As you may know, the Lakeville School District’s North High School’s athletic director recently plead guilty to his second DUI in the last four years. While he has sought treatment and the school district is behind his attempt at recovery, according to an article in SunThisweek, many parents are up in arms over this DUI and some provided very strong opinions about his drinking and driving.
From the article:
In an email, Gail Rutan said she was “appalled” by the situation and asked for his dismissal.
“His role is so much more than a teacher,” she wrote in the Jan. 4 email. “He is in charge of addressing all of the issues of alcohol and drug issues with students and parents. There is NEVER a reason to get behind the wheel of a car after even one drink. By not taking actions, which the community is aware of, you seem to be condoning his behavior. This is very confusing for the students and community.”
Katherine Grant-Erickson said in an email Ertl should be “made an example of what NOT to do.”
While I certainly do not condone DWI, especially a second offense, I cannot see how people can justify wanting to oust an individual who sought treatment and is actively working on his sobriety simply because he holds a district position. While people are free to share their opinions, it would seem that the comment from Gail Rutan is by far the most ridiculous. Claiming there is “NEVER” any reason for someone who has had one drink to get behind the wheel is asinine. We have laws which permit those who have a reasonable amount to drink to operate a vehicle legally. Drinking alcohol is an acceptable thing to do for adults and to claim otherwise harkens back to the failed experiment of the 1920s and early 1930s. Gail, by all means abstain from driving after drinking one adult beverage but the rest of us are free to do so within known limits.
What do you think about this one? Should an apparent alcoholic who was immediately upfront about the DWI and who entered treatment to try and resolve the problem be treated differently than others simply because he’s an athletic director of a public school? Do you think there is a valid reason to get behind the wheel of a car after one drink? Whatever you have to say about this one go ahead and comment on as I’d love to hear your thoughts.
Dakota Complaints Map
Dakota Inmate Dashboard
Loading ...
January 10th, 2013 at 8:28 am
I mostly agree with you on this one. While I take great issue with a person getting his second DUI, I think it is up to the employer (regardless of the profession) to make a decision on the status of this employee based on his actions.
Last I looked, school administrators are not required to drive in order to be good at their jobs. Assuming this guy was not on his way to work when he got busted, I think his employers should be concentrating on how drinking overall has affected this person’s ability to do his job. That he has now taken steps to recover from what we have judged as a disease, then I think that needs to be taken seriously as well.
If I had a few lumps of coal and access to Katherine Grant-Erickson’s bung hole, I am pretty sure I could make a lot of money making slave free diamonds, and it is not just the hyphenated name that tipped me off. What a crank.
I eat out 4-5 times per week, and I usually have 1-2 servings of wine or beer when I go out. I’ve never left a place thinking it was a bad idea to climb behind the wheel, particularly since dining usually last 90 minutes to a couple of hours. My body has mostly oxidized that first one according to science, and one drink probably puts me at .03% or so and well below any concerns for me or law enforcement.
I shudder to think what would happen to most of our favorite restaurants if we were in a zero tolerance driving world. Their profit is significantly derived by alcoholic beverages, and cutting that out from a large percentage of diners would probably be a death knell for many of them.
lefty
January 10th, 2013 at 8:41 am
I just realized that most of my vitriol towards Katherine Grant-Erickson should have been directed at Gail Rutan as well, but asking Bill to edit to the proper name would have negated the reason for the diamond/hyphenated name joke, and I just couldn’t let be.
January 10th, 2013 at 8:50 am
Couple thoughts come to my mind-
In general I agree with you, one drink seems absurd. The Tavern League in WI, who controls the state legislature would tell you 4-5 drinks is Ok.. but that’s them.
On the other hand, an alcoholic doesn’t get a break. One drink is too many. Means hes drinking again. Not taking recover seriously and will kill someone one day.
January 10th, 2013 at 9:11 am
First, I am pleasantly amused, and a little shocked, at Lefty’s jab at hyphenated names. I kind of assumed Lefty’s legal name had a hyphen or two.
Second, one could argue that this guy’s negative experiences with alcohol may make him a more believable voice in the schools. He can honestly tell students how alcohol has negatively affected his life. When schools bring in high impact speakers to scare the kids straight they don’t ask Katherine Grant-Erickson to speak, they ask someone who has killed people while driving drunk.
Lastly, I am surprised there wasn’t more comments on yesterday’s post. I thought it would be a hot topic.
January 10th, 2013 at 9:12 am
Can we just chalk up the “ONE drink” comment as stupid and move on?
Obviously few, if any, of us know the ins and outs of his position, etc. But, I agree that his position is one that requires more accountability in personal life than the average job. I would like to see him receive notice that he will not be renewed in his position (the required 6-month notice of non-renewal formality) and that he will have to re-interview along with any other qualified applicants for his job when the time comes. That would be one way to implement immediate accountability.
My opinion is that he should also have a number of “probationary” conditions to continuing in his current position/responsibilities. These would include verification of continued treatment, signing affadavits of sobriety, etc.
I would especially like to see a new responsibility added to his position: Organizing and implementing a symposium for his students on the impacts of alcohol use/abuse. He should be required to speak to the students, but also bring in parents of kids that have been killed as a result of drunk driving, former addicts/offenders willing to speak, etc. This would be VERY easy to coordinate; probably no more than a call or two to the local MADD chapter to start.
And, since I’ve been kind of lagging in thumbs downs lately, I’d like to add a personal statement that will probably annoy some: FUCK YOU to you people who drive drunk. Since statistics bear out that about 1/7 of Minnesotans have a DWI on record, I may be talking to people reading here. I fantasize about catching a drunk driver and punching him or her repeatedly in the face. That said, I’d never do it because unlike these scumbags, I’m not so eager to throw away my life and/or take someone else’s. But I wish every conceivable misery – be it job loss, relationship loss, or whatever – on any of you people that drive drunk. Go straight to hell, drunk drivers.
January 10th, 2013 at 9:17 am
Why are you surprised? It seems pretty clear that it’s simply a group of cops that are undertrained and did something stupid. The lack of comments just means the common sense folk outweigh the anti-cop slippery slope conspiracy theorists on Lazy Lightning. Even you started your comment with “I’m surprised this made news”.
January 10th, 2013 at 9:35 am
I also have a standard for acceptable behavior, I call it law abiding. After that it seems to me to be a matter of personal preference.
DUI laws do not have occupational considerations and alcoholism is considered a disability under ADA rules. So the teacher could only be fired his behavior resulted in performance problems or misconduct at the workplace. Since he has is in treatment addressing his problem this seems to be a personal matter and a complete non-issue unless his employment contract forbids consuming alcohol.
January 10th, 2013 at 9:35 am
Per the ADA website:
An alcoholic is a person with a disability and is protected by the ADA if s/he is qualified to perform the essential functions of the job. An employer may be required to provide an accommodation to an alcoholic. However, an employer can discipline, discharge or deny employment to an alcoholic whose use of alcohol adversely affects job performance or conduct. An employer also may prohibit the use of alcohol in the workplace and can require that employees not be under the influence of alcohol.
Can’t fire him for being an alcoholic. Can’t fire him for getting DWIs. Unless he shows up drunk to work or can’t perform his duties, they can’t fire him.
January 10th, 2013 at 10:24 am
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
January 10th, 2013 at 12:54 pm
Do you think there is a valid reason to get behind the wheel of a car after one drink?
———————-
As the daughter of someone who was hit by a driver who had “just one drink”, no. It’s not rocket science. Why risk it and drive at all?
I’m a very small person with no tolerance. “Just one drink” would seriously impair my judgement on the road.
January 10th, 2013 at 1:14 pm
I always find these topics interesting. I think my viewpoint on drunk driving is well known, and for the most part it is very similar to what is noted above by MSPD. There is no excuse for it, and it should be VERY harshly penalized.
That said, I cant agree with the statement that nobody should drive after one drink, and I while I would argue strongly that ks has the right to decide if she should drive after one drink, I would also argue strongly that she does not have the right to tell me I should not.
I left the dentist recently with a prescription for Vicodin, and I have a prescription from my doctor for another type of pain killer for some back pain I am dealing with. I wonder how many people that we meet on the roads every day are taking one form or another of prescription pain killer which is often narcotic in nature and continue to drive without giving it a second thought?
All of the above said, I still think that cell phones and driving are far bigger problems than drinking and driving.
January 10th, 2013 at 1:30 pm
An employee who was charged with a DWI and in a program to help with addiction gets a second DWI. I think it’s completely fair for the employer to question the employees qualifications and consider terminating the employment. Granted, I do not know what he told his employer from the first conviction but I suspect that the second conviction violated what he had told his employer earlier.
In general, I am not a fan of trying to filter out staff working at schools to the point when they become a fish bowl completely disconnected to the society. The more employee behavior rules created makes this problem worse. A school serve it’s students best when it reflects the society that it serves.
However for criminal offenders, especially crimes that young people are likely to consider it seems fair to attempt to minimize their role as rolemodels in a school.
About the one drink comment, I think she has a point. If someone is going to work as a role model for a sober lifestyle for kids. You cannot have someone who is failing at it be that person. If you are honestly attempting a sober lifestyle there is no difference between one or twenty drinks, either represents a failure.
January 10th, 2013 at 1:37 pm
Jonas,
I think you are reading it wrong. His first arrest was 4 years ago, and reduced to a careless driving. After the second, he went to his employer and informed them of the deal and entered treatment at that point. Not condoning any of it, but he clearly made some proper decisions after deciding to endanger his life as well as others.
Also, I disagree with your point about a sober lifestyle for kids (which is the law) and staying drink free as an adult. It is not against the law for a teacher to have a drink, or 3 or 20 like it is those kids.
lefty
January 10th, 2013 at 2:37 pm
Just for the sake of argument, I am guessing that his entry into a treatment program was less about him deciding he needed a change in his life and more about him keeping his job.
January 10th, 2013 at 2:52 pm
Most people I know have ONE drink when they go out to eat. Most people I know aren’t drunk or impaired after one drink (at least anymore than they are driving with little sleep, distracted by their cell phone, etc). It’s absurd to think that one drink should be some type of limit. That being said – I agree that no one should drive drunk. On a separate note – teaching our CHILDREN to not drive even after one drink is a good idea. As long as it doesn’t impact this guy’s job performance – it is none of our business. Really? Are you going to start policing those teachers that verbally abuse their spouses? Smoke cigarettes? Get speeding tickets? Come on!! You can’t police everyone’s behavior to that extent and do you really want to? At some point – no one is going to get anything done because we are so wrapped up in what everyone else is doing.
January 10th, 2013 at 6:52 pm
In the eighties my sister was a teacher in a small town. It was made clear to her that she could not been seen in public in a short skirt, a two-piece swimsuit, or drinking alcohol. Period.
It is a terrible web we weave if we choose to portray any group of adults as “perfect” to children. One of the most important lessons that we learn growing up is that we all have our flaws, and it is how we deal with them – thru tolerance of others’ failings or striving to become better people ourselves – that is an important life lesson.
January 10th, 2013 at 7:28 pm
I wonder how many people who have and still agree that driving drunk is a terrible thing to do yet have been arrested for drunk driving once? How about arrested for drunk driving more than once? My guess is quite a few, and I label those people Alcoholics. It is hard for non Alcoholics to understand how hard it is for an Alcoholic to not drink and drive. Logic doesn’t prevent these people from acting out because logic isn’t playing a role in their actions.
As far as not driving after one drink, well I suppose that depends. Assuming one drink doesn’t cause your blood alcohol limit to be above .02, then it’s probably not a problem.
January 10th, 2013 at 9:09 pm
I agree that 1-2 drinks for an adult male is not generally a problem for driving. BUT if you are pulled over by the police for any reason and IF they smell alcohol on your breath and/or ask you directly if you have had anything to drink—-then you either say yes or you lie and say no. If you say yes, they will say how much—-and you will say 1 or 2 drinks. Of course, you have just dug a very big hole because any police officer worth their salt will not believe you and will have “probable cause” to make you do the walk around the car and take a breath test. Now, if you lie, and they smelled alcohol on your breath, you have dug an even bigger hole for yourself………So while its not a problem to drink and drive after 1 or 2 drinks you take a risk that may at a minimum delay your trip home. So I personally will have my wife drive home if I have a drink at dinner. Why take the risk if you don’t have to?
January 11th, 2013 at 12:16 am
Remember that this man doesn’t have just any district position. He is in a position where part of his job is to promotes abstinence from alcohol to students and he may also be involved in the disciplining of students who have alcohol violations. He is an authority figure to students. If he had made some other mistake that wasn’t so directly related to part of his job, that would be a different story. But now it would seem that he’s lost his credibility to students and has set a bad example. I am glad he is seeking treatment and addressing his problems, but it doesn’t change the fact that he’s had two arrests for DUI and is still in a position where part of his job is to tell students not to drink. On another note, I am surprised to hear that his yearly salary is over $100,000, if the article quoted that correctly. That is a pretty high salary, IMO.
January 11th, 2013 at 12:44 am
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
January 11th, 2013 at 7:40 am
Dee,
Sorry if you got offended by my great joke. I was pretty drunk when I wrote it.
Go buy yourself some coal.
lefty
January 11th, 2013 at 7:48 am
Dee, your argument above makes no sense. Someone who has had issues with drinking and understands the problems it can cause in your life is exactly the type of person who should be in this type of role. I don’t know if this guy is that person, but I am guessing you don’t either.
In addition, his salary has nothing in the world to do with this conversation.
January 11th, 2013 at 8:42 am
Lefty, that last comment was a “gem.” I think I am falling in love with you.
January 11th, 2013 at 9:13 am
“He is in a position where part of his job is to promotes abstinence from alcohol to students and he may also be involved in the disciplining of students who have alcohol violations.”
Yeah, and? The fact that people make mistakes is probably the most valuable lesson his students can learn. Alcoholism is not something that can simply be cured, and people who suffer from it often slip up and make mistakes. An important part of life is admitting that you have made a mistake and take responsibility for it. Which it looks like this teacher is doing. Kids shouldn’t feel that one can NEVER make a mistake EVER and must do the right thing all of the time. That’s just ludicrous. Kids need to learn that there are always consequences to actions and how to make good decisions.
January 11th, 2013 at 11:13 am
I agree with Chad, drunk driving is no joke, but cell phone use and more specifically texting while driving is potentially more dangerous. At least someone who has had a couple of drinks is probably trying to concentrate on the road.
Last night I came across someone doing no more than 40mph in the left lane on 35W and drifting towards the center median. When I got along side them they were staring at some sort of electronic device. They had their head down for several seconds at a time.
I will drive home after having a couple beers. I know my limits. I also know that if I drink too much I have several people I can call to give me a ride, and those people know that they can call me.
January 11th, 2013 at 11:14 am
Thanks NW Rochester Guy.
I appreciate it the nice comment. I have always thought that there needs to be a good laugh here and there when discussing drunk driving.
lefty
January 13th, 2013 at 8:29 am
I like the discussion that’s happening here. I personally don’t have an issue driving after 1 drink for myself, mainly because I’m a fairly large (tall, a little hefty) guy and we all know the science behind how the body metabolises alcohol. After 2, I have to ask my wife or someone else who is with me to drive just to be on the safe side.
I had to laugh a little bit; in the middle of this post, ironically there was an ad for a breathalizer.
January 15th, 2013 at 11:45 am
As a Lakeville parent of two student-athletes, I have been required to attend Mr. Ertl’s “expectations” meetings many, many times. Were you aware that Lakeville’s substance policy is TOUGHER than required by the MN State High School League? That the penalties for getting caught drinking, smoking or using banned substances are much more severe than the penalties faced by student-athletes in other districts? Mr. Ertl advocates for holding these kids to a higher standard than other students in MN, so it just seems hypocritical that he expects everyone to give him a pass on his SECOND drunk driving arrest in 4 years.
I don’t think he should be fired as a teacher, but I do think he should be removed as Athletic Director – he has no credibility left with the parents or students.
January 15th, 2013 at 3:17 pm
Interesting post by Michan. Generally, I don’t see how this has to do with the guy’s job. Given that Lakeville has taken on tougher limits than the rest of the state for infractions related to drinking – it may be warranted to have his punishment be more severe also.
January 15th, 2013 at 5:15 pm
“Morals Clauses” from the sixties (?) and before come to mind here. When two people who worked for my father back then created a baby out of wedlock, he was required by corporate to fire the female on morals issues. The man was not punished.
January 17th, 2013 at 10:43 pm
“Mr. Ertl advocates for holding these kids to a higher standard than other students in MN, so it just seems hypocritical that he expects everyone to give him a pass on his SECOND drunk driving arrest in 4 years.”
But is he really getting a pass on this? I’ve never been to rehab, but I”m sure it’s not a picnic, not to mention the various other legal penalties of a 2nd DUI. Should he lose his job on top of it when he’s obviously willing to take corrective measures?
February 26th, 2013 at 7:41 pm
http://sunthisweek.com/2013/02/26/after-dwi-lakeville-north-ad-agrees-to-leave-position-heads-for-classroom/