By Adam Pagnucco.
This Thursday, the county council’s Education and Culture Committee is scheduled to discuss the initial findings of MCPS’s investigation into its sexual harassment scandal. Here are the questions I hope the council asks representatives of MCPS.
Why does MCPS not investigate anonymous allegations?
Jackson Lewis, the law firm conducting the investigation, wrote, “…There is evidence that MCPS has long-standing practices and processes in place that resulted in anonymous and informal complaints not being formally investigated.”
That’s a problem. While investigators prefer to know the identities of complainants, it’s common practice to solicit and investigate anonymous complaints. Those who solicit such complaints in the region include the Montgomery County Inspector General, the Park and Planning Inspector General, the Maryland Inspectors General of Education and Health, the WSSC Inspector General, the Baltimore City Inspector General, the Baltimore County Inspector General and the D.C. Inspector General as well as many federal inspectors general.
But what makes this truly amazing is that MCPS solicits anonymous complaints from its employees about waste, fraud and abuse on its own website. MCPS states, “Employees can make a report anonymously 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Reports can be received in more than 140 languages, including Spanish.”
If Jackson Lewis is right, what happens to these complaints?
A screenshot of MCPS soliciting anonymous complaints on its website.
Are there other Beidlemans?
So far, the investigation has addressed events surrounding just one former principal, Joel Beidleman. One of my sources commented, “Is he the only one? Or is MCPS like the Catholic Church?” We should know if any investigation is addressing this issue.
What did the superintendent know and when did she know it?
The Jackson Lewis summary repeatedly mentions “multiple members of the administration” and “key MCPS leaders” as knowing of the complaints against Beidleman, recommending him for promotion anyway and later failing to notify the school board. Do these people include Superintendent Monifa McKnight? The summary mentions that she did not receive the emails about Beidleman cited by the teachers union but says little else about her directly.
This is important because McKnight’s actions may be the subject of further discussion by the underlying report and also may be investigated by the county inspector general. McKnight should not be involved in any investigation of her own actions. MCPS should agree to remove her from dealing with this matter until or unless she is found to be without fault.
What is MCPS’s capacity to investigate complaints?
MCPS is a gigantic organization with more than 24,000 employees. Even if the huge majority of them are professional, competent and ethical, there are bound to be a significant number of complaints that must be investigated. How many people does MCPS have doing this work? Does there need to be more, especially if anonymous complaints are considered?
What is the role of Jackson Lewis and the materials it has gathered going forward?
Jackson Lewis is a contract law firm that handled the investigation’s first phase. The firm has represented employers in sexual harassment matters for decades. Presumably, the firm – and therefore MCPS – has custody of materials from the first phase, including records of interviews with witnesses. Will these materials be used to defend MCPS from litigation, and will Jackson Lewis be hired for defense? If the answer to these questions is yes – or a possible yes – that casts an ill light on the first phase, suggesting that one of its purposes was legal defense.
If specific managers are found to know about the Beidleman allegations while still approving his promotion, will they be disciplined?
This is the big question. While the summary report does not name the names of Beidleman’s benefactor(s), the unpublished full report just might. Consider the allegations against Beidleman that appeared in the Washington Post’s first story on the issue. It boggles the mind that any senior executive(s) could have thought that he should be picked to lead a high school while he was under investigation. Even worse, the summary states, “Those individuals did not inquire about the specific nature of the allegations against Dr. Beidleman, including their disposition.”
If the unnamed “key MCPS leaders” are not appropriately disciplined, can MCPS ever get past this issue? Or will these leaders continue to make bad decisions given that they have escaped accountability for the scandal at hand?
I hope the council members ask at least some of the above questions. If they do, I will publish the answers.