jhc summary of responses

8/21/2019 JHC Summary of Responses

1/17

Attachment B

Summary of Responses Policy ABC Page 1 6/11/15

Summary of Responses to

Policy JHC, Child Abuse and Neglect

Public

Response

Number

Commentator Issue/Concern

Line #’s refer to the Draft

for Public Comment

Staff Response

Line #’s refer to the

Committee

Recommended Draft

1 Daniel Hirschhorn,

MBA, JD

Policy is confusing. Needs

better organization. Policydoesn’t tell how to

accomplish objectives or

what or what not to do.

Suggests that the code of

conduct and related

standards be published anddistributed as soon as

possible and that it parallel

and comport withMaryland’s laws on child

abuse and neglect. Terms

must also be clearly defined.

Suggests structuring the

organization of the policy to

have differentiated sections

on responsibilities by classof the involved party.

Implementing details will

be set forth in regulationswhich were provided as

reference Draft Protocols.

Regulations, Code of

Conduct, and related

training will be completedin time for the start of the

2015 – 2016 school year.

2 Keith Campbell Opposes elements of the

policy that require reporting

to Child Protective Services(CPS). CPS has taken an

overly broad interpretation

of Maryland statues that

were intended to protectchildren from abandonment

and neglect. Such reporting

puts well-behaved but activechildren at risk of beingconfined involuntarily and

without parental

notification.

Defer adopting the policy

until CPS and Montgomery

Policy requires reporting to

Child Protective Services

as set forth in Marylandlaw.


2/17

Attachment B


Public

Response

Number



for Public Comment

Staff Response


Committee

Recommended Draft

County police action have become more consistent

with the American political

tradition.

3 Susan Burkinshaw Do not implement Policy

JHC yet. Policy must bevetted by child abuse

experts with knowledge of

laws and Attorney General

opinions at the state level.There are flaws, loopholes,

conflicts with AttorneyGeneral opinions and

inconsistencies withMaryland law.

Need accountability forabuses that have occurred

and may continue to occur.

Need the promised

infrastructure.

Questions aboutimplementation,

management, and resources

to support the policy.

Policy, regulations and

related documents, andtraining will be completed

in time for the start of the


4 Ellen Mugmon The proposed documents

have serious flaws. TheBoard should wait to

approve the policy until

certain sections in the protocols are amended and

placed into the draft policyand until other policies and

regulations and documentsare written and reviewed by

the public.

Most of the provisions in the protocols should be in the

Policy, regulations and

related documents, andtraining will be completed

in time for the start of the



3/17

Attachment B


Public

Response

Number



for Public Comment

Staff Response


Committee

Recommended Draft

policy. The protocolsshould be subject to Board

approval.

A public hearing should bescheduled to discuss the

policy.

The policy, protocols,contracts, and other

documents encourage

untrained school officialswith no expertise in child

sexual abuse and

exploitation investigations,to inappropriately screen out

reports of sexual abuse and

exploitation, predicated on amistakenly narrow operating

definition of these crimes.

Section B (2), the policy

states that “no MCPSinternal investigation may

proceed without

“consultation” with County partner agencies. That is not

what the Attorney General

stated. “Consent” must besubstituted for

“consultation” and “police

or social services”substituted for “County

partner agencies.”

Several edits have been proposed to address:

Collaborating withcounty partneragencies to ensure

alleged perpetrator

does not present an

immediate dangerto the safety of

alleged victim and

other students.

Clarification ofMCPS’ ability to

interview allegedvictims, alleged

perpetrators or

witnesses while

external agenciesare conducting

investigations.

Protecting records

or reports

concerning abuse

and the identity ofthe reporter from

unauthorized

disclosure.

Reports to the

Board regarding

suspected abuse orneglect by MCPSemployees,

contractors, and

volunteers.


4/17

Attachment B


Public

Response

Number



for Public Comment

Staff Response


Committee

Recommended Draft

The only data element listedin the policy necessary to

evaluate MCPS compliance

with the child abuse laws is

the overall number ofsuspected abuse or neglect

cases reported to law

enforcement or CPS during

an unstated period of time.This is unacceptable. The

policy does not require even

this information to bereported to the Board or the

public.

The following data points

should be added to the

policy at Section E(2)(a):

Historical statistics since

1991, the date of the

Attorney General’s opinion,

should be disclosed year-by-year to determine if progress

has been made and whetherMCPS has come into

compliance with child abuse

laws, regulations, case law,

and Attorney General’sopinions.

Historical data must bereported to the Board and

the public.

The number of child physical abuse, sexual

abuse, neglect, mental injury

neglect and mental injuryabuse reports made to DSS

or police.

Several additional editshave been made to the

protocols which have been

posted for reference.


5/17

Attachment B


Public

Response

Number



for Public Comment

Staff Response


Committee

Recommended Draft

The number and types of

reports referred to

authorities for vulnerable

adults.Reporting sources should be

documented and broken

down by certificated and un-

certificated employees,contractors, volunteers,

substitutes, school bus

drivers, student teachers, aswell as parents.

The number of reportsinvolving individuals who

were former students and

reported the abuse or othersexually related crimes

committed by employees or

volunteers after leaving

school.

Aggregate statistics should

be delineated by primary,middle and high school

levels by gender.

The number of individualscurrently in the school

system’s confidential files

and how long they have been in the file. The

number and types of allegedmisconduct. The number of

complaints each individualhas received separated out

by those generated by

students, employees,volunteers, contractors,

and/or parents/guardians.


6/17

Attachment B


Public

Response

Number



for Public Comment

Staff Response


Committee

Recommended Draft

The range of disciplineimposed. The number in the

file reported to authorities

by school officials or others

outside the system. Thenumber of alleged victims

by age and gender

discovered in the files and

the number of schools wherethe individual had access to

students.

The number of individuals

in the files who resigned and

the reasons and whetherthey received positive

recommendations from the

school system. The numberof individuals suspended or

fired for child abuse related

incidents.

The number of individualsaccused in position of

authority, child pornography, second degree

assault, neglect, physical

abuse and assault, statutory

rape, and other relatedsexual offenses including,

but not limited to stalking,

indecent exposure, and child pornography.

The number of individuals

ever disciplined by theschool system for failing to

report child abuse and

neglect. The types ofdiscipline imposed by

school officials for failure to


7/17

Attachment B


Public

Response

Number



for Public Comment

Staff Response


Committee

Recommended Draft

report.

The number of children

alleged to be abused by

registered sex offenders whohave regular access to them.

The number of educators

whose certificates have ever

been suspended and orrevoked by the State Board

for failure to report child

abuse and neglect regardingchildren and vulnerable

adults.

The number of requests to

the State Board to suspend

or revoke a certificate forfailure to report.

The number of educators,

contractors, and other

employees and volunteerswho have worked for the

school system even aftercommitting sexual offenses.

The number of employees,

by category of employment,who have been moved to

other schools within the

system after sexually relatedcomplaints.

A description and number of

professional developmentand educational outreach

efforts each year toward

current staff, new teachers,students, parents, school-

based child abuse liaisons,


8/17

Attachment B


Public

Response

Number



for Public Comment

Staff Response


Committee

Recommended Draft

substitutes, student teachers,school bus drivers,

volunteers, contractors and

community. The number

and type of trainings peryear.

The number of investigative

interviews conducted by the

DSS and/or police on school property during school

hours. The number of

interviews where principalsor designee have been

present.

The number of confidential

settlement agreements with

educators accused of childabuse or sexual offenses

involving children or

vulnerable adults.

The number of individualsflagged since 1987 by the

Criminal Justice InformationSystem regarding state

crimes.

In Sections A(4) and C(4)the language could be

misconstrued because it is

drafted so that contractorsand subcontractors are in the

same sentence with new andexisting employees. This

makes it seem that theexemption for contractors

and subcontractors is not

limited to them alone.Amendments should be

drafted to clarify that the


9/17

Attachment B


Public

Response

Number



for Public Comment

Staff Response


Committee

Recommended Draft

exemption does not apply toanyone other than a

contractor or subcontractor.

5 Jennifer Alvaro,

member of current Child

Abuse Advisory group

Do not implement the

proposed policy. There are

many errors and loopholes. Needs to be an infrastructure

to implement, maintain and

continue its mission.

Sending aspects of the workto various departments and

people (who have noexpertise in the field) is

planning for failure.

The system cannot operate

in secrecy. All documents, policies, regulations, and

departments must be

brought into compliancewith these policies.

Students and staff mustreport abuse to the police orChild Protective Services,

not to school staff and

parents.

An employee Code of

Conduct must be published.

Everything must betransparent.

Need to have a full,impartial investigationregarding the systemic

failure of the schools to

protect the students.

Policy, regulations, Code

of Conduct, and related

training will be completedin time for the 2015 – 2016

school year.

Numerous edits have beenrecommended to ensure

clarity and compliance.(see comment #4)

Summary of Responses toPolicy JHC, Child Abuse and Neglect Protocols


10/17

Attachment B


Public

Response

Number



for Public Comment

Staff Response


Committee

Recommended Draft

1 Brenda Gregory Yuen,

parent

There are many things that

are right about the words inthe protocols.

Protocols state that principals should handle all

suspected abuse or parental

concerns. Concerned about

the principals now in MCPSschools who have in the past

neglected to accept, actupon, or take seriously the

many concerns broughtforward. How can

principals be given

responsibility to handle suchallegations fairly when they

supervise and have personal

relationships withemployees? It is the law

that all suspected child

abuse and neglect bereported directly to CPS.

Protocols state that

principals will develop a plan to promptly notify

parents/guardians of

students involved in an

alleged abuse or neglectsituation. How is this

ethically responsible to

place this duty in the handsof an MCPS principal? Thisis a conflict of interest.

Main concern is with theinternal culture of MCPS

leadership and employees.

Comments forwarded to

General Counsel.

Several edits have beenmade to the protocols

which have been posted for

reference.


11/17

Attachment B


Public

Response

Number



for Public Comment

Staff Response


Committee

Recommended Draft

Need to know who willmaintain accountability for

the protocols.

Codifying these regulationsis a first step but should

come with more

transparency.

2 Ellen Mugmon Section 3(d) vi of the April

15 draft of the protocolsshould be deleted because

the Employee Code ofConduct to which it refers,

and the Memorandum ofUnderstanding, has not yet

been drafted and the criteria

for the secret file is based onan incorrect assumption, that

MCPS’ interpretation of the

definition child sexual abuseis controlling as opposed to

that of Maryland’s highest

court.

Section III(B)(3(d)(4)(i)

states that MCPS internal

investigations may proceedonly after “consultation”

with the County MDT

participating agencies and in

accordance with thememorandum of

understanding.”

“Consultation” must bedeleted and “consent”substituted and “ police or

social services” substituted

for “County MDT participating agencies.”

Several edits have been

made to the protocolswhich have been posted for

reference.

Section III(B)(3)(c)(iv), the protocols state the “MCPS


12/17

Attachment B


Public

Response

Number



for Public Comment

Staff Response


Committee

Recommended Draft

employees shall not discussthe allegations with the

alleged offender, without

prior “consultation” with the

County MDT, in order toavoid compromising the

integrity of the pending

investigations by external

agencies.” “Consultation “must be deleted and

“permission” substituted and

“police and social services”substituted for “County

MDT”

Section III (A)(3), protocolsstate that “to the extent that

some preliminary inquiry

must be taken….that inquiryor action should be pursued

in consultation with the

County MDT.” “In

consultation” must be

deleted and substituted by“with permission of the

police or social services.”

Section II (B)(2)(b) states

that “once an oral report is

made to CPS, neither the principal or other employees

shall conduct further

internal investigations.”This provision is

inconsistent with thereporting law and the

Attorney General’s opinionand other sections of the

policy and protocols which

requires an immediate reportand consent from authorities

to speak with those


13/17

Attachment B


Public

Response

Number



for Public Comment

Staff Response


Committee

Recommended Draft

involved. This section must be deleted.

Section II(B)(e) limiting

questioning prior to

reporting is a problem.

Section II(B)(1)(e) should

be changed to suggest an

open-ended question.

Section II(B)(2)(f) states

that the MCPS employer,contractor, or volunteer

making the oral report will

immediately update his/her principal or direct

supervisor. Receiving

confidential informationdoes not give the right to

disseminate it under law.

The widespread spread of

information about thealleged victim in the

protocols is insensitive andtraumatic.

The policy or protocols do

not mention a mechanism toaddress the need for the

superintendent to have

investigatory informationfor disciplinary hearings.

The protocols should makeclear that information

learned related to theinvestigatory process stays

there.

Trauma-informed and

trauma-sensitive practices


14/17

Attachment B


Public

Response

Number



for Public Comment

Staff Response


Committee

Recommended Draft

should be applied in the policy and protocols.

Child victims and witnesses

should be allowed to decide

if no one will be in theinterview from the school.

The victims must be given a

choice.

The language entitled,

“Third Party Presence” must

be adopted rather thanresisted. There is no

mention of this in Section

III(A)(2). The followingamendment must be

included in both the policy

and protocols: “In the eventthat a child is questioned by

the protective services

worker and/or police during

the school day on school

premises in an investigationof child abuse and/or

neglect, whether the child isthe alleged victim or non-

victim witness, and whether

the child has previously

been interviewed, the principal or the principal’s

designee shall determine

after consultation with theindividuals from the local

department of socialservices or the police, if a

school official should be present during the

questioning. The school

official should be selectedwith input from the child on

a case by case basis. The


15/17

Attachment B


Public

Response

Number



for Public Comment

Staff Response


Committee

Recommended Draft

purpose of discussion with police and CPS is about

providing support and

comfort to the child who

will be questioned. Allquestioning of the victim or

non-victim witness must be

conducted by the police or

representative of DSS. Ingeneral, state regulations

express a preference for

having a third party presentduring questioning of a

student except in

circumstances where the principal or designee, in

consultation with the

protective service workerfor the police, determines

that a third party should not

be present during a child

abuse interview. This may

occur, for example, wherethe 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 thesuperintendent.”

The penalty for interferingwith a report must be added

to Section V on page 14 ofthe protocols.

In Section I(l) in the

definition section, the

definition regardingcontractors could be

interpreted to limit the


16/17

Attachment B


Public

Response

Number



for Public Comment

Staff Response


Committee

Recommended Draft

requirement to report abuseand neglect by a contractor

only to when the contractor

has direct access or

interaction with MCPSstudents on MCPS property

or during MCPS-sponsored

activities. Reporting is

required whether or not thecontractor has direct access

or an interaction with a

student and whether or not“direct interaction took

place on school property

during MCPS-sponsoredactivities.” This provision

also appears to contradict

II(A) and (B) of the protocols.

Section II(C)(2) should be

amended to delete “In cases

of abuse only. ”SectionIII(l)(B)(d) and III(B)(2)(b)

creates a loophole whichgives MCPS the right to

inform the alleged offenders

that they have been reported

for abuse or neglect withoutasking permission first from

the police or social services.

This section needs to bedeleted.

A section about the Position

of Authority law should beadded, directing employees

and others to report a

violation to authorities, eventhough it is not technically

child abuse.


17/17

Attachment B


Public

Response

Number



for Public Comment

Staff Response


Committee

Recommended Draft

Section III(D)(3) contradicts

the Attorney General’s

opinion about who should

notify parents and when.

jhc summary of responses

Documents