By Adam Pagnucco.
When the Washington Post reported on allegations of sexual harassment against former MCPS Principal Joel Beidleman last summer, the resulting scandal set off a firestorm and led to the departure of a superintendent. I reported on the settlement received by that superintendent ten days ago. But that led to a question: did MCPS also settle with Beidleman?
Back in January, the Post reported that Beidleman had left employment at MCPS after having been placed on leave in August. Post reporter Nicole Asbury wrote:
Montgomery schools spokesman Chris Cram declined to say Wednesday whether Beidleman was dismissed, saying it’s a personnel matter. He referred further questions to the former principal, who did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Beidleman stopped receiving his pay Dec. 18.
On March 18, I sent a Maryland Public Information Act (MPIA) request to MCPS seeking:
Any agreement between MCPS, the Board of Education and former Principal Joel Beidleman relating to his departure from the school system, including but not limited to severance, compensation, indemnification, benefits and any other issues related to his post-employment status.
Any other details about Beidleman’s post-employment compensation.
Today, MCPS Director of Communications Chris Cram sent me this response:
I am responding on behalf of the superintendent of schools who, as official custodian of records for the school system, is responsible for replies under the Maryland Public Information Act, Title 4 of the General Provisions (GP) Article.
The requested documents have been withheld pursuant to MPIA GP § 4-311, the exemption for personnel records.
There is indeed an exception for personnel records in the MPIA. However, that exception has limits and does not cover employment contracts or salaries, bonuses and performance awards. I used the same language in my MPIA request regarding former Superintendent Monifa McKnight and MCPS released her separation agreement. I am unclear as to why MCPS believes the personnel exception applies to Beidleman but not to McKnight.
It’s also noteworthy that MCPS apparently acknowledges the existence of “documents.” If there were no documents relevant to the request, MCPS could have written that it possessed no responsive documents. That would not be an unusual response from a government agency in a case in which documents do not exist.
From the very beginning of the Beidleman scandal, MCPS leaders promised transparency. On three separate occasions – August 25, August 29 and September 8 – the school board used the word “transparent” to describe how it would handle this scandal. Now MCPS is using an MPIA exception to evade its commitment.
Was taxpayer money used to settle with Beidleman? We may never know.
I hope MCPS leadership and the school board incumbents are asked about this by the press and in upcoming candidate forums.
MCPS’s response to my request is reprinted below.
