Article content continued

It goes on to say he “adopted a stance of covertness to avoid detection by the school staff” indicating he knew he was “creating an untenable situation that caused harm to others,” and which left teachers feeling “emotionally and mentally abused.”

The committee approved a requested publication ban on the identity of the teachers, referring to them only as Teacher A, B and C in details of the case.

In the most recent charge, involving Teacher A during the 2013-14 school year, Scott admitted to abusing his position to pursue a personal relationship and exploiting the power differential between principal and teacher.

According to the decision, “Scott made unwelcome remarks, compromising invitations and requests to Teacher A which eventually poisoned the professional relationship.”

Following Teacher A’s rejection of his advances, Scott made comments which were “belittling and confrontational or caused her to feel foolish; he admitted he was playing games with her.”

The decision goes on to say Scott’s actions caused Teacher A to feel “extremely uncomfortable, caused her to believe that her job security had been jeopardized and destroyed her trust in Scott’s ability to serve as her supervisor.”

In the second charge, involving Teacher B between 2012 and 2014, the committee found Scott repeatedly pursued an intimate relationship with her and used his position to influence her career decisions.

“He discouraged her from accepting employment offers and instead, encouraged her to wait to obtain a position at his school,” the decision states. It also states Scott used his position of power to “make overly personal and disparaging comments about Teacher B’s appearance and habits of dress.”