WASHINGTON COURT HOUSE, Ohio — Allegations uncovered in a 14-page report outlines why a local high school principal was suspended.
Tracy Rose was suspended a few weeks ago as principal at Washington Senior High in Fayette County; he has since been reinstated. When the suspension occurred the school district was mum about why and only said that “allegations were made” against Rose and that no students were involved. Rumors circulated that Rose was having an extramarital affair — perhaps with a female staff member. While the Guardian cannot independently confirm or deny the validity of such rumors, the public can now know the true reason behind the leave of absence.
How it all started.
Rose has been with the district for more than twenty years. His suspension came down after a complaint was filed against him from another staff member within his building earlier this year. In fact, “a complaint” might be putting it lightly. Paperwork shows that the female staff member who took issue with Rose that led to the suspension had a literal notebook full of instances where Rose was allegedly sexist, misogynistic, alpha-superior, and beat his chest a lot — almost quite literally like a male gorilla does to exert dominance.
The Guardian is not naming the female victim because it is the publication’s policy not to identify victims of sexism, chauvinistic-misogynistic behavior, or whistleblowers without their expressed consent. You may read our ethics here.
The complaint filed against Rose is primarily based on personal notes the victim began taking in 2019. The report says there are 48 separate entries, but not all of them were the subject of the investigation because various allegations about an alleged inappropriate relationship with an office secretary were included. The lawyer hired by the district to look into the complaint last month wrote that the inappropriate relationship claims were “previously investigated by another investigator” and would not be included in this case. By excluding the alleged inappropriate relationship, the notebook was left with 29 remaining entries.
The actual allegations.
The allegations against Rose allege that his behavior toward his employees — particularly female ones — is so toxic that it spills over into their personal homes.
In one instance, Rose was accused of inflicting trauma onto the complaining staff member’s own children.
The investigation details that one time the woman had her own children with her at work when she was approached by Rose, who was screaming at her and saying she was inadequate to handle a particular matter, the notes read. Rose reportedly said, “I’ve been at this X amount of years and you need to start taking notes.” Perhaps Rose did not anticipate the woman to interpret his words literally, because note-taking is exactly what the woman did, just not in a way that shined a pretty light on the short-statured man.
Later that night, the woman wrote in her notes that her children were asleep at home when one child woke up at about 2 o’clock in the morning sobbing and said “I don’t want you to go to school. I don’t want him to yell at you.” The woman also produced a picture of a note from her other child that said “I love you, so much. And, I am sorry for not saying stop to Mr. Rose; stand up for yourself.”
Most of the entries in the notebook are general in nature, which makes them difficult to investigate or corroborate, according to the lawyer. For example, an entry dated August 2019 says “TR talked to me about keeping my phone in my office. Said he doesn’t care that I have kids, [that] I’m at work. He had this conversation with me after a …. meeting.”
The entries also relate to anger or outrage expressed by Rose allegedly directed at various teachers. For instance, one entry says Rose was “flaming mad first thing in the AM” and that he said, “I run this place. I am the top of the pyramid. I’m in charge.” The notes say Rose was screaming when he said this and that it was “absolutely a hostile work environment.” Rose told the lawyer he did not recall this incident and said that he can’t imagine saying something like that.
During an after-school event where the woman was volunteering to bake cookies, Rose walked into the kitchen and started to belittle her in front of others, according to her journal.
“You really want us to believe you know about these ovens? …. How would you know about these ovens? …. Do you have a timer on
the cookies?”
Later that night, she said she greeted him and that he said nothing back to her. Because of his aggression, the woman said she was afraid to walk to her car with her children after the event, so she called her husband and stayed on the phone with him.
Not just one, but several victims.
The woman who filed the complaint which led to the investigation and suspension was not the only staff member within the building to have concerns about Rose, but evidently, she was the only person willing to take the leadership step forward and make the sole complaint to hold him accountable.
The investigator wrote that there are dozens of other times where Rose is accused of belittling, taunting, ostracizing, and flat out yelling at teachers:
- Rose told an office worker that she was “just an [expletive] assistant” and that she “needed to stay in her lane.” It was alleged by a second-male teacher that he had been told the same thing at a different time by Rose.
- A female teacher said she felt more like a student than a teacher with the way she gets called to Rose’s office via a note in the middle of class that says, “go to the principal’s office.”
- Another teacher reported that she has seen Rose yell at teachers in meetings and belittle them.
- One staff member reported being nervous talking with Rose because she doesn’t know what type of reaction she will get.
- A seventh teacher explained that she felt nervous and uncomfortable talking with Rose. She said he was described as unapproachable and condescending toward staff. She said if something is not his idea, he hates it; he cannot handle not knowing everything that is going on in the building. She described Rose as unprofessional and lost in his leadership role.
- An eighth teacher said that the way Rose talks with people is demeaning or aggressive. She also noted that the way he calls her to the office makes her nervous.
- A ninth teacher described Rose as angry, intimidating, and manipulative, with his mannerisms being aggressive; a tenth teacher said Rose has to have power over people and is manipulative.
- The eleventh employee interviewed expressed shock that there was a lack of people-managing training for district leaders. The male teacher said that they never know what they’re going to get when they enter the high school office, because “Mr. Rose might be in a bad mood.”
- And a twelfth employee said Rose is not easy to work with, doesn’t fit in with the culture, and is power-hungry. She said she could not trust him and had seen him yell and act unprofessionally.
The women close to Rose.
Two office workers were interviewed during the course of the investigation. One said Rose had an unprofessional relationship with the other.
“Employees are always concerned with the way he will react,” the office worker told the investigator. “He always reacts the wrong way to the wrong thing at the wrong time.”
For example, she said she will “see something serious happen with a teacher and wonder why he won’t discipline them.” However, something insignificant will occur, “and he will get really upset about it.” She said it happens a lot and that she has considered quitting her job over the alleged toxic environment that is created.
The second office worker interviewed is one who has been accused of being a little too friendly with her boss. She sang nothing but praises for her direct supervisor and called the investigation a “witch hunt.”
The report said some teachers had praised the work environment at the high school. Teachers allegedly noted that Rose has been very supportive, easy to work with, passionate about his job, willing to listen, fair, helpful, professional, kind, respectful, and honest; all things Rose agreed with. To back up his side of his story, Rose asked the investigator to speak to union president Tracy Semler; Semler is a teacher with the district and has been president of the body for approximately five years. Much like the one office worker, Semler also issued praise for Rose.
Semler indicated that she has never had a teacher complain to her about Rose while she has been union president for the last five years, despite more than a dozen staff members coming forward to the investigator with concenrs. Semler said she has been in disciplinary hearings with Rose and that she was impressed with how he has handled tough situations.
Enough already. What came of it all?
The lawyer hired to investigate Rose was just that: an investigator. He was not empowered to issue discipline decisions. The investigator wrote that many of the complaints made against Rose by others — including the initial victim — did not have enough evidence to prove or disprove the principal’s actions, despite several witnesses, teachers, and staff having a common theme in their interviews.
“Although I am unable to conclusively determine by a preponderance of the evidence whether the remaining allegations constitute harassment, the working relationship of Mr. Rose and [the victim] must be changed or improved. In addition, there are enough concerns about the work environment in the high school to warrant intervention,” the lawyer wrote to the district’s superintendent.
In his letter to the superintendent, the lawyer wrote that any disciplinary action taken was ultimately up to the Board of Education.
“Whether disciplinary action against Mr. Rose is taken is up to your discretion. Board Policy requires appropriate action that is reasonably calculated to stop harassment and prevent future harassment. These actions can include formal discipline and the potential transfer of employees in accordance with Ohio law and contractual obligations. At a minimum, it is strongly recommended that Mr. Rose be required to attend professional development and leadership training in the areas of supervision, communication, conflict resolution, and professionalism. You may also wish to implement an improvement plan in accordance with [state] requirements.”
Despite that finding, the lawyer said the district should proceed cautiously with retaining Rose as the top dog at the high school.
“Given the issues at the high school described herein, it is not unwarranted to consider whether Mr. Rose is the type of leader you want in charge of that building. If he is not, you will need to consider whether he can change his behaviors to match the ideal leader you desire.”
Where do things stand now?
After being on suspension for a few weeks, Rose was reinstated by the district’s superintendent, Dr. Tom Bailey. As part of his return to work, an “improvement plan” was put in place that Rose must adhere:
- The district has hired an outside consultant to be a “mentor” and full-time buffer between Rose and staff members for the remainder of the school year.
- Rose was removed as the supervisor of the woman who filed the initial complaint.
- The principal must attend leadership training, as well as counseling and anger management.
Bailey also ordered that Rose control his temper at all times and not retaliate against any teachers for their participation in the report. As long as he followed the rules outlined, Rose would keep his job, despite more than a dozen teachers alleging misconduct.
With the Board of Education meeting next week in their regularly scheduled meeting, will the elected officials agree with the superintendent’s decision to allow Rose to return back to work? At least three people close to the matter who spoke to the Guardian on conditions of anonymity said that two board members took exception to the findings, and find Rose to be a risk. But if true, can the board members convince a majority of their peers to override Bailey’s decision and terminate the principal? No one knows the answer to that question until the board’s meeting has come and gone next week, but one thing is for certain: at least one of the elected officials will have to recuse themselves because their family member was a named witness in the case.
Attempts to reach Rose for an interview were not successful.
The entire investigative report may be read here.