View
216
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/21/2019 JHC Public Comments 1-45
1/45
Potosky
Harriet
E
From;
Sent:
To;
Subject:
Sequeira, Martha
Monday, May 11, 2015 10:57 AM
Potosky, Harriet E .
FW: Public comment on: DRAFT Revised Policy JHC-Child Abuse and Neglect
Good morning:
F Y I
From: Daniel Hirschhorn [mailto:[email protected])
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 10:06 AM
To:
B O E
Subject: Public comment on: DRAFTRevised Policy JHC-ChildAbuse and Neglect
To: Board of Education
MCPS's draft "JHC Child Abuse and Neglect" policy covers a lot of ground and has noble ambitions. Howev
it is confusing because it covers too many issues and people's roles and responsibilities. It needs much better
organization. It might even be best to break it up into two or three interrelated policies. A professional editor
could help with that.
Of course, the policy neither tells anyone HOW to accomplish the objectives stated nor
specific lly
what to d
or not do. Specific conunents:
I .
Subsection#
5 of
Section
C .
Th.fPLEMENTATIONSTRATEGIES, of the draft, calls for the
superintendent ofschools or designee to set forth procedures to implement the JHC policy, here "to develo
a code of conduct and other guidance for MCPS employees and others on MCPS property with clear
standards on responsible behavior and appropriate conduct between adults and students." This seems to be
the most important provision because such a code ofconduct and standards would be issued and used to
train all employees in the specific actions they should do and should not do to avoid child abuse and negle
For example, when is a teacher allowed to make physical contact with a student, say, to comfort him or he
or just to be naturally affectionate? Schools currently implement this policy poorly.
I suggest the employee code ofconduct and related standards be published and distributed as soon as possible
and that it parallel and comport with Maryland's laws on child abuse and neglect. This will also give guidanc
to school management when to investigate and "prosecute" an employee for breach of the code and the schoo
policies-and when not to prosecute. . · .
Furthermore, terms must be clearly defined for readers, and Maryland law already does much of that for you.
For example:
FAMILY LAW ARTICLE, §§5-701, 5-702, 5-704, 5-708, 5-711
§
5-701:
Definitions.
1
8/21/2019 JHC Public Comments 1-45
2/45
(x) Sexual abuse. -- (1) "Sexual abuse" means any act that involves sexual molestation or exploitation of a child
by
a parent or other person who has permanent or temporary care or custody or responsibility for supervision
o
a child, or by any household or family member. (2) "Sexual abuse" includes: (i)
incest, rape, or sexual offense
any degree; (ii) sodomy; and (iii) unnatural or perverted sexual practices.
II.
Another broad idea is to structure the organization
of
the policy to have differentiated sections on
responsibilities by class
of
the involved party. That is, to avoid reader confusion, separate sections should b
structured broadly as follows:
• • Management Duties
• • Employee Duties and Infractions (i.e., code
of
conduct)
• • Parent Obligations
(
or just delete from policy)
Daniel Hirschhorn, MBA, JD
ofc. 301-414-7518
c e l l ·
301-509-0033
2
8/21/2019 JHC Public Comments 1-45
3/45
Potos~
Harriet E
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Sequeira, Martha
Thursday, May
14,
2015 10:22 AM
Potosky, Harriet E .
FW: revisions to child abuse and neglect policy
Good morning Harriet:
F Y I
Thank you,
Martha
From: Keith Campbell (mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, May
13, 2015 7:20
PM
To: B O E
Cc:
Ellen Gadbois
Subject: revisions
to
child abuse and neglect policy
Dear BOE,
In light ofrecent CPS and Montgomery policies and actions respecting 'Free Range Kids', I oppose elements o
this policy that require reporting to CPS.
CPS has taken an overly broad interpretation of Maryland statutes that were intended to protect children from
abandonment and neglect.
As a result, such reporting puts well-behaved but active children at risk
of
being confined involuntarily and
without parental notification, in an unacceptable violation of the liberties guaranteed by our Constitution.
I do not wish my children to live in fear of county authorities.
I urge you to defer adopting this policy until such time as CPS and Montgomery County police actions have
become more consistent with the American political tradition.
regards,
Keith Campbell
Bethesda, Maryland
1
8/21/2019 JHC Public Comments 1-45
4/45
Potos 2
Harriet E
From
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject
Causey, Joanne L
Thursday, June 04, 2015 4:26 PM
Wil l iams, Stephan ie P
Sequei ra, Mar tha;
Potosky,
Harr iet E .
Comments-Chi ld Abuse
and
Neglect Policy
Dear Montgomery County Board of Education Members:
Abuse thrives in secrecy - in 2012 the Maryland State Board of Ed directed you to take concrete steps to protect
children in schools. Your response was silence.
In September of 2014, MCPS, under the direction of Dr. Joshua Starr, began to respond to media attention to
"isolated" incidents of child sexual abuse at Baker and Clemente. Since then, dozens of cases have been publicize
that had previously been mishandled. We all know now that these incidents are not isolated. There
is
a systemic
problem in MCPS and there should be accountability for the travesties committed against children in our schools.
As a parent volunteer on this workgroup/advisory group, there has been selective transparency - we are still
awaiting documents that we have requested on numerous occasions, and the website has been slow to be update
if at all. And while we were participating in workgroup/advisory group meetings with multidisciplinary team membe
children continued to be abused in our schools.
Please do not vote to implement this draft policy yet.
I
have grave concerns that doing something without having t
policy vetted by child abuse experts with knowledge of laws and Attorney General opinions at the state level will b
a huge mistake. I believe there are major flaws in this policy, major loopholes, conflicts with Attorney General
Opinions, and inconsistencies with Mayland law.
Additionally,
- Where is the accountability for abuses that have occurred and may continue to occur?
- While in theory this could be a good plan,
it
is contingent on the infrastructure that is promised - where is the
detailed plan for that? · :
- Where are the other documents that are referenced: Where is the Memorandum Of Understanding? Where is th
Employee Code of Conduct? Where is the plan for educating the public?
- Who is
in
charge of the implementation? Who will manage the ongoing process? Does MCPS have the resource
to support this?
And while I would like to agree with simply moving forward without looking back, MCPS has to look back to see w
went wrong to prevent
it
from happening again. Furthermore, just as the Board hired an outside auditor to come in
review your credit card use, we respectfully request that the same level of accountability be held for the safety of
children.
[
I urge you to do the right thing, not just something. This is not the appropriate time for a knee-jerk reaction and
approval vote without all of the information.
8/21/2019 JHC Public Comments 1-45
5/45
It is time to stop hiding the skeletons in the closets - I challenge you to find them all, give them a proper burial, and
hold those who put them there accountable.
Thank you for your consideration,
Susan Burkinshaw
13709 Charity Court
Germantown MD 20874
301. 758.6995 (c}
Joanne Causey
Administrative Legal Secretary
Office
of
he Board
of
Education
Phone: 30 ·279·3084
Fax: 301-279-3860
Email: Joanne L Causey(@mcpsmd.org
2
8/21/2019 JHC Public Comments 1-45
6/45
CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT
COMMENTS ON PROPOSED POLICIES
AND PROTOCOLS
submitted to
Montgomery County Public School
System
by.
I
Ellen
Mug.man
June
8, 2015
8/21/2019 JHC Public Comments 1-45
7/45
Introduction
I
am pleased to be able to provide comments on the proposed child abuse policy.
I
have
taken the liberty to comment as well on the protocols and other related documents. Indeed It
was particularly imperative that
I
comment oh the protocols because most of the provisions
in
the protocols should actually be in the policy. I understand that the Board of Education only
votes to approve or disapprove the policy. This allowed the Department to submit a mostly
vague, aspirational child abuse policy with the vast majority of problematic, substantive
provisions added in the draft protocols. Even
so,
the draft policy
is
not without its own
significant problems.
In
any case, the misplaced provisions are particularly troubling.
Handling policy development this way permits staff to change the protocols, which are, in
essence, the policy, whenever they wish without proper oversight. This arrangement lacks
integrity.
While there are a few improvements over 1,989 policyand protocols,
I
have found these
proposed documents to have serious flaws apparently as a result of the Department and the
unions basically writing their own rules, since ignoring current laws and regulations, court
decisions, and Attorney General opinions etc. was standard operating procedure when
educators and other employees were the alleged abusers. In particular, the 1991 Attorney
General's opinion was specifically promulgated to stop egrf?gious practices that covered up
abuse in the Howard County Public schcols that MCPS and MCEA, to this day, 24 years later,
still appears to want to retain by drafting loopholes
in
the proposed policy and protocols.
As a Board member,
I
would be reluctant to be on record approving documents that do not
comply with the law. Moreover, it has been my experience that child abuse policies and
protocols cannot be evaluated adequately without analyzing other relevant policies, protocols,
letters, forms, union contracts, and yet to be drafted relevant documents. An inability to
analyze and subsequently conform these documents can only result in inconsistencies,
a
lack
of cross references, and contradictory provisions that would most likely lead to continued
violations of the law and the continued questionable practices which have unnecessarily and
seriously harmed Montgomery County students for so many years.
I am, therefore, requesting that the Board wait to approve this policy until certain sections in
the protocols are amended and placed appropriately in the draft policy and until other policies
and attendant regulations and documents are written and reviewed by the public. This
includes the the Employee Conduct Policy (It is certainly unusual for a school systems to have
operated so long without this necessary policy.), the Memorandum of Understanding,
"additional protocols to facilitate prompt notification of the Sp~cial Victims Investigations
Division Of the MCPD" (See section B(a) of the policy) as well as other policies such as the
Sexual Harassment policy which needs to be revised to be in conformity with the Child Abuse
and Neglect policy. Unless this preliminary work
is
done, the Board would be evaluating and
voting on this critical policy in a vacuum. Moreover,
I
would recommend that both the policy
and protocols be subject to Board approval.
8/21/2019 JHC Public Comments 1-45
8/45
I am
a
longstanding child advocate in Maryland and an expert on child abuse and neglect
laws and public policy as well as criminal history background checks for those who have
access to children. Presently I am
a
member of Criminal Justice Information Advisory Board.
I,
however, am not speaking for this body.
I
have attached
a
list of relevant activities
highlighting my experience,
I
would add that I have participated in drafting legislation and regulations and school system
policies and proffered both oral and written testimony for thirty years before various
committees in the General Assembly. I have also testified before the State Board of
Education, The Howard County Council", the Howard County Board of Education both orally
and in writing. This is the first instance where I have encountered a process which precludes
oral testimony.
Given the importance of the subject and the scandals surroundings this school system's
handling of child abuse cases, I was astonished and concerned that the Board did not deem
the Child Abuse Policy, which had not been revised since 1989, significant enough to
schedule
a
public hearing. Public hearings allow the citizens, beyond the Board, school
officials, the MCEA, and workgroup participants to proffer critical information based on their
expertise and also respond to what other entities or individuals contend during oral testimony.
(Please note that some members of the workgroup complained that they were left out of a
subset of individuals who directly drafted the policy and protocols.)
I am therefore requesting that the Board reconsider its decision that this policy and its
protocols are not "of widespread interest and concern" (See the MCPS website.) to justify a
public hearing. That is astounding. TheBoard has an obligation to postpone the date
scheduled for the Board to vote because the policy is premature and rushed. Moreover, after
June 8, 2015, the public should be able to review and testify about Mr. Civin's changes in the
policy and protocols, if any, before the Board takes final action.
I have been a member of the last two committees formed by the Howard County Department
of Education for the purpose of updating its child abuse and neglect policy, regulations, the
Memorandum of Understanding. In my experience, HCPS process was a model of
transparency and cooperation
in
comparison to the approach employed by MCPS.
In 1998, as an aside,
I
was appointed to
a
joint MSDE and DHR lnteragency Task Force on
Community Collaborations to Protect Children. Interestingly, during one of the Task Force
meetings, Montgomery County educators touted the MCPS child abuse liaison program which
apparently was subsequently discontinued without an evaluation. When
I
briefly spoke with
Mr. Zuckerman, he was unaware of
it.
Yet he claimed that this program idea was
a
recent
innovation. This gives me pause. Without historical knowledge, the same mistakes could be
made over again.
8/21/2019 JHC Public Comments 1-45
9/45
"That is why an independent investigation is vital to understand why and how the abuse
continued for so long. If we understand·
_ _
if other schools understand -- no one needs to be
. l i
at the mercy of silence. When reputationtrumps child safety, the silence of authorities
enables abusers to continue as each report gets buried .... It is up to institutions rather than
the victims to speak openly .... Who Knew What When?" Yet no one
in
leadership
in
the
MCPS has commissioned an independent investigation. "The longer the [Board members and
top officials] resist this, the more they communicate that they do not want to know the full truth
about the scale of the abuse. or the cover-up perpetrated in [MCPSJ." (Members of the
Survivors Group, in
Making Schools Sa~ f , a
report o _ n the' Horace Mann School, May, 2015.)
My apprehension about the adequacy of the child abuse policy, protocols, the MCEA contract
and other related documents was further triggered by
theDepartment's
recommendation to
the Board to support HB 1033, "Public and Nonpublic Schools - Sexual and Physical Abuse
Notifications and Preventi_on", ntroduced last session by Deli;gate Luedtke, a member of the
MCEA Board of Directors. According to its analysis, MCPS staff stated that "[t]his bill aligns
with the recommendations for systemic enhancements to MCPS child abuse reporting policies
and protocols." The Board agreed and supported the bill. Its decision, based on
a
problematic review by staff, is alarming because the bill,
in
reality, contravened Maryland's
reporting law and two Attorney General's. opinions. If it had passed, it would have
exacerbated the longstanding, inexcusable mishandling of child abuse cases
by
MCPS. ( I
would be happy to provide the Board with my testimony in opposition to this legislation which
included a copy of 76 Opinions of the Attorney General (1991) [Opinion No. 91-056
(December 17, 1991)].
Hence, it has increasingly become clear that staff, MCEA, and the System's consultant,
Praesidium, are not aware of relevant Maryland Attorney General opinions, case law, child
abuse laws, as well as the Criminal History Records Check law etc. Ignorance, whether
studied or not, substantially contributed to the MCPS scandals. With
all
due respect, the
Board itself needs to ask questions about the advice it is given by staff. Staff members are
not necessarily experts
in
this area of the law and others recommending certain actions have
self-serving agendas.
But, most critical to child safety, the moral imperative to protect children appears to be
missing as evidenced in previous actions and documents promulgated by the school system.
For example, the Board initially supported the seven year gap in age
in
the 2014 "position of
authority bill," which included a deplorable exemption for sex between a student and an
educator off-campus off-time. If
it
had been enacted,
it
would have continued to be legal for
25 year-old teacher to molest a 15 year- old student off campus- off time. The Board's support
for this exemption was in response to a request from a state senator. On the tape of the
discussion regarding this legislation, Board members admitted that they did not understand
the bill, but voted to support it anyway. Every action and decisions made by members of the
Board and staff must be viewed
in
light of the duty to prevent unconscionable betrayals of
trust of students.
8/21/2019 JHC Public Comments 1-45
10/45
Secret files
The School System's version of the Boy Scout's scandalous "secret perversion files" criticized
nationally, and a major subject
in
lawsuits against the Boy Scouts across the country, is not
an acceptable substitute for abiding by the child abuse and neglect reporting laws
in
the first
place. See "Top executives did not report suspected Scout abuse cases, files show" J. Felch,
Los Angeles Times December 12, 2012)
The existence of a confidential file documenting inappropriate/suspicious behaviors. better
defined as sexual abuse or exploitation of students, is established
in
the contract between
MCEA, other unions and MCPS. It is in the draft protocols, and already implemented by
Form 460-19, entitled, "Reporting of Suspicious/Inappropriate Interaction with a Student"
dated July 2014. This inappropriate conduct is defined as "physical contact of a questionable
nature (sitting on lap, back rub.etc.) social communication unrelated to classroom activity
(texting, personal phone calls, etc.) excessive time with
a
student out of the class, or being
alone with the student under suspicious circumstances (room locked and/or dark, in personal
vehicle without parent's permission.etc.) Information contained in this report is
confidential
and is kept in a
restricted
database in the Office
of
Human Resources and
Development." (Emphasis is that of the MCPS.) (See Anderson v State for example,
decided by the Court of Appeals
in
2002
in
which
a
teacher was convicted of child abuse in
his home after he gave a 14-year-old victim a ride after school.
After Joseph Pineda's sentencing hearing; the media
r>eported
that at least two schools had
. I
developed "Do Not Use" files, although they sometimes did not check them. Nevertheless,
the idea of "Do Not Use" files must have been considered to be such a good idea that
it
needed to be replicated county-wide.
The secret file provisions in the protocol and Form 460-19 exist
in
violation of the child abuse
reporting law, case law and certain opinions of the Attorney General (A,.G.). For example, the
A.G. held that "reason to believe" is synonymous with "suspects" child abuse and neglect, not
a
higher level of proof such as witnessing' child ~buse and neglect or confession of the
perpetrator. Consequently, sections of the proposed protocols dated April 25, 2015 and
provisions in the employee contracts establishing the file and directing how this file is
supposed to work must be rernoved-. In addition. form 460-19 needs to be withdrawn as well.~
It is
not the job of MCPS to determine if a child- abuse report turns out to be valid or
prosecutable. Rather. it is MCPS' obligation under the law, to report suspected abuse and
neglect and leave
it
up to the Police, States' Attorney and DSS to investigate. This means that
the duty to report cannot be avoided through the mechanism of a secret report
in a
secret file,
where each incident is supposed to be treated separately
in
determining whether or not a
report is required.
In the recent case of Daniel Picca v. Montgomery Couhty Board of Education. the State Board
of Education stated: ·
8/21/2019 JHC Public Comments 1-45
11/45
"In affirming the decision to terminate this employee, we must emphasize our expectation of
school systems. The events chronicled
in
this case are shocking, not only because they
occurred, but they occurred over and over again for seventeen years. When confronted with
such obvious inappropriate behaviors on the part of a teacher toward his students,
it is
our
expectation and, we believe, the expectation of the school community, that the teacher will be
removed from contact with students with alacrity.
Recent child sex abuse cases have shown
a
bright light
in
that dark corner. We think that this
case can shine
a
light on abusive conduct.
. .
of school staff toward children." That light,
however, does not yet shine
.in
MCPS
as,
evidenced
.by
the MCEA contract, proposed
protocols and operating procedures outlined in F 1orm 460-19 mentioned above.
Unfortunately, MCPS and MCEA appear to believe it is appropriate to negotiate
Maryland's reporting law, an item which, should be considered non-negotiable. Former
Superintendent Starr even declared this change
in
the contract as
a
step forward.
In
his
January 13, 2015 memorandum to the Board of Education, he announced that "the Office of
Human Resources and Development has developed a process to improve tracking of
allegations of inappropropriate interactions between employees and students. This process
was developed in consultatlon with our employee associations, and is referenced in all three
of their contracts ....
"
Substituting a secret file of suspicious/inappropriate interactions with students for the duty to
report suspected child sexual abuse and exploitaticn, as well as giving the alleged offender
a
bye for the first offense is repugnant. (Keeping centralized files of individuals where reports
have already been made after each incident, and the police, DSS, and State's Attorney
declined to pursue further action might be another matter only if there is independent
oversight.)
Indeed, the recent appointment of the school system's head of its Department of Association
Relations, Stan Damus, to the Child Abuse and Neglect Committee, a person whose job
is
to
collaborate and negotiate contracts with MCEA and the other unions, is troubling. It indicates
that the underlying intent of proposed changes is to cater to MCEA first and foremost, which
will result in the continuation of the same shocking procedures under a different guise.
But the secret file, especially the one in t.he MCEA contract, is even more alarming
because
it
makes it more
likely that
the handling of
individual
cases, which
should
have been reported, in the
first,
second,
or third
place,
will
instead be
inappropriately
subjected to internal investigations prior to reporting or failure to report at all as a
result of MCEA negotiations with Mr. Dam us in his capacity as a member of the
Committee. Children, of course, have no similar representation to protect them and their
interests. Therefore,
I
do not agree with John Mccarthy's overly optimistic statement at the
sentencing of Jose Pineda that: "The school system is cooperating with me now.
I
think they
8/21/2019 JHC Public Comments 1-45
12/45
recognize that a lot of what they did was indefensible." If so, that understanding would have
been be reflected in the policy and protocols and other issues discussed in this paper.
Apparently, MCPS
officials
are unaware of, or believe
it
is
their
prerogative, to ignore
Maryland Court
of
Appeals
decision
in 2013,
Karl Marshall Walker Jr. v.
State
of
Maryland. According
to the Court:
"Child
sexual abuse can be committed as part
of a
single act or a series
of
actions and it is
not
necessary
that
the defendant physically
touch the child in
order to commit
the crime." The Court further discussed the nature of
child sexual abuse which includes child exploitation and the expansiveness of the behaviors
that should be reported so that children can be protected. 'The General Assembly's concern
for the welfare of children, and the myriad of ways in which abusers can sexually exploit
minors, militates against unduly narrowing the scope of a statute that is reasonably worded so
as to reach
a
wide swath of behaviors, including those where
a
minor is sexually exploited but
not physically harmed."
Accordingly,
on
May
12,
2015, Lawrence Joynes plead guilty to sexually abusing girls
in
the
Montgomery County Schools. (Note: This case was not reported to authorities by MCPS.)
Joynes' attorney said "that Joynes did not physically molest the
14
students at New
Hampshire Estates. She said in court that he pleaded guilty under the 'exploitation' provision
of the law." See the following article," Ex-Teacher Pleads Guilty To Sexually Abusing Girls"
dated May 12, 2015 in The Washington Post. Apparently, school officials and union
leaders are still acting under the pretext that child exploitation is not part of the
definition of
child sexual abuse and is not reportable per the 2013
Court of
Appeals
decision. See also comments above concerning Form 460-19.
Thus, the claim that the first incident, as well as
an
unknown number of other incidents may
not "independently" cause school officials to have
a
"reason to believe" that a report needs to
be made to external agencies is d)smaying. Waiting
for
more
complaints to
come to
light
in order to create a pattern of "lnapproprlate conduct" means that students must
repeatedly be
subject to
trauma, embarrassment and bullying·
until
sexual abuse is
deemed
to
have occurred by school
officials
and therefore reportable. However,
n
another document, there is a caution mentioned above that individual actions should be
evaluated separately. These kind of ideas comes to the fore
in
an institution whose culture
is
centered first on the institution, the employees second, and children third.
See Section 3(d)(vi) of the April
1 5
draft of the protocols. This section is problematic and
should
be
deleted because the Employee Code of Conduct Policy to which it refers, and the
Memorandum of Understanding, mentioned above, has not yet been drafted, and the criteria
for the secret file is based on an incorrect assurnptioh, 'that MCPS' interpretation of the
definition child sexual abuse is controlling as opposed'to that of Maryland's highest court.
In
addition, the public is not able at this time
~ o
see the Memorandum of Understanding and
comment upon it as
I
was allowed to do when
I
reviewed the policy and its attendant
regulations n Howard County. This provision exemplifies how to set up an insufficient public
8/21/2019 JHC Public Comments 1-45
13/45
review process. Consequently, the Board 'should not take action on the policy because
it, along with the public,
will
not have all the interrelated documents.
Moreover,
Or.
Starr's claim that current MCPS standards for handling these cases somehow
"promote[s]
a
safe and secure environment
in
our schools and workplaces" as reflected
in
the
protocols
is
unsupportable. See the January 13, memorandum to the Board mentioned above.
.
According to Robert Shoop,
a
nationally recognized risk management expert on sexual
exploitation n schools, the seriousness
of students
being sexually exploited by
trusted
professionals is
not fully
grasped by educators. 'The language frequently used
to
describe
this behavior·
'boundary problems,'
'poor
[udqernent,' or
'inappropriate
behavior'
trivializes
abuse and minimizes the professional
violation.
"
. : ; . .
Thus, the proposed policy, protocols, contracts, and other documents outlining procedures
for placing individuals n this or other confidential files actually encourage untrained school
officials with no expertise in child sexual abuse and exploitation investigations, along with
union officials, with an obvious cqnflict of interest, to inappropriately screen out reports of
sexual abuse and exploitation predicated on
a
mistakenly narrow operating definition of these
crimes.
In a flow sheet dated November 17, 2014, entitled, "Process for Addressing Allegations of
Inappropriate Interactions between Adults and ~tudent", the principal receives information
about inappropriate nteractions rom
a
staff member. The principal then screens this report
and "initiates fact finding to determine f child abuse is suspected." The principal contacts
OSSI and the PECU n the OHRD with initial findings." If the principal thinks that the incident
is
child abuse after investigating, then the staff member who originally suspected child abuse
or neglect
is
told to report to CPS (as though they were reporting without an intervening
internal investigation), and the principal reports to the police if sexual abuse is suspected. The
staff member s not in the picture if the issue is suspected sexual abuse. The principal must
first conduct an internal investigation o determine if there was "reason to believe" to report.
This contradicts certain statements
n
the policy and protocols, but there are
a
number
vestiges of these illegal procedures which.create loopholes that compromise the new
language and consequently eopardize the CPS and Police Investigations o come after.
This course of action only serves,
in
my view, to protect the short term reputation and
interests of the school system as well as the, nterests of powerful unions and their most
problematic members who give the honorable teaching professio_n a bad name. This is a
recipe for more scandals and more unwarranted rauma and other harms to children.
Violating 76
Opinions of the Attorney Genera/__
(1991) [Opinion No. 91-056
(December
17,
1991) in both the proposed policy and protocols. The crucial
distinction
between
"consultation"
and
"consent."
8/21/2019 JHC Public Comments 1-45
14/45
Prior to the opinion cited above, school systems automatically performed extensive internal
investigations before reporting cases or prior to the police or social services arriving on the
scene where staff were involved. CPS and the police would complain that by the time they
were called or even arrived at the school, their cases were severely jeopardized because,
among other problems, alleged offenders destroyed evidence and parents refused to have
their children participate in another investigation.
School officials believed that they had the right to control all aspects of child abuse
investigations of educators and other employees just l ike they do
in
other types of
investigations on school grounds. In Howard County, the Associate Superintendent
interviewed the alleged abusers first, a poor investigative technique, and then the alleged
victims and witnesses. Alleged offenders were then asked to sign written statements and the
alleged victims and witnesses also had to sign statements prior to reporting or quashing
reports. Sometimes students were interviewed in the presence of the alleged offender, which
intimidated them.
Alleged offenders were almost always notified by colleagues and union representatives that
they would be subject to an investigation before it began. The HCPS (Howard County Public
School System) had drafted
a
written policy and memorandum of understanding codifying i ts
procedures
in
these documents until the Attorney General deemed that the way HCPS was
handling these cases violated thelaw.
It is my understanding (see above) that MCPS officials are conducting themselves as did
Howard County officials prior to 1991. MCPS was unaware of
this crucial Attorney
General's opinion until recently when a child advocate shared it with certain members
of the
child
abuse
workgroup.
This lack
of critical
knowledge lasting
24
years, and the
resultant
entrenched
support for
the
status
quo, in my view, is
a
major cause of MCPS'
longstanding mishandling of sexual abuse and sexual exploitation cases to the detriment of i ts
students. Knowledge of this opinion has yet to overcome prior bad practices.
It
explains
why MCPS has drafted
proposed provisions
in the policy and
protocols that
circumvent the requirement that no· internal investig'ation should begin until DSS and
the Police have consented. In Section 8(2), the policy states that "no MCPS internal
investigation may proceed without "consultation" with "County partner agencies." That is not
what the Attorney General stated. Accordingly, "consent" must be substituted for
"consultation" and upolice or social services" substituted for "County partner agencies."
2
Only
those two agencies have the authority to decide when'MCPS can pursue its investigation
In
the drsft protocols, section lll(B){3{d)(4)(i) similarly states that "MCPS internal
investigations may proceed only after 'consultation' with the County MDT participating
agencies and in accordance with the memorandum of understanding." Here also another
amendment is reguired. "Consultation" must be deleted and "consent" substituted and
"police or social services" substituted for "County MDT participating agencies" . . ~ In section
8/21/2019 JHC Public Comments 1-45
15/45
lll(B)(3}(c)(iv). the protocols state that_"MCPS employees shall not discuss the allegations
with the alleged offender. without prior "consultation" with the County MDT.
in
order to avoid
compromising the integrity of the pending investigations by external agencies." Again.
"consultation" must be deleted and "permission" substituted and "police and social services"
must be substituted for "County MDT".l
In
section lll(A}(3}. the protocols state
that"
[t]o the
extent that some preliminary inquiry must be taken .... that inquiry or action should be pursued
in consultation ·with the County
MDT' .
Thus again in ·consultation with" must be deleted and
substituted by "with permission of the police or social services".~
Consultation merely means an exchange of views. This word choice is a pretense which
ultimately allows school officials to begin an investigation whenever they choose. There is no
requirement to accede to the judgement of the police or DSS.
In
further support of my recommended amendments, the Attorney General clearly states: "The
. •
,.l
,.
school system should not interview the victim of the alleged abuse, the alleged abuser. or any
potential witness without prlortconsent" of the local DSS or the police" not the MDT.
Loophole after loophole is inserted in both the policy and protocols to circumvent the
Attorney General's opinion in order to have the Board ratify longstanding illegal
practices which have engendered cover-up after cover-up.
In
another example, the
employee may ask limited follow up questions not listed in the MSDE model policy. See
below.
I also find section
11(8)(2)(b}
in the protocols problematic for the same reasons.
It
states that
"once an oral report is made to CPS. neither the principal or any other employees shall
conduct FURTHER internal investigations."
9
It
implies that internal investigations conducted
prior to reporting for the purpose of determining whether there
is
"reason to believett
a
report
should be made, is a procedure that is supposed to continue. This provision most certainly
refers back to the flow sheet mentioned above where internal investigations were always a
part of the MCPS reporting process. This provision along with others is inconsistent with the
reporting law and the Attorney General's opinion and other sections of the policy and
protocols which requires an immediate report and consent from authorities to speak with
those involved. It is increasingly clear that MCPS language discussed above is designed as a
subterfuge by stating two contradictory courses of action which serve to create loopholes that
make
it
possible that internal investigations will continue to occur. Biased investigations
prior
to reporting are
not
the standard in the law
for reporting. Their
use compromises
the health and safety of children. Thus, this section must be deletedl to forestall any
mistaken. confused beliefs that such investi_gations can continue.
The suggested limited questioning prior to reporting in Section ll(B)(e) of the protocols is
problematic. Asking for the name and description of the alleged perpetrator as well as the
extent of the child's injuries and where the abuse took place is crossing the line into
investigative questioning, especially regardinig cases where the alleged perpetrator is an
employee. If the child gives the name of the alleged perpetrator prior to the report being
8/21/2019 JHC Public Comments 1-45
16/45
made, this information can get back to the alleged perpetrator before the police or CPS can
prevent a loss of evidence. Section ll(B)(1){e) should be amended to suggest an open ended
question such as: What happened to you? Staff who any answers to this question should be
directed only to share this information with authorities. (This following question, not the others.
is recommended
in
the MSDE model
policy.}1-Q
In another problematic provision, section ll(B}(2)(f} in the protocols states that the MCPS
employer, contractor, or volunteer making the oral report will immediately update his/her
principal or direct supervisor. "as appropriate" regarding any further consultation with or
information received from CPS the MCPD. or any other agency participating in the County
M D T .11
Receiving confidential information does not confer the right to disseminate it under
law. Thus, this blanket directive
is
mandated in the protocols. However, this policy
demonstrates no concern for the child's confidentiality, or the possibility that the information
could be shared with the perpetrator or union representative, to the detriment of the
investigation.
In
addition, there is no definition of the key-words. "as appropriate". Thus. this
section must be de le ted . 1 1 (See discussion below outlining further concerns.)
Violations of student privacy through the re-dissemination of information in DSS
records to any number
of
MCPS employees
through
the mechanism of a
multi-disciplinary
team meeting in
violation of
Section 1-202
of
the Human Service
Article·.
The widespread dissemination of information concerning the alleged victim called for in the
protocols is grossly insensitive and traumatic.
12
I am sure that parents of alleged victims
would be appalled to learn that when one or more MCPS Child Abuse Contacts learn of the
child's confidential information through the MDT.
it
can then be shared with the MCPS Child
Abuse Coordinating Team which includes (See section l(D} of the protocols) "the MCPS
System-wide Child Abuse Contact(s) as well as representatives from the Office of School and
Improvement (OSSI), the Office of Human Resources and Development (OHRD). the
Department of Student Services (DSS) the Office of General Counsel (OGC), the Department
of School Safety and Security. the Office of Communications, the MCPS Title IX Coordinator,
as well as other personnel in offices and departments as '"appropriate." {See also section l(J)
where the system-wide contacts are to consult with the County Multi-Disciplinary Team.)
In
addition. School- based Child Abuse Liaisons serve as a point of contact with the the MDT
in
order to support the school principal a nd the alleged student victim. (See section l(M) of the
protocols) . 12
Moreover, in other documents, questions about child abuse cases are referred
to the ombudsman. Compounding this extensive, uncontrolled dissemination of police and
social services information. other persons empldyed by the school systems such as
contractors who have made child abuse reports are also being told in the protocols to transmit
confidential information to the principal mentioned above.
How many individuals with confidential information doesthis add up to, and how many of
them are union representatives and union attorneys as well as school system attorneys who
8/21/2019 JHC Public Comments 1-45
17/45
would be privy to private student information in OSS records which could later be used in
proceedings to defend the alleged abuser as well as the MCPS in a possible suit? This
re-dissemination not only creates emotional harm to the alleged victim, but it sets up backdoor
'
discovery. This is reprehensible, and the protocqls ~ust be revised to comply witb the law
and to prevent harmful, unfair actions against the student,li
Consequently, the Attorney General in his opinion goes on to state that "[t]he fact that a
school system representative on the multidisciplinary team may have access to information
concerning the child abuse investigation conducted
by
the local DSS and the police, this does
not end the analysis, because the authority to obtain information does not necessarily imply
the authority to disclose it to others .... Accordingly.the confidentiality statute does NOT
provide authority for the members of multidisciplinary team to disclose the confidential
information contained in such reports or records to other persons or agencies."
Nowhere mentioned in the policy or protocols is
a
mechanism to address the need for the
superintendent to have investigatory information for disciplinary hearings. The General
Assembly enacted Section 1-202( c)( )(v.ii) of the Human ,Services Article. It permits
information in DSS child abuse and neglect confidential files to be "disclosed upon request"
only to the public school superintendent.following a report of suspected child abuse involving
a
student allegedly abused or exploited or neglected by: "a public school employee
in
that
school system, an independent contractor or employee of an independent contractor who
supervises or works directly with students in that school system." Superintendents may not
further disseminate this information to other staff members. Consequently, the protocols
should make clear that information learned in the multidisciplinary team related to the
investigatory
process STAYS THERE.
Information to help the student victim is authorized under Section 1-202(c)(v) of the Human
Services Article. It permits disclosure "upon request" to a "licensed practitioner who, or
agency, institution, or program that, is providinq treatment or care to a child who is the subject
of the report of child abuse or neglect for
a
purpose relevant to the treatment or care" of the
child. This section can apply to the School-based Child Abuse Liaisons. Sharing OSS record
carefully for that purpose alone is legal.
Trauma-Informed and T_rauma-Sensitive Practices implemented in
other schools
systems across the
country
{See
theprcqrams
developed in the state
of
Washington
and Massachusetts, for example, on how to create compassionate schools.)
At the very least, this empathetic mindset should be applied in the MCPS policy and protocols
regarding the interviewing of alleged child abuse and neglect victims and witnesses on
school grounds. The proposed section lll{A){2) in the protocols can only be described as
"trauma-uninformed" a n d "trauma-insensitive,"
8/21/2019 JHC Public Comments 1-45
18/45
There is an enormous body of research about how children's brains are affected by trauma,
including physical and sexual abuse and other Ad:,,erse Childhood Experiences
(
ACES).
Additional trauma can be inflicted by
a
lack of support and emotional safety which is denied
children when principals, for example, insist on inserting themselves
in
child abuse interviews
and/or asking questions, even when the victim would be intimidated, embarrassed, or
believes that the abuse is his or her fault, or that they are to be disciplined by the principal or
designee. This is a longstanding problem. The school system, however, has
a
moral
obligation to conduct ongoing training to ensure that the proper changes occur and to ensure
that principals, in particular, understand why current practices are unacceptable so that a
change in the culture in the school system occurs.
Child victims and witnesses should be allowed to determine if no one will be in the
interview
from the
school.
To make that choice
for victims
is to reinforce the
victim's
feelings that they are as powerless to express themselves in the interview as they were
powerless to stop the abuse.
While the principal is required to consult with DSS or the Police about the concerns the
authorities may have if the principal insists on sitting in on, or interrupting the interview. some
principals have ignored these professionals' objections because they believe it is their
prerogative to know everything that happens
in
their school. Giving the victim and witnesses
a
choice about who will be in the interview, for example, ·along with eliminating the illegal
power of
a
principal to quash reports which is not clearly stated
in
the policy and protocols will
facilitate the truth. (There was an example of a 'quashed report
in
a recent newspaper article,
although the retired principal denied it. In 2004, John Burley reportedly told a parent not to
report, that he would take care of
it,
and that scandal needed to be avoided. See attached
article.)
Indeed, what is so disappointing is the seemingly purposeful failure to use of the following
language drafted by experts at MSDE and OHR and the Howard County policy workgroup.
understand that the Howard County lanquaqe was given to school officials. It describes how
principals are to proceed when DSS and/or the police are on school' grounds to conduct
a
child abuse or neglect interview with students.
Therefore, the following language, entitled, "Third Party Presence", must be adopted, rather
than resisted by school officials.
In
section lll(A)(2) of the protocols, there is no mention of
any such language.
It
is completely ignored. The Howard County policy has a version of this
language and the drafters of the policy and protocols have
a
copy of it.) This decision to
discard this provision should not stand. The amendment below must be included in both the
policy and the protocols:
"In the event that a child is questioned by'the protective services worker and/or police during
the school
day
on school premises in an investigation of child abuse and/or neglect, whether
the child is the alleged victim or non-victim witness, and whether the child has previously been
8/21/2019 JHC Public Comments 1-45
19/45
interviewed, the principal o r _ the principal~ designee ~hali detecmine after consultation with the
individuals from the local department of social services or the police, if a school official should
be present during the questioning. The school official should be selected with input from the
child, on a case by case basis. The purpose of dis£,ussion with police and CPS is about
providing support and comfort to the child who will be questioned. All questioning of the
victim or non-victim witness must be conducted by the police
-or
representative of DSS. In
general. state regulations express a preference for having a third i ;iam'. present during
questioning of a student except in circumstances where the principal or designee. in
consultation with the protective service worker [or the police]. determine[s] that a third party
should not be present during a child abuse interview. This may occur. for example, where the
presence of
a
third party may intimidate and inhibit the child's responses. If the principal
refuses to accede, then the police or DSS can raise an objection with the superintendent."
13
,
A Dearth of Data
Accountability and transparency requires MCPS to collect relevant data to determine if the
system is complying with law and best practices. Accountability and transparency have been
made impossible because MCPS has failed to call for an independent investigation of the
school system's scandalous handling of cases. Praesidium, the consultant MCPS has hired,
will not be conducting an independent investigation. Furthermore, Praesidium has publicly
lauded the draft policy and protocols, and markets inferior.criminal history background checks
that are not fingerprint based. Hiring them acts as a distraction from the necessity of
conducting an independent investigation. The company's public praise for the draft policy and
protocols is concerning, but not surprising, given the desire of all consultants to please those
who hire them and to whom they wish to sell their products.
The hiring of this consultant wil l do nothing to increase transparency or uncover facts
unknown to the public. One cannot fix problems without sufficiently knowing about them and
their scope. Most important, the consultant must be versed in trauma sensitive procedures
and Maryland law. Since MCPS at this point,. will not ensure that an independent investigation
will take place, I believe, .at the very least, that the school system invest in the collection of as
much data as possible to have some
sod
of accountability.
Unfortunately, the only data element listed
in'
the policy deemed necessary to evaluate MCPS
compliance with the child abuse laws is the overall number of suspected abuse or neglect
cases reported to law enforcement or CPS during anunstated period of time. This is
unacceptable.
It
leaves the impression that any attempt to be accountable and transparent
concerning such a serious issue as a child abuse and neglect scandal in a school system with
a
history of appalling mishandling of such 'cases will not happen. Moreover, the policy does
not require even this one bit of information to be reported to the Board of Education or the
public.
8/21/2019 JHC Public Comments 1-45
20/45
MCPS would not have been the first Maryland school system to undergo an outside
independent investigation. For example, MSDE and subsequently a Special Counsel both
investigated the Anne Arundel School System after the notorious Ron Price case. These
investigations made public their findings and recommendations. (I have those reports if school
officials want to see them.) The investigator concluded that
in
order to get all necessary
information, he absolutely needed subpoena powers. Reporting practically no data and
avoiding an independent investigation means that the public has to take MCPS at its word
with no verification. Entities that want to be trusted, however, provide evidence that they are
worthy of being trusted.
Hence the data elements listed below need to be add~d to section E(2)(a) of the policy. 1 1
This is not an exhaustive list, but it
is
a lengthy one because there are no other accountability
measures. Additional recommendations regarding data elements should be sought by school
officials from the public.
• Historical statistics since 1991, the date of the Attorney General's opinion, need to be
disclosed year-by-year to determine if progress has been made, and whether MCPS
has now come into compliance with child abuse laws, regulations, case law, and
Attorney General opinions, including the implementation of trauma-informed and
trauma-sensitive practices for students involved in child abuse cases. Also, please
note that the recommendations regarding data below refer to aggregate data, including
aggregate data
in
the secret file to be delineated from other data for as long as the
secret file has existed. Historical data should be reported as soon as possible. If any
data are unavailable or have been destroyed, school officials need to tell the public
specifically which data and why.
•
The school system must allocate the time to compile historical data to verify that it is
actually making
a
conscientious effort to hold itself at some level of accountability after
its troubled history, and that it takes seriously its obfigation to protect children.
Historical data must be reported
tothe
Board ahd the public. Current data must be
reported annually.
• The number of child physical abuse, sexual abuse (this includes sexual exploitation),
neglect, mental injury neglect and mental injury abuse reports made to DSS or Police.
• The number and types of reports referred to authorities for vulnerable adults.
•
Reporting sources should be documented and broken down by certificated and
uncertificated employees, contractors, volunteers, substitutes, school bus drivers,
student teachers, as well as parents etc. Anecdotally, it appears that the vast majority
of cases reported to authorities involving employees, contractors and volunteers etc.
have been initiated by parents and studentsor others outside the school system.
Therefore, these data needs t o be collected separately to document who has reported
8/21/2019 JHC Public Comments 1-45
21/45
suspected child abuse and neglect alleged to have been committed by someone in the
system. This includes· individuals
fn
the school system who have reported, categorized
by their position and the position of those reported
in
the school system
•
The number of reports involving individuals who were once students and subsequently
reported the abuse or other sexually related crimes committed by employees or
volunteers after leaving school.
•
Aggregate statistics should also be delineated by primary, middle school and high
school levels and by gender.
• The number of individuals currently
in
the school system's confidential files and how
long they have been in the file. The number endtypes of alleged misconduct. The
number of complaints each indi'-7iquai-has received separated
'out
by those generated
by students, employees, volunteers contractors and/or parents or guardians. The
range of discipline imposed by school officials for each individual. The number of
individuals in the file ultimately reported to authorities by school officials or others
outside the school system. The number of alleged victims by age and gender
,·
discovered
in
the files and the number of schools where the individual had access to
students.
• The number of individuals
in
the files who resiqned and the reasons for the
resignations and whether or not they received positive recommendations from the
school system. The number of individuals suspended or fired for child abuse related
incidents.
• The number of individuals accused of position of authority, child pornography, second
degree assault (a common plea bargain down from sexual offenses), neglect, physical
abuse and assault, statutory rape, and, other related sexual offenses including, but not
limited to stalking, indecent exposure, and child pornography, etc. The resultant
disposition of these individuals
in
the school system.
\
• The number of individuals ever'disciplined by the school system for failing to report
child abuse and neglect and/or blocking a report by category of employment. The
types of discipline imposed by the school officials for failing to report child abuse and
neglect or blocking a report. The number of individual reported to the police for
blocking
a
report. The penalty for interlering with a report
in
Section 5-702.2 of the
Family law Article is 5 years or a $10,000 fine or both. This penalty must be added to
Section V. on page 14 of the protocols. This crime can be reported even though
it
is
not mandated that
a
reeort is made.
14~
'
8/21/2019 JHC Public Comments 1-45
22/45
o
The number of children alleged to abused by registered sex offenders who have
regular access to them. This situation can be reported as well even though it is not
mandated.
•
The number educators whose certificates have ever been suspended and/or revoked
by the State Board for failing to report child abuse and neglect regarding children and
vulnerable adults.
• The number of requests to the. State Board to suspend or revoke a certificate for failing
to report.
• The number of certificates ever suspended or revoked for committing child abuse or
neglect or other sexually related crimes.
•
The number of educators, contractors, other employees and volunteers who have
worked for the school system, even after committing sexual offenses or other sexually
related crimes or violent crimes. (There was one case recently reported in the press.)
According to experts, no one with
a
history sexually related crimes should
continue to be allowed to work or volunteer in any school system.)
•
The number of employees, broken down by category of employment, who have been
moved to another school within the system after violent or sexually related complaints.
The number of moves per each individual.
• A description and number of professional development and educational outreach
efforts each year directed toward current staff, new teachers, students, parents,
school-based child abuse liaisons, substitutes, student teachers, school bus drivers,
volunteers, contractors and the communlty, The number and type of trainings per
each group annually.
•
The number of investigative interviews concerning abuse or neglect by the Department
of Social Services and/or the police on school property during school hours. The
number of interviews where principals or designee have been present in the interview
with a rationale as to why their presence was necessary.
• The number of confidential' settlement agreements with educators accused of child
abuse or sexual offenses involving children or vulnerable adults.
•
The number of individuals flagged since 1987 by the Criminal Justice Information
System regarding state crimes. When
I
spoke to Mr. Zuckerman, he was unaware of
I
anyone who had been flagged. See below
14 (an
bullet porns)
8/21/2019 JHC Public Comments 1-45
23/45
·
Criminal History Record Checks
School officials may be under the misapprehension that individuals required to obtain criminal
history records checks under sections 5-590 et. seq. of the Family Law Article can be
exempted if they do not have "direct, unsupervised and uncontrolled access to children on
MCPS property." This exemption only applies to a contractor or subcontractor and goes into
effect on July 1, 2015. In sections A(4) and C(4) of the policy the language could be
misconstrued because
it
is drafted so that contractors and subcontractors are
in
the same
sentence with new and existing employees.
15
•16
This makes it seems that the exemption for
contractors and subcontractors
is
not limited to them alone. All certificated and
non-certificated employees, student teachers, substitutes, bus drivers have to be checked
irrespective of the exemption for "'direct, unsupervised and uncontrolled access to children."
Amendments should be drafted to clarify in both sections of the policy that the exemption
does not apply to anyone other than a contractor or
subcontractor.
1516
The required standard in the the Family Law statute is "access to children" without
qualification. It is the "access" to chilqre~ which then triggers the mandate for state and
federal criminal history fingerprint checks. It is unfortunate that the exemption language was
added
in
HB 642 during the 2015 session without any definitions of supervision and what the
standards for supervision are and whether or not school system employees would be the
ones tasked with this supervision. · I t
is
also unclear what MCPS considers "direct" or
"uncontrolled" access. These terms are undefined. MCPS need to define access as strictly as
possible in the poljcy and protocols. MCPS has the option of enhancing protections for
;,
children rather than just limiti'nq them. ~-m.endments should be drafted in the same sections to
define "direct, unsupervised and uncontrolied access to children."11
With regard to fingerprint based criminal history record checks, I have taken the liberty of
contacting Carole Shelton. Ms. Shelton is the Director of Maryland's Department of Public
Safety and Correctional Services Information Technology.and Communications Division and
the Chairperson of the Criminal Justice Information Advisory Board. She mentioned that she
is available to speak with MCPS officials and possible send staff out to meet with MCPS
officials about the flagging system for state crimes enacted in 1987 and the new Rap back
program which the FBI announced is fully operational.
Both
these programs avoid the
necessity of redoing checks for
indivldua.l i;;
who have been previously fingerprinted. (The state
flagging system has no cost.) She would also be able to answer other questions regarding the
law. She would also be able to explain the pros and cons of private checks as opposed to
fingerprint based checks. Her contact information
is
available on the DPSCS website.
Other Issues
In Section 1 ( 1 ) in the definition section regarding contractors of the protocols could be
j
interpreted to limit the requirement to report abuse and neglect by a contractor only to when
the contractor has direct access or interaction with MCPS students on MCPS property or
8/21/2019 JHC Public Comments 1-45
24/45
during MCPS-sponsored activities. This needs to be rewritten so it does not violate Section
5-705 of the Family Law Article; which requires the reporting of child abuse and neglect by
everyone.~ Reporting is required whether or not the contractor has direct access or an
interaction with a student and whether or not that "direct interaction took place on school
property of during MCPS-sponsored activities." This provision also appears to contradict ll(A)
and(B) of the protocols. For example, the contractor could hear from
a
teacher or another
contractor information that would give rise to
a
reason to believe that abuse or neglect took
place.
In
Section ll(C){2} of the protocols the principal or direct supervisor js instructed not to
distribute a copy of the Form 335-44 to the police and State's Attorney's Office in cases of
neglect. In 2010 neglect was made a crime. See Section 3-602.2 of the Criminal Law Article.
Under current law educators could be neglectors. Therefore, this section of the protocols
should be amended to delete "In cases of abuse only.".ll
In
section lll(l)(B)(d)and lll(B)(2)(b) of the protocols, another loophole is created which gives
MCPS the right to inform the alleged offenders that that they have been reported for abuse or
neglect without asking permission first from the police and social services. This is under the
guise of protecting the best interests of children becausE: MCPS ostensibly needs to develop
an action plan to protect the child. This section needs to be deleted. z . l If the alleged offender
is so dangerous that school officials cannot wait for the police and social services to start
conducting their investigations, or they cannot even wait to ask the police or social services to
give permission to speak to the alleged offender so that the investigation by authorities is not
compromised, then school officials need to call 911, or the Superintendent needs to place the
alleged offender on leave without giving th~ offender the exact reason why. Why should
children be made frightened by having to follow
a
safety plan
in
a
place where they are
supposed to be safe
in
the first place? The Attorney General did not give- exemptions for a
action plans developed by
a
school system for a variety of reasons that would allow the
notification of the alleged offender that they have been reported. This is, in my view, a
subterfuge to protect the interest of the alleged offender.
I
have not seen these types of
provisions before. I could not find
a
similar provisicnlnthe MSDE model policy.
. .
J
. .
The school system should add a section abou't the Position of Authority law, directing
employees and others to report
a
violation to authorities, even though
it
is not technically child
abuse.£ Certainly, this behavior would give anyone reason to believe that the educator, for
example, is also abusing children on· school grounds. This has already happened.
Lastly, the school system lawyer sh9uld look at a September 19, 1997 Attorney General's
opinion about who should notify parents and
when.22 T h e
Attorney General states: If the
situation involves an investigation of alleged child abuse by a teacher, the parents should be
'
told of the situation within 24 hours. The responsibility for notification, however lies with the
local department of social services or the police department, not the school system." Section
111(0)(3) of the protocols contradicts this opinion. Also, MCPS seems to want to contend that
8/21/2019 JHC Public Comments 1-45
25/45
'
a notification of
a
report should be treated differently from
a
notification of investigation.
think this is an artificial distinction designed to notify the alleged offender and the union as
soon as possible, thereby compromising the investigation by authorities. Because this section
of the protocols conflicts with this opinion, this section needs
t o
be rewritten.
2 2
Finally, I would respectfully request that my recommendations be given careful, considered
attention.
I
would hope that they are adopted to protect the health and safety of children
under the care of MCPS. MCPS has a profound obligation to change the culture of secrecy
which has been allowed to thrive for decades. In institutional abuse the dynamic involves a
tacit collusion between abusers and the administration to keep things under wraps. But "there
is no safety for children in secrecy." (See Horace Mann School report, referenced above).
Respectfully,
Ellen Mugmon,
Specific recommendations for amendments are incorporated in the body of this report and are
numbered and underlined.
t
8/21/2019 JHC Public Comments 1-45
26/45
Ellen Mugmon
7193 Collingwood Court
Elkridge, MD 21075
(410) 747-0857
E-mail: [email protected]
Education:
Master of Liberal Arts, with High Honors, The Johns Hopkins University, 1983
Bachelor of Arts, with General Honors, Douglass College, 1971
Career History:
Have attended CJIS Advisory Board meetings for over twenty years, and was appointed
a
member by the Governor in 2012. With regard to criminal history records, have been a
member of the Ad-hoc Committee on the National Child Protection Act,
a
subcommittee of the
CJIS Board. Have been
a
member of the DPSCS Criminal Justice Information System
Central Repository Nuclear Committee. Have been
a
member of the Criminal Background
Check Investigation Workgroup, established by the Office of Children, Youth and Families and
the Governor's Council on Child Abuse and Neglect. Consultant, American Bar Association
Center on Children and the Law's reports to the US Department of Justice, entitled
Effective
Screening
of
Child Care and Youth Services Workers and Screening
of
Persons Working with
Children the Elderly and Persons in Need of Support.
1993-Present: Legislative advocate
-
submitted testimony before numerous federal, state,
and local governmental bodies - served on severaf agency committees concerned with child
abuse and neglect.
1997-2015: Coalition to Protect Maryland's Children, Steering Committee
. . I~ ~:
1998 - Member- Task Force - MSDE/DHR Task Force on Responses to Child Abuse
1990-2003 Legislative Committee, Governor's Council on Child Abuse and Neglect, Chair
(member since 1986)
2005-2009: Children's Healthcare Is A Legal Duty (Child, inc)
-
Representative to the National
Child Abuse Coalition
2004: Maryland Task Force on Child Welfare Accountability
2003-2011: Legislative Committee, Citizens' Review Board for Children, Member
1997-Present: American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children, Representative to the
National Child Abuse Coalition (2005-2009)
1996-2006: Legislative Agenda for Maryland Women, Member, Steering Committee
2000-2011: Maryland's Federally Funded Children's Justice Act Committee
8/21/2019 JHC Public Comments 1-45
27/45
1993-2002: Legislative Consultant, Maryland School Psychologists Association
1999-2003: Legislative Consultant to Maryland Pupil Personnel Services Association.
1993-2007: Consultant to entities undercontract on child abuse and neglect issues for state
and national conferences
1985-2009: Presenter at numerous conferences at local, state and national levels
1972-1977: Caseworker, Montgomery County Department of Social Services.
Significant Accomplishment:
.
My most significant accomplishment is sustaining
a
passionate, over 30-year commitment to
advocacy on behalf of abused and neglected children at county, state and national levels.
Among other achievements,
I
played a maier role in the passage of legislation requiring
criminal records screening of individuals who work with children, eliminating corporal
punishment in public schools, repealing exemptions that had-permitted religiously-motivated
medical neglect of children, establishinq child fatality review panels and strengthening
Maryland's reporting law. Also spearheaded efforts to defeat legislation that would have
threatened the health and safety of Maryland's children.
Officer/Board Membership in Civic/Nonprofit Organizations:
2012-2015: Member, Maryland Criminal Justice Information Advisory Board
1996-2009: Honorary Member of the Board of Directors, Children's Health Care
is a
Legal
Duty, Member - 1996-present.
1996-2003: Legislative Chair, Maryland Chapter of the American Professional Society on the
Abuse of Children (2002-2003: Vice President)
1995-2000: Member, Executive Council, National Committee on the Rights of the Child
1990-1999: Founding Member of the Board'. Voices for Children Inc. (CASA Program) - in
Howard County, MD
1994-1995: Member of the Board, Sponsor-A-Child Program
1986-1994: Chair, Advocacy Committee, Board of Directors' Howard County Sexual Assault
Center
·
"
1988-1992: Chair, Howard County Child Protection Committee
1985-1989, 1992-1995: Legislative Chair, PTA Council Howard County
1985-1987: Publicly elected member, Board of Directors, Harper's Choice Village Association,
Columbia, MD.
·
8/21/2019 JHC Public Comments 1-45
28/45
Awards/Honors:
2013: Honored by The Awareness Center, Inc.: The International Jewish Coalition Against
Sexual Abuse/Assault
2006: Distinguished Service Award on Behalf of Abused and Neglected Children, Justice For
Children
2005: Outstanding Service Award, Citizens' Review Board for Children
2004: Maryland's Top 100 Women, Maryland Daily Record
1999: Imogene T. Johnson Friend of Children Award, Children's Health Care is a Legal Duty
1999: First Annual Governor's Council on Child Abuse and Neglect Advocacy Award
1998: Champion for Children Award, Maryland Foster· Care Review Board
1998: Certificate of Appreciation, Legislative Agenda for Maryland
1998: President's Honor Roll, American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children
1997: Commendation by the Family Tree for Advocacy of Behalf of Children
1997: Child Advocacy Award, Maryland Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics
1996: Golden Apple Award, Maryland Co~gress of Parents and Teachers
1995: Special Friend to Children, by the National Association of School Psychologists
1994: Recognized for "Outstanding Service and Dedication to the Howard County Sexual
Assault Center"
1993: Recognized for "Advocacy Efforts to pass legislation eliminating corporal punishment
in
schools" by the PTA Council of Howard County
1992: Public Citizen of the Year, Maryland Chapter of the National Association of Social
Workers
1992: Governor's Citation for work on behalf of children
1992:City of Baltimore Citizen Citation for Services t~ Citizens of Baltimore
'
i
1992: Baltimore County Executive Citation for Advocacy on Behalf of Children in Maryland
1992: Certificate of Recognition from Howard County Government for Advocacy on Behalf of
Children
1990: Governor's Certificate of Merit for Outstanding Contributions in the Field of Victim's
Rights or Services
1988: Harper's Choice Community Service Award
1986: Honorary Life Membership, Maryland Conqress of Parents and Teachers.
8/21/2019 JHC Public Comments 1-45
29/45
Affiliations
Member, International Society for Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect, 1991-present
Member, the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children (APSAC), 1990
-
l
present
Member, National Child Abuse Coalition as APSAC Representative, 1994-2009
Member , _
Coalition to Protect Maryland's.Children, 1997-2015
Member, the American Humane Association, Children's Division, 1991
-
present
Member, Children's Health Care is a Legal Duty, Inc., 1993-present
Member, Maryland Network Against Domestic Violence, 1995-present
Member, Maryland Congress of Parents and Teachers, 1985-present
Member, National Association of Council for Children, 1998-present
Member, the American Coalition for Abuse Awareness, 1997-present
Member, National Victims' Center, 1994-present
Member, Maryland's Children Action Network, 1997-present
Member, Center for Effective Discipline, 2000
-
present
Member, Prevent Child Abuse America, 1998
-
present
Member, National Committee on the Rights of the Child, 1993-2000
8/21/2019 JHC Public Comments 1-45
30/45
Top executives
did
not report suspected Scout
abuse cases files show
By JASON FELCH,
WS
ANGELES TIMES
DECEMBER 30. 2012, 3:25 PM
I
n 1987, a Scoutmaster at a camp in northeast Georgia was accused of fondling a boy in a
sleeping bag.
The local Boy Scouts
executive,
Wayne Brock, followed Scouting procedures and documented
the
allegation before forwarding it to
the
group's Texas headquarters, where
it was
added
to
confidential files on leaders suspected of molesting children.
The Scoutmaster
was
expelled
and
left town in a matter
of
days. The police were never told,
interviews
and
records show.
DATABASE:
Search the "perversion" files
Today, Brock is the chief executive of
the
Boy Scouts of America.
As he and his recent predecessors rose through the ranks of Scouting,
they
handled
at
least 120
cases of suspected sexual abuse dating from
the
mld-iszos,
according to a Times analysis of
confidential Boy Scout files.
'·
As district executives, it was their job to gather evidence and witness statements, determine
whether to recommend a leader's expulsion and report their findings to headquarters, which made
the final decision.
VIDEO: Victims
speak out
In
the
process, the officials had a front-row
seat
on cases in which Scouting's abuse-prevention
policies failed.
Although the officials may have followed Scout policy and violated no laws,
the
files in several cases
indicate
that
they did not inform authorities
·- or
their communities
- of
suspected child
molesters who were expelled from the organization.
The
Boy
Scouts would not make Brock
or the
former chief executives available for interviews.
Brock did not return calls to his home and cellphone.
8/21/2019 JHC Public Comments 1-45
31/45
In a statement, a spokesman said it was mpossible to comment on specific, decades-old files.
Instead, the spokesman highlighted the executives' contributions to abuse-prevention policies,
inc1uding the requirement in
2010
that any suspicion of abuse be reported to police.
Faced in recent months with the public release of hundreds of files by court order, Scouting
officials have acknowledged that "in certain cases, our response to these incidents
and
our efforts
to protect youth were plainly insufficient, inappropriate, or .wrong."
Brock was a regional executive in the Appalachian foothills
of
Georgia when allegations surfaced
that Scoutmaster Peter A. Gross had fondled a J,oy.
The alleged molestation was witnessed by another Scout, who confronted Gross "in the act," boys
in the troop later told a parent, according to an account in the Boy Scout file on the case.
Gross gathered the boys together and "told them not to tell anybody and that he was having a
dream
of
a pretty lady and that was why he was 'playing with the Scout' in bed with him," the
account says.
A few days later, Gross told a Scouting official a different story: The Scout had fallen from his bunk
during a "terrible thunderstorm," according to the file. "I had him sleep with me to calm him.
Nothing else happened "
In a recent interview, Gross said that story sounded far-fetched and insisted he never told it. He
denied fondling the boy and said he can't explain why the troop accused him.
Brock forwarded the allegations to Scouting headquarters. The file contains no indication
that
Brock or other Scouting officials notified law enforcement. The Rabun County sheriffs office said
they had no record of being told, and Gross and a local Scouting official said they were never
contacted
by
authorities.
On April 8, 1988,headquarters notified Brock of Gross' expulsion. Four days later, a change in
Georgia law went into effect requiring employees of youth organizations to report suspected abuse
to law enforcement.
Because Brock learned of the alleged abuse before the new law took effect, it isn't clear whether he
was required to report
it
to authorities.
, ·
J.Tom Morgan, a former district attorney of DeKalb County and coauthor of the law, said it was
unlikely to be applied retroactively, even by a few days.
Melissa Carter, director of Emory University's Barton Child Law and Policy Center, disagreed: "If
he had reasonable cause to believe a child had been abused, that is knowledge that persists over
8/21/2019 JHC Public Comments 1-45
32/45
time," she said. "That was no different on April 8
than
on April 13."
Carter and Morgan agreed on one thing: Brock should
have reported the allegations to
police.
Days after
being accused, Gross said, he moved to Florida for a few years. Today, he is a truck
driver
living
20
miles from where
the
alleged incident
took
place.
Few know about
the
allegations,
and
Gross,
who bas
no criminal record, said
he
hopes it stays
that
way.
"I was
fortunate that it didn't
go any further," Gross said. "I was thankful for that."
. .
. .
Brock's predecessor, Robert Mazzuca, spent two decades as a regional Scout executive in California
and
Pennsylvania. He
sent
an average of one case a year
to headquarters
detailing allegations
of
child molestation.
One
of
Mazzuca's cases involved David Cooley, an
assistant
Scoutmaster in a Pittsburgh suburb
who was expelled in 1997 after police
discovered he
had made videos
of
himself having sex
with
boys.
Cooley
pleaded
guilty to