By Adam Pagnucco.
Let’s begin with links to Part One and Part Two on the council’s September 28 discussion of MCPS’s sexual harassment allegation. Today, we conclude our transcription of questions and answers.
Jackson Lewis won’t be involved in defending MCPS from litigation, but there are questions surrounding the materials it gathered.
Council Member Kristin Mink asked about the future role of Jackson Lewis, which prepared the first phase’s report, and the materials it gathered in potential future litigation.
Council Member Kristin Mink.
Mink: “I wanted to ask about the Jackson Lewis investigation procedure. Some MCPS employees were asked to schedule interviews with Jackson Lewis with very little lead time, without an understanding of what their rights were, whether they were required to participate, if their participation was confidential, if their remarks were to remain anonymous, what those remarks could be used for or if they could or should have legal representation with them. So that in and of itself I find concerning. Will you commit to making sure that staff members in future are fully informed of their rights if they are contacted to participate in any MCPS or board-driven investigations?”
Board of Education President Karla Silvestre and Superintendent Monifa McKnight agreed to do so. Mink then followed up: “Related to that, actually, the additional concern by some is that their remarks to Jackson Lewis collected ostensibly for the purpose of the investigation that just concluded could be used to defend MCPS in future litigation. Could you speak to that concern?”
Silvestre asked Mink to repeat the question and then replied: “I don’t feel confident speaking on that concern because I’m not a lawyer. In terms of what is allowable or what Jackson Lewis shared with… I would have to check to see what Jackson Lewis shared with interviewees as they began their interviews in the process before I can say one way or the other.”
Later, Silvestre addressed the litigation question again. “Individuals might be called to testify in litigation but statements they made to Jackson Lewis would be hearsay and largely inadmissible in court.”
Mink returned to this issue after a few other council members spoke. “I wanted to go back to the Jackson Lewis interviews to clarify. Our council attorneys inform me that there could in fact be potential adverse consequences during litigation for staff witnesses who were interviewed by Jackson Lewis. Specifically, the statements could be used to impeach the witnesses even though they wouldn’t be direct evidence due to hearsay. I don’t want to get into the weeds here, but the situation seems unfortunate and I think does speak to how we should consider handling situations like this in the future with something of this magnitude. I think that this in particular is a very tangible and compelling reason to request the engagement of the inspector general right away and to avoid, if at all possible, relying on a firm that represents the school system or could be hired to defend the school system or to provide records to one that does. Would you agree?”
Ironically, this was the very point made by Council Members Dawn Luedtke and Evan Glass in a letter requesting the immediate takeover of the investigation by the inspector general that Mink did not sign.
McKnight replied, “I couldn’t agree with you more” and said of Jackson Lewis, “They will not be involved in any type of litigation that arises out of this situation.”
Mink asked, “Could the records that they have be provided to a firm that would be involved in that litigation though?”
McKnight: “Yes. So I can not speak to the specific agreements that Jackson Lewis has made in the past…” And then the conversation moved on.
This exchange proves that the concerns of the teachers union had merit and that Luedtke and Glass were right all along. The investigation should have begun with the inspectors general so that this issue could have been entirely avoided.
My Take
The county council provided a real public service with this discussion. For the first time, MCPS leaders had to take questions from elected officials about this issue in a public setting. Silvestre and McKnight were in a hot seat and considering all the pressure, they came across as responsive and professional. But some of their answers, particularly regarding whether the full Jackson Lewis report will be released (so far, it won’t be) frustrated the council. I imagine some viewers were also not fully satisfied.
The real issue here is that the council has no line authority over the superintendent or MCPS management. The school board does. It is the school board, not the council, who should have had this very session in public. What questions do they have about what happened? How would they improve the processes at hand? They appear to be waiting on the superintendent to tell them what to do.
And if the superintendent’s claims that she did not know about the allegations against former Principal Joel Beidleman are to be believed, she has subordinates who knew about them and did not inform her prior to her agreeing to his promotion. She faces issues in her own house that must be resolved – through discipline if necessary.
There is a lot of work to do. This must be the beginning and not the end.