Former Buckingham headteacher escapes without sanctions despite '˜offering colleagues cocaine' and putting his hands down their underwear
Richard Main, 46, who worked at Bourton Meadow Academy, faced several allegations in a tribunal of misconduct and admitted trying to force his hands down an individual’s trousers but denied offering staff cocaine.
He was accused of offering cocaine to staff twice, with one count proven true “on the balance of probabilities” and one count proved false.
He claims he was intoxicated at the time.
When accused of offering another staff member cocaine, he claimed “it was just a joke”.
He also denied “attending work in an unfit state due to his alcohol intake from the previous evening”, which was alleged to have happened on March 18 2016.
He was also found guilty of making innapropriate comments to a member of staff.
In this instance, when responding to a request for leave to attend a medical appointment by an individual he said “Why, do you have chlamydia or something?”
The individual is said to have found the words “extremely distressing.”
Mr Main accepted that he had made an innapropriate joke and apologised shortly after.
The board also found Mr Main guilty of being difficult to contact/and or uncontactable following an emergency that around during the PGL trip, this was despite him being named as the 24 hour emergency contact for the trip.
The accusations were that he was drunk, as Mr Main admitted to having drunk approximately one to one and a half bottles of wine.
A staff member had tried to contact Mr Main in an emergency, but he didn’t answer his telephone.
The deputy headteacher was staying in he same hotel as Mr Main for the conference, and tried to wake him up by knocking repeatedly on his door but to no avail.
The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Main fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession.
The board however decided that although Mr Main’s behaviour was considered poor judgement, they did not amount to serious misconduct and so do not reach the threshold for a sanction.
The board concluded that: “A number of allegations were proven, some of which amount to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute.
“However, in my view it is not necessary to impose a prohibition order to maintain public confidence in the profession.
A published decision backed up by remorse and insight in my view does satisfy the public interest requirement concerning public confidence in the profession.”