Letter from Angry Lexington Parents
Schools Are Indifferent to Child Molester

Public Statement from Lexington School Committee, March 8, 2002

March 14, 2002

We write in response to the School Committee's public statement of March 8, which was issued in reaction to the Boston Globe's article printed earlier that day.

In the statement, [School Committee Chair] Scott Burson asserts that the School Administration and the School Committee are dedicated to "vigorously protect(ing) the safety of the district's school children," and that they "place student safety as their single highest priority."

As parents who filed a grievance against the employee in question on September 7 and then had to somehow explain to their eleven year-old son why the person who spoke to him in sexually graphic language was returning to work without so much as a reprimand or a written notice to our family, we wish we could say that our painful personal experience at the hands of the School Administration proved that safety was indeed their "single highest priority." Sadly, our family learned first-hand that, in the Lexington Public Schools, an employee's job security apparently holds greater value that the safety of school children.

The School Committee's statement contains several other specific items which we feel we must address publicly:

1. Burson states that "some of the parents involved filed criminal charges with the Lexington Police Department." At no time have we or any of the other parents involved filed criminal charges with the Lexington Police Department. On October 16, acting alone, we brought the matter to the attention of the Middlesex County District Attorney's office and the Lexington Police. We did so after a meeting with the Superintendent the day before in which we asked why the employee in question had been allowed to return to work without any disciplinary action. The response was that the employee had "suffered enough" (on ten days' paid leave), making it clear to us that the Lexington School Administration had no intention of acting meaningfully on this matter. We therefore felt we had no choice but to turn to the District Attorney and Police Department and ask their help in protecting our child and all Lexington Public School students.

2. Burson refers to "inappropriate comments" which were investigated in September "pursuant to the district's sexual harassment policy." The district's policy defines sexual harassment as including verbal conduct of a sexual nature.(which) creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive.environment."
The sexually graphic and disturbing remarks directed at our son and his friend certainly constitute sexual harassment as defined by the Lexington Public Schools. Furthermore, the employee in question has directed astonishingly similar language at many of the fourteen children who have come forward since September! It is therefore indeed a dangerous distortion to dismiss these graphic remarks as being merely "inappropriate," as now both the Superintendent and Scott Burson have done.

3. Burson states that "the Superintendent has kept the School Committee advised of the status of this matter at all times." On September 26, I called [School Committee member] Tony Close to ask for his help one week after the employee had been allowed to return to Fiske School. He asked if he could meet with us personally in our home. Two days later, Tony Close sat in my living room and asked me to tell him what exactly had happened to our son, and how our grievance had been handled by the School Department. It was clearly the first he had heard of this matter. I'm therefore confused by Scott Burson's statement, and I honestly don't know which is worse: a School Committee who was informed "at all times" and yet remained silent for six months, or a Superintendent who kept her School Committee members in the dark about a public school employee who was directing sexually graphic remarks to young children.

Tony Close, by the way, said that the employee "should never work in any building in the Lexington Public Schools" and that he would call me in "a few days." He never called. Despite numerous
letters, phone calls, and emails, not one member of the School Committee has ever called me or any of the aggrieved families to express their concern or offer assistance during this terribly difficult time.

Over the past six months, the parents involved have asked that, while the investigation might proceed in a fair and forthright manner, we parents not be treated as opponents, but rather as ordinary people, concerned for the safety of our own children and of all Lexington school children.

The response we have received is silence from the School Committee, and a letter from our Superintendent threatening that "without your commitment to make (your child) available as a witness in the event of an arbitration hearing, I have no alternative but to return (the employee) to active duty." Is our Superintendent acting in a spirit of "sensitivity and fairness," as Scott Burson asserts?

After six months of silence, we have to ask ourselves: would the citizens of Lexington have ever heard from our school leaders if the Boston Globe hadn't printed its article on Friday?

- Ann and George Kane

***

Public Statement from Lexington School Committee, March 8, 2002

In September 2001, the Lexington Schools received charges that an employee
of the school district had made inappropriate comments to two students. The district viewed the charges as serious and warranting an investigation.

The Superintendent has kept the School Committee advised of the status of this
matter at all times, and the School Committee unanimously supports the actions and judgment of the Superintendent. The employee who is the subject of the charges has been placed on administrative leave.

Pursuant to the district's sexual harassment policy, the initial charges were referred to a team consisting of the building principal and the district's human resources director for investigation and a recommendation for appropriate action. The team interviewed witnesses and reviewed district records, and based on that investigation, made a finding and recommended a disposition to the Superintendent. The Superintendent accepted those
findings and recommendations.

Consistent with the findings and recommendation of the investigative team, the employee was permitted to return to work, and was notified by letter that should substantiated evidence of similar conduct come to the attention of the district, such conduct would be grounds for appropriate discipline, up to and including discharge.

Some of the parents of the children involved filed criminal charges with the Lexington Police Department. Both some of the parents and Lexington Public Schools, as a mandated reporter, filed reports of the charges with DSS (Department of Social Services). Both the Lexington Police Department and DSS have conducted independent investigations into these charges. At all times, Lexington Public Schools and its employees have cooperated with these investigations; the school district has no control over the timing or conduct of these investigations, or of any independent agency's findings, conclusions, or actions.

Subsequently, additional charges, of a similar nature to the September charges, were made concerning the school employee. After the additional charges were made, the employee was immediately placed, and remains, on administrative leave. The school department, and specifically the Superintendent, was fully prepared to conduct an investigation into these additional charges, and their bearing on the original charges, and to take appropriate action. However, the independent agencies requested that the school district hold its investigation in abeyance so that the investigations of the independent authorities would not be compromised. The Superintendent accordingly deferred the district's internal investigation.

On March 1, 2002, the Middlesex District Attorney's office released the school department to resume its own investigation into these charges. The Superintendent has directed that the investigation resume, and the school department is working closely with its own legal counsel and the Middlesex District Attorney on these charges. The district will take appropriate action, based on the results of its continuing investigation.

The District Attorney for Middlesex County has advised the district that her investigation into these charges remains open. All personnel of Lexington Public Schools will cooperate fully in any investigation of these matters. At the same time, the Superintendent has directed that the district's internal investigation into these charges recommence.

The School Committee and the Superintendent place student safety as their single highest priority. The School Committee and the Superintendent recognize the serious nature of the charges that have been filed and our responsibility to protect children in our public schools. Concurrently, Lexington Public Schools has a moral and legal obligation to act solely on the basis of substantiated facts, and not accusations or innuendo. Until the various investigations into these matters are concluded, all parties involved in these charges are entitled to privacy.

With the support of the School Committee, the administration will vigorously protect the safety of the district's children. At the same time, it will conduct its investigation of these charges with sensitivity and a sense of fairness.

For the Lexington School Committee,
- Scott Burson, Chair