ANALYSIS
improper sexual conduct by an employee. Schools are responsible for taking prompt and effective action
to stop the harassment and prevent its recurrence. Tey may also be responsible for remedying the effects of the harassment on a student. Attorneys Michael A. Patterson (who defended the High- line School District in litigation arising from the case against former teacher Mary Kay Letourneau for sexual abuse of a Wisconsin stu- dent) and Tomas E. M. Hutton (former in-house legal counsel to the National School Boards Association) noted to the Seattle Times last December: “Rather than imagining what might have been avoided at Penn State if witnesses had immediately reported the obvious abuse to law enforcement, consider what might have hap- pened if Penn State had put into place these practices and training. Imagine how Sandusky’s colleagues and the university might have reacted to these earlier behaviors cited in the grand jury report [if they had adequate training]: • His close relationships with individual children • Te ample time he spent alone with children • His frequent phone calls with children • Teir staying overnight at his home and accompanying him to various events
• His expensive gifts to individual children • His un-monitored visits to students at school and one-on- one athletic “training” followed by showering
• His emotional reaction when a child would break off the relationship. Tey would have set off alarm bells.”
Don’t be fooled by so-called “consensual” sexual relationships
between adults and students. As stated in the Office of Civil Rights’ still-relevant “Revised Sexual Harassment Guidance: Harassment of Students by School Employees, Other Students, or Tird Parties” (January 2001), “If elementary students are involved, welcomeness will not be an issue: OCR will never view sexual conduct between an adult school employee and elementary school student as con- sensual. In cases involving secondary students, there will be a strong presumption that sexual conduct between an adult school employee and a student is not consensual.” To the extent you have responsibility for providing services for
programs adjunct to integral educational programs — before and after school programs or transition programs for students with dis- abilities — be sure you carry out your role, if any, in advising staff members of their responsibilities. ■
Peggy Burns is the author of “Defensible Decisions about Transporting Students with Special Needs: Lessons Learned from Legal Disputes.” Burns also produced four video training programs for drivers and is editor of “Legal Routes.” Visit
www.educationcompliancegroup.com, call 888-604-6141 or email
peggy@educationcompliancegroup.com.
Applying Lessons From the Freeh Report • The report notes top officials failed to
demand more information from key sourc- es once they became aware of allegations against Sandusky. Instead, they brushed off what they heard, refused to ask “the next question” and lulled themselves into complacency or, at least, inaction. Revised legislation and/or policy may speak to ad- ministrators’ duties once they have reason to suspect abuse. When you are on notice that any staff
member has allegedly violated district or company policy in ways that, if true, would be harmful to students or others, you must promptly and effectively play your desig- nated role in the investigative process. If you’re required to “immediately report” to law enforcement, that means report, not investigate, first. • Top officials also “repeatedly concealed
from authorities critical facts relating to San- dusky’s child abuse from the authorities, the university’s board of trustees, the Penn State community and the public at large.” Tey did not set a “Tone at the Top” environment that would have set an example for any
staff member with reason to suspect abuse. Before May 1998 (when a boy’s mother reported a possible sexual assault by San- dusky on her son), several staff members and football coaches had regularly observed Sandusky showering with young boys in university facilities. No one interviewed by Freeh notified their supervisors of this be- havior. Even after the 1998 incident, and certainly not before it, university officials took no action to limit Sandusky’s access to Penn state facilities or took any measures to protect children on their campuses. You must keep your supervisors apprised
of any allegations of serious misconduct involving members of your department, your district or your company. Tis is especially true when concealment would tend to com- promise the duties of top officials regarding the allegations and to permit the clear potential for continued abuse. When you have reason for concern, you must institute interim measures to protect students during a police or internal investigation. Te person under investigation should be placed on administrative leave if the allegations, if true,
36 School Transportation News Magazine October 2012
could potentially threaten the safety of oth- ers during the investigation period. • A janitor (“Janitor A”) who witnessed a
sexual assault by Sandusky on one or more young boys failed to report the incident. He immediately told a colleague (“Janitor B”) what he had seen, stating that he had “fought in the [Korean] War ... seen people with their guts blowed out, arms dismem- bered ... I just witnessed something in there I’ll never forget.” A senior janitorial employ- ee (“Janitor C”) advised Janitor A that he could report what he saw if he wanted to do so, and Janitor B assured Janitor A that he would stand by Janitor A if he reported to the police. However, Janitor A decided against making such a report for fear that “they’ll get rid of all of us.” Make it mandatory for staff to report any
incident they believe to be harmful to stu- dents. Work with Human Resources to make any failure to report a violation of policy, punishable by termination. Do whatever you can to identify and eliminate an atmosphere of fear that may stand in the way of staff members’ fulfilling their duties.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84