
"I fulfilled my job duties, according to the job description. What comes in question is the discipline that I have been issued for these items should have never reached the point of suspension, or termination. These items in front of you are targeted items that are given to me, but not other employees within the district. So your discipline is not equal among all employees, or you would be applying job descriptions in the newspaper for every position of administrators," Henry said.
"The success is shown on how well I do my job. The communication that I have with outside sources with teachers and everything I handle in this position that handles 365 events a year, 97 employees, I do it by myself. I am human and I make errors. I admit to those errors. But when I am targeted time after time after time, it has to come to this. So it comes to your awareness that not all employees are treated equal," Henry said in closing.
Smith, in his closing statement, asked the board to consider Henry's credibility.
"We’re talking about a department head, because overall responsibility as she's made very clear for the athletic functions of this school district. We’re not talking about one incident, we’re talking about multiple incidents, we’re talking about a buildup of one day suspension, two days suspension, four day suspension, all generally in the same scheme of things leading up to this request for determination. This is a question as far as so many cases, based on credibility. You've heard Ms. Henry talk, she’s got an explanation for everything," Smith said.
"She points to little details about January of 2022 versus 2023, by way of saying, 'Oh, that excuses everything that I have done.' She acknowledged an error in the Danville scheduling. But did she admit that she was responsible? No, that was an excuse, just like everything else is an excuse is always somebody else’s fault. It’s always a justification, it's never an acknowledgement of responsibility by a department head, not some other person and some other level," he said.
Members of the audience, most of them supporters of Henry, were given the opportunity to speak at the end of the hearing before the board deliberated. They all lauded her work as the athletic director.
However, the board was not convinced by Henry's arguments or the words of her supporters as they voted unanimously to uphold her dismissal.
Speaking after the hearing, Henry commented that she was not surprised by the outcome of the hearing because in her words, "when you have a bully in charge, you have those outcomes."
"The decision was not in the benefit of our student athletes," she added.