By Adam Pagnucco.
Last week, the school board released a less redacted version of the Jackson Lewis report, which details the circumstances around the promotion of accused sexual harasser Principal Joel Beidleman. The report does not use names; instead it refers to employees designated with numbers. However, a bit of detective work can identify the most powerful employee in MCPS and her role in the scandal: former Superintendent Monifa McKnight.
How do we know which employee is McKnight?
On pages 16 and 17, the report refers to a May 3, 2022 email from “concernedmemberofmcps@gmail.com” making various allegations about Employee 25, who is undoubtedly Beidleman. The report says, “The introductory paragraph of the email says ‘Dear Members of the Board and Employee 3;’ however, there is no evidence that this email was actually sent to Employee 3 and the Board or received by them.”
That email is referred to by two other documents.
First, it is referenced in the Jackson Lewis report summary, which states, “After searching the MCPS servers and interviewing several witnesses, Jackson Lewis found that neither the Superintendent nor the Board received an alleged May 3, 2022 anonymous email and a May 9, 2022 email from an MCEA representative containing anonymous allegations.”
Second, the actual May 3, 2022 email was sent to me by the teachers union, and I published it in September. Its first sentence was “Dear Members of the Board as well as Dr. McKnight.”
Connect these three dots and you can decode the Rosetta Stone: Employee 3 in the less redacted version of the Jackson Lewis report appears to be Superintendent Monifa McKnight.
Employee 3’s activities are described on pages 6-7, 24 and 27-28 as well as the timeline on pages 8-11. Also, remember that Employee 25 is Beidleman. (That’s obvious because the report discusses Employee 25’s promotion, which is at the root of the scandal.)
Consider the following excerpts from the report. Use of the letter [R] reflects redacted terms, which are usually pronouns used to protect employee identities.
*****
Pages 6-7
Prior to the promotion, Employee 3 was generally aware that there were concerns about Employee 25’s conduct “swirling around,” but [R] apparently was not specifically aware of the pending investigation. Employee 21 did not specifically remember if [R] informed Employee 3 about the investigation prior to the promotion. Employee 3 did not take any action to inquire about details regarding what concerns were “swirling around” Employee 25 prior to [R] recommendation to promote.
There is no evidence that the Board was aware of the investigations or any allegations relating to Employee 25 prior to its June 27, 2023 decision to promote Employee 25. We reviewed the May 3, 2022 anonymous email that was allegedly sent to the Board and Employee 3; however, there is no evidence that email was sent to or received by the Board and/or Employee 3.
After Learning About The Investigation, Letter Of Reprimand And Washington Post Inquiries, Employee 3 Did Not Promptly Place Employee 25 On Administrative Leave And Did Not Notify The Board About Those Issues At The July 20, 2023 Board Meeting.
Employee 3 indicated that [R] would not have recommended Employee 25 for promotion had [R] known about the pending investigation or the letter of reprimand. However, once Employee 3 did know about the investigation and the imminent letter of reprimand, [R] did not take any immediate action to remove Employee 25 from the position. By July 19, 2023, Employee 3 was fully aware of the investigation, the letter of reprimand and initial inquiries by the Washington Post soliciting information from witnesses about Employee 25’s misconduct. Employee 3 did not put Employee 25 on administrative leave until August 4, 2023. The decision to place Employee 25 on administrative leave sixteen days after [R] learned about the investigation and letter of reprimand was due to the imminent media coverage and detailed inquiries by the Washington Post in early August 2023 about Employee 25’s alleged misconduct and not due to the investigation or letter of reprimand.
Employee 3 attended the July 20, 2023 Board meeting. During that meeting, [R] did not inform the Board of [R] knowledge about the Employee 32 Investigation, the letter of reprimand or the initial Washington Post inquiries. The Board was not made aware of any issues with Employee 25’s promotion until on or about August 4, 2023, which was the same day that Employee 25 was placed on administrative leave.
On July 20, 2023, Employee 21, Employee 5, Employee 13 and Employee 11 were forwarded a Maryland Safe Schools Tip Line complaint alleging that Employee 25 had inappropriate relationships with two named staff members and that [R] had been seen intoxicated with staff several times. Employee 21 told Employee 3 about the July 20, 2023 Tip Line complaint at some point after the Board meeting. Employee 3 and/or Employee 21 never informed the Board about that complaint.
Page 24
Employee 5, Employee 14 and Employee 13 were all preliminary decision makers in the promotion of Employee 25. See Exhibit 15. These three individuals ultimately recommended Employee 25 for the final interview with Employee 3 and Employee 21. None of those individuals requested more information from DCI about the pending investigation prior to recommending Employee 25 for that final round of interviews.
Pages 27-28
By July 18, 2023, Employee 3 became aware that the Washington Post made an MPIA request for Employee 25 personnel file and was requesting to talk to witnesses about Employee 25 engaging in workplace misconduct. As a result, Employee 3 requested that Employee 21, Employee 4, [R], and Employee 18, [R] determine specifically what the Washington Post was inquiring about. On July 19, 2023, Employee 3 met with Employee 21, Employee 11, Employee 4, and Employee 18. At that meeting, Employee 21 told Employee 3 that Employee 25 was under investigation and that [R] was going to receive a letter of reprimand for findings related to the Employee 32 Investigation. According to Employee 3, this was the first time that [R] appreciated that DCI was investigating Employee 25 during the promotion process. Yet Employee 3 said that Employee 21 reminded [R] that [R] had checked-in with Employee 25 during the promotion process and told [R] that [R] was “clear.” It is unclear what Employee 3 thought Employee 25 was cleared from when Employee 21 told [R] [R] was “clear” on June 27, 2023.
Employee 3, Employee 21, Employee 13, and Employee 5 all indicated that they would not have supported Employee 25 for promotion if they had known about the letter of reprimand prior to the promotion. Once those individuals became aware of both the investigation and the letter of reprimand by July 19, 2023, they did not take any immediate action to remove Employee 25 from [R] new position. Employee 25 was not placed on administrative leave until August 4, 2023 due to specific allegations raised by the Washington Post in early August 2023 and the imminent media coverage of the issue, and not due to the letter of reprimand. There is no evidence that this delay was due to any attempt to conceal Employee 25’s misconduct.
Employee 3 further stated that if [R] knew about findings in the letter of reprimand on July 19, 2023, [R] would have placed Employee 25 on administrative leave on that date. However, Employee 3 did not request the letter of reprimand, which was finalized on July 26, 2023, until August 10, 2023. [R] also never reviewed the July 21, 2023 investigation report.
On July 20, 2023, the Board had its meeting which Employee 3, Employee 21, Employee 5 and Employee 13 attended. Employee 3 did not inform the Board about the Employee 32 Investigation, the letter of reprimand or the Washington Post inquiries at that Board meeting. The Board was not made aware of any issues with Employee 25 until on or about August 4, 2023 in connection with detailed inquiries from the Washington Post regarding allegations against Employee 25. On that same day, Employee 25 was placed on administrative leave. There is no evidence that the failure to notify the Board at the July 20, 2023 meeting about the newly discovered issues relating to Employee 25 was due to any attempt to conceal this information from the Board.
A few hours after the July 20, 2023 Board meeting, Employee 21, Employee 5, Employee 13 and Employee 11 received the Maryland Tip Line Complaint discussed above. As discussed previously, that July 20, 2023 anonymous complaint alleged that Employee 25 was having an inappropriate relationship with two staff members, who were specifically identified in the complaint, and that [R] had been seen intoxicated with staff members several times. Employee 21 told Employee 3 about the Tip Line Complaint shortly after receiving it. Employee 3 and Employee 21 did not attempt to notify the Board about this Tip Line complaint after the July 20, 2023 Board meeting.
McKnight speaks to the school board at its July 20, 2023 meeting. At this point, McKnight was aware that the Washington Post was seeking information about Beidleman and that he was promoted while under investigation. Despite this, she did not inform the board about these problems at this meeting.
Conclusion, Pages 28-29
Simply put, Employee 25 was promoted while the investigation was pending because key decision-makers did not exercise enough diligence to ascertain important details about the investigation. That failure is not as troubling as the failure of these key MCPS leaders to correct the mistake once those details were known after the promotion and to promptly notify the Board about the issue.
There is no evidence that anyone involved with Employee 25’s promotion attempted to conceal any complaints against Employee 25. MCPS has long-standing practices and processes in place that resulted in some of the complaints against Employee 25 not being formally investigated. Except for the altering of the Employee 32 Investigation timeline by Employee 23, which had no impact on the promotion, no one involved with Employee 25’s promotion violated any MCPS policy or engaged in any intentional misconduct.
*****
And so McKnight is not depicted as malicious or intending to engage in a cover-up, but rather as incompetent. She was aware of allegations “swirling around” about Beidleman but did not follow up on them prior to promoting him. She took 16 days to put Beidleman on leave after learning of the investigation into his conduct. She did not request to see the letter of reprimand against Beidleman for more than two weeks after it was written. She also did not review his investigation report. Finally, she did not inform the school board about the Beidleman investigation, the letter of reprimand or the pending Washington Post article at the next board meeting.
This is gross incompetence from a high-ranking official making more than $300,000 a year.
As bad as this is for McKnight, it’s even worse for the school board. The board received the Jackson Lewis report in early September. At that point, they would have known the full story of McKnight’s failures – and specifically how McKnight failed the board. And yet, the board apparently waited until some point in January to move against her. They allowed McKnight to remain in her job for months.
Why?
Let’s adapt Obi-Wan Kenobi’s famous quote: “Who is more foolish? The fool or the fool who follows it?”
Who is more incompetent? The incompetent or those who tolerate it?
School board incumbents who are running for reelection must explain this to the voters.