JHC Public Comments 1-45

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


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


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


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.


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


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


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.


8/45

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.


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.


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 childabuse 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: ·


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


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


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."


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


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


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


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,"


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


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.


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


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~

'


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)


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


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


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


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


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.

·


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.


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


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.


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


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

JHC Public Comments 1-45

Documents

Transcript of JHC Public Comments 1-45