We had hoped that our recent settlement had put an end to the Mary Ellen Bryner saga. However, we could not let a headline, “Fired Brewer ed tech wins unemployment case” (BDN, Nov. 25), pass without comment.

The headline and ensuing story seem to suggest that Bryner was somehow vindicated. Nothing, though, could be further from the truth. Bryner was discharged from her employment with the Brewer School Department on April 18 after the school committee heard 24 hours of testimony concerning her alleged involvement in drug-related activities. At the conclusion of the hearing, the school committee deliberated in public for more than two hours. In reaching its decision the committee did not simply rubber-stamp the recommendations of the superintendent. Instead, it carefully analyzed the evidence that had been presented by both sides and scrutinized the credibility of each witness.

Ultimately, the committee found two allegations proven by a preponderance of the evidence, the most significant of which was that Bryner smoked marijuana with students at the ACT building during a bottle drive in the fall of 2002.

Following her discharge, Bryner filed a grievance against the Brewer School Committee (BSC), requesting arbitration, reinstatement and back pay. As of the date of the settlement, arbitration still had not been settled. Bryner also filed a claim for unemployment benefits. That claim was at first denied by a deputy in the Department of Labor on the ground that Bryner had been discharged for misconduct associated with her employment. Bryner appealed the deputy’s decision to a hearing offer. The hearing officer ruled in Bryner’s favor and it was that ruling that was under appeal at the time of the settlement.

The case turned almost entirely on the credibility of the witnesses. At her discharge hearing Bryner argued that school officials so badgered and intimidated students that they felt compelled to lie about the allegations against her. The unemployment-hearing officer seems to have taken a different approach to assessing credibility. After reading the transcript of the discharge hearing she essentially branded the students as liars because too many students testified consistently with one another.

Actually, and quite inexplicably, the hearing officer seemed to want to have it both ways. On one hand, she said that, “the testimony of all of the students who asserted the claimant smoked marijuana with them at the ACT building is so consistent and similar as to be questionable” that it “so consistent with each other’s as to certain details as to seem manufactured.” On the other hand she stated that “there was disparity in their testimony as to other particulars” and that “their consistent disparity with respect to other details makes it appear that they did not quite get their stories straight in all particulars.”

Apparently the hearing officer concluded the students were liars because their testimony was the same in many respects and because it was different in many respects. As most people understand, it is certainly not uncommon for several witnesses to the same incident to recall rather uniformly with respect to the significant aspects of the incident while at the same time differing as to the less significant details. Generally this is viewed as an indication of credibility. In reviewing the decision it made after listening to agonizingly emotional and often tearful testimony of numerous students, the school committee was confident in its assessment of witness credibility.

However, out of an abundance of caution and in an attempt to continue to be as fair as possible to Bryner, the BSC arranged for the polygraph (lie detector) examinations of three of the witnesses who testified that Bryner smoked marijuana with students at the ACT school. We would like to have polygraphed all of the students who testified at Bryner’s discharge hearing. However, polygraph exams are expensive. More significantly, many of the young people who testified at the hearing are now former students, having graduated in June and having moved from the Brewer area for school or work. The three who were examined are former students who continue to reside in the area.

It is important to note that the BSC had no authority to require any witnesses to subject themselves to polygraph examinations. Since the three who were examined are former students, it cannot be argued that they agreed to be examined because of fear of suspension, expulsion or not being allowed to graduate. They appeared freely and voluntarily.

Following the release of the polygraph results indicating that students were truthful when they revealed that Bryner has smoked marijuana with them in the fall of 2002, Bryner agreed to withdraw and request for arbitration, back pay and reinstatement if the Brewer School Department withdrew its appeal of her entitlement to unemployment benefits.

To date the Brewer School Department has paid approximately $2,000 in disputed unemployment benefits. As a result of the settlement, it will be liable for about $5,000 more in benefits. While we are confident that the Brewer School Department would have ultimately prevailed both in the unemployment appeal and in arbitration, the cost of continued litigation (attorney’s fees, the department’s share of arbitration costs, witness fees) would have far exceeded the unemployment benefits for which it remains liable. At this point in time, given the recent polygraph results, the decision to settle was largely an economic decision.

The school committee determined that the school department’s limited resources are better spent on education rather than continued litigation. The decision to settle was also greatly influenced by our desire to bring this matter to a decisive end for those young persons who withstood the scrutiny of public cross examination to do what they knew was right – to tell the truth.

In the end, there is no winner in a situation like this. Bryner did not win. She lost her job and her career as an educator is over. The Brewer School Department did not win. In the course of discharging an ed tech for drug use with students it spent thousands of dollars it would rather have spent on education. By definition, a compromise is not a win for either party. Sometimes, however, it is the best result in a bad situation.

This commentary was submitted by Mark Chambers, Brewer School Committee (BSC) chair; Ruth Spellman, BSC member; Mary Ann McGuire, BSC member; Mark Farley, BSC member; Amanda Bost, BSC member; Betsy Webb, superintendent, Brewer School Department; and Richard D. Violette, Jr., Esq., attorney for Brewer School Department.