By Adam Pagnucco.
When MCPS revealed that it had paid for the defense attorneys of accused sexual harasser and former Principal Joel Beidleman, I asked why it had done so. One answer may lie in a collective bargaining agreement MCPS has with its administrators.
MCPS has three employee unions: the Montgomery County Education Association, which represents teachers and related employees; Service Employees International Union 500, which represents support staff; and the Montgomery County Association of Administrators and Principals (MCAAP/MCBOA), which represents principals and other administrators.
MCAAP’s collective bargaining agreement with MCPS defines its bargaining units in Article 2 this way:
Bargaining Units—
1. All positions on the M to Q salary schedule, including 11-month assistant school administrators, not otherwise excluded by the terms of Article 4, Recognition. (MCAAP/MCBOA)
2. All noncertificated supervisory employees who provide responsible direction to other employees, exercise independent judgment, are responsible for the evaluation of at least two other employees, and do not report to members of the SEIU bargaining unit, except those excluded by the Board of Education as confidential employees. (MCAAP/MCBOA)
That’s a broad definition that goes beyond principals like Beidleman.
Article 21 of the agreement covers protection of unit members. Section B states:
In the event a unit member is charged with personal liability arising from acts or omissions they committed within the scope of their employment, they will be provided legal representation for their defense and will be fully indemnified against any monetary judgment or fine levied against them by a court or administrative body. It is understood that liability protection for employees is provided by a combination of legal immunity recognized by Maryland law and MCPS participation in a self-insurance pool as allowed under Maryland law.
Note the absence of limitations in this language. Beidleman was found to be culpable for his actions by none other than the county’s inspector general. Under this collective bargaining agreement, that’s irrelevant.
There is also MD. Education Code § 4-104, a section of state law that addresses legal immunity in school systems. The code contains this language:
(c)(1) In any suit or claim brought against a principal, teacher, school security guard, or other agent or employee of a county board by a parent or other claimant with respect to an action taken by the agent or employee, the board shall provide for counsel for that individual if:
(i) The action was taken in the performance of his duties, within the scope of his employment, and without malice; and
(ii) The board determines that he was acting within his authorized official capacity in the incident.
Note that there are limitations in state law that are not present in the collective bargaining agreement. Since some of Beidleman’s activities occurred outside the workplace, it’s not clear that state law all by itself would have required MCPS to indemnify him.
This does not ease the questions I have as to whether Beidleman received a separation agreement that addresses legal liability. (MCPS has refused to release or even acknowledge the existence of such an agreement.) But aside from that, the language agreed to by MCPS in its agreement with administrators appears to confer broad, if not absolute, civil legal immunity in their behavior at work. Does this language need another look? Is there a way to protect the vast majority of employees who deserve it while not giving a blank check to predators and abusers?
In pondering that, consider this. In August 2023, the Washington Post reported that among MANY other things, Beidleman commented during two student assemblies that his female students “were dressing and acting ‘like hos and thots.’” Roomfuls of mortified students and staff alike heard those comments. Additionally, “39 current and former staffers said in interviews that he directly bullied or harassed them.” Now, they and their families have paid Beidleman’s legal fees.