- Company Message
The South San Francisco Police Department Advised Me to Seek a Restraining Order Against Hamish Eisler

Follow link for details:

Use of High Chair For Learning Activity
       For nine months, Hamish Eisler delivered his child to my school. However, almost immediately after the expulsion: he posted a comment online falsely accusing me of using "special straps to restrain kids in their chairs."
Hamish Eisler's Online Comment: Shortly After the Expulsion

       About that same time, Child Care Licensing visited my school to investigate an "anonymous" complaint that I strapped a student in a chair. This allegation was completely false.
       Licensing is under obligation not to reveal the identity of the "Complainant." However, based on recent events: the "Complainant's"  identity  was very easy to determine. 

       My staff and I informed Licensing the "Complainant's" child routinely destroyed other students' writing materials and worksheets. 

      Therefore, during worksheet sessions: for 15 - 20 minutes a day I arranged for this particular student to sit in a classically designed Jenny Lind high chair. The Jenny Lind high chair allowed the student to remain part of the work group while protecting other students.  The "Complainant" was previously informed of the student's bad behavior and the high chair arrangement. 
       Licensing conducted an investigation and determined straps were not used. But, they informed me the high chair could not be used as a work space area. This minimal "deficiency" fell under the general category of "personal rights" violation.
  No Administrative Action Was Taken  Against Me
       I'm appealing this "deficiency" decision because in my 30-year teaching history: Child Care Licensing has never given general notice high chairs are to be used for "feeding purposes only."

      Presentation of Student Disciplinary Form 
       During the complaint investigation:  I informed Licensing the "Complainant's"  online rants minimized the seriousness of his child's behavior.  And that he misrepresented facts concerning the content of his child's disciplinary write-ups.   Hamish Eisler's Yelp review falsely stated:

       "BTW they NEVER once suggested that she was ever violent or harmful to the other children." 

       His statement was untrue.  My staff and I had many conversations with the "Complainant" about his child's unacceptable behavior.   My online response to the "Complainant"  included a copy of one of the  forms he referenced.  The form spoke for itself: showing the "Complainant" had been put on notice.

       Because I posted the form, Child Care Licensing felt I exposed the child's personal information.  They considered the posting to be a "deficiency" that also falls under the general category of a "personal rights" violation.    

          No Administrative Action Was Taken Against Me

I'm also appealing this "deficiency" decision because it was  the "Complainant" who  first conveyed "information of a personal nature"  when he used a public forum to discuss the form's contents.
       Conclusion: In my attempt to accommodate the special needs*
of a dangerous and unruly student and while trying to reason with the "Complainant" about his false and misleading internet postings,
I unintentionally incurred two minor licensing infractions.

       Almost 6 months have passed, and Mr. Eisler continues to place a twisted spin on these events. On Yelp, he presents my conduct as something so  egregiously shocking to the Child Care Licensing board
     ".....that they took the unprecedented step of calling in legal counsel and citing Ponderosa with a personal rights violation... against a 2.5 year old."
        His claim is absurd.  And it's a further example of his ongoing efforts to defame my school.  Using a roomy Jenny Lind high chair for 20- minutes a day and posting a one page form that the "Complainant" already publicized: do not require special attention from attorneys.
       The steps taken by Child Care Licensing followed standard operating procedure.  My case did not warrant special scrutiny.

                    No Administrative Action Was Taken  Against Me