In this transcript, we have the Montgomery County Board of Education's attorney asking a parent, "Well, did they wipe the pit bull down with Handi Wipes before bringing him into the house?"
We offer no explanation why such a question would ever be asked of anyone. Ever. We have no idea how this relates to the special education services that a child receives in public school as part of their free, appropriate education.
We leave it up to the animal rights activists to debate the use of Handi Wipes on dogs.
The Board of Education's attorney also asks a number of questions that seem to infer that pit bulls are inherently dangerous dogs, and that any parent that allows their child to be near one is less than a good parent. We leave this to the Maryland pit bull Task Force for their comment.
We do remind readers that the Board of Education pays its outside counsel approximately $6,000 a day to represent them in these hearings. Clearly, it is in the attorneys' interest to extend out the time of the hearing. Your tax dollars at work.
In this transcript:
Mr. Krew = Montgomery County Board of Education outside attorney. Mr. Eig = child's attorney
C = child
PB = dog, pit bull mix
M = motherTranscript 2
I would like to know why the child's attorney didn't object on the ground of RELEVANCE. WHAT POSSIBLE RELEVANCE does all this have to a free appropriate public education.
ReplyDeleteAnswer: none.
And if the child's attorney did object on relevance grounds, and was overruled, this just goes to show you the BIAS on the part of the OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS, because they are trained by school system attorneys and invited to cocktail parties at the LRP conferences by school system attorneys.
FOR SHAME.
At first glance, the line of questioning suggests that the accommodation has to do with allergies or infection, rather than education per se. But I still have no idea where the pit bull fits into this.
ReplyDeleteSo it might be something else. And that's the point: as others have commented (in the first installment), no informed judgment on this is possible in the absence of the central facts: what is the accommodation that the parents are requesting and MCPS is resisting, and what has MCPS offered instead?
Out of context it's impossible to judge whether the county is being combative and abusive, or making a reasonable point: that taxpayers are being requested to provide an accommodation at great expense that exceeds what the parents themselves have deemed it necessary to provide in the past. I wouldn't be surprised if MCPS are being bastards, but I also wouldn't be surprised if the parents are rejecting an accommodation from MCPS in favor of something far more expensive.
Indeed, I can cook up many scenarios for how this inquiry would be appropriate, or inappropriate, or in between. But I really have no idea what I am talking about, so I will withhold judgment.
The publication of these partial transcripts suggests that this case has become public at some level. Is there more to share?
You bet. More to come.
DeleteThe parents are not requesting that the child be in a classroom with a teacher that is declared AIDS-free. The parents are not requesting that the child be prevented from petting dogs. In fact, it isn't the parents at all that have requested the needed services.
The child's doctor has said that the child should be in a small classroom to reduce exposure to human communicable diseases. The parents are fine with a MCPS classroom. The Board of Education doesn't want doctors telling them what a child might need to stay healthy.
And, I am sorry, there is NO hearing that would ever require a question about using Handi-Wipes on dogs! Let's have the Tele-Tubbies conduct the hearing and it would make as much sense.
If the issue is exposure to dogs, ask that question and move on!
Spending time on absurdities runs up the attorney's bill! More take home pay at the end of the week! This is not how attorneys behave when they are responsive to a client's need to keep costs down. This is an out of control, spend all you can, hearing. And, who is paying the tab? Taxpayers.
@Gary - You are in India? Why such intense interest in this issue from all the way over there?
DeleteAnd, you are sending us messages trying to track down the individual family? My goodness. What would motivate you to do that????
There is NO scenario when any parent can quiz a vacation rental about the previous renters possibly being diagnosed with AIDS!!!! The only possible answer to that question was NO. So, the point was? To try and paint the parent as irresponsible? Why do taxpayers pay the Board of Education to hire an attorney to ask such absurd questions? What does that further in the legal discussion?
How is the Board of Education acting in the best interest of CHILDREN? Is that of ANY interest to you, or are you just looking to find more fault with the parents?
@Gary,
DeleteWhat's the alternative? Limiting the amount in legal fees that the Board of Education will spend on a case based on the actual dispute. It's called a cost-benefit analysis and real law firms do this type of analysis all the time.
Try this one for size, Gary... In one due process hearing the Board of Education LOST. (And, I am sure you remember this one.) The BOE was ordered by the Court to pay the legal fees for the parents. Guess what? They did NOT PAY. The parents had to go back to court to have the Order for attorney's fees enforced. Let's see, that did what? That increased the cost of this dispute for taxpayers...and...guess what?...kept the BOE attorney billing the BOE for his time.
For taxpayers that was what we call a lose-lose. The BOE should have followed the Order of the court when it was entered and moved on.
Please justify that total and complete waste of tax dollars.
At Gary's request the posting of his partial comment at 10:06 PM was deleted.
Delete@Gary - You would like to debate the merits of the underlying case represented by these transcripts. You would like more details, correct?
We do not have more details, nor do we know which exact ALJ decision corresponds to this transcript.
We don't think it matters, and we are not out to further harass any MCPS parents or guardians advocating for their child.
You seem to think that the details of this child's education needs somehow relates to these questions. I would argue that is impossible. Put another way, if the Board of Education has a slam dunk win on the merits of the educational issues in the case, why on earth does it matter if the parent/guardian is good or bad or clean or messy? Why does anything - anything about the parent or guardian ever get introduced into these hearings?
You have told us that you don't want to see parents getting a private school education for their child. Fine. Let the Board of Education win on the merits and sit down and shut up! Why should taxpayers be paying for the Board of Education to "get" the parents and guardians through protracted, inane, harassing grilling by the BOE attorney?
In today's entry the BOE attorney has brought up 1 scuff mark and 1 cobweb in the parents home. I do hereby swear I have a cob web and a scuff mark in my home! So what? What does that have to do with the free, appropriate education that my child is entitled to in the United States of America?
I don't need to know anything about any case to know that a scuff mark is 1) not a sign of an educational issue, and 2) not a health risk. Yet, Montgomery County taxpayers are paying for this discussion. $6,000 a day.
In today's entry the Board of Education has introduced a report from an Occupational Therapist that says that the OT saw 1 cob web and 1 scuff mark in the child's home.
Deletehttp://parentscoalitionmc.blogspot.com/2012/07/boe-attorney-can-you-tell-us-as-you-sit.html
1. Why would an OT ever make such a notation in a file?
2. When would 1 cob web and 1 scuff mark ever be relevant to the health, safety or education of a child?
The child in today's transcript is also in need of other special education services, so health issues are not the only focus of this child's needs.
ReplyDeleteMore tomorrow on how MCPS questions parents and guardians.
Apparently, the parents, based on doctors' recommendations, requested a small classroom setting to protect the child form additional medical damage, and the school system is pushing inclusiveness at a general education setting-large classroom in a large school. In addition, the child has learning difficulties as well as medical needs. The parents are in the position of protecting the child medically and fighting for the safest academic setting as possible. Exposure to dogs does not appear to be the issue at all. It is just a distraction.
ReplyDeleteIt's not a distraction. It's money in the bank for the Board of Education's attorney. Every minute that can be spent in a hearing adds up to another, $6,000 day. And without any oversight, what a great gig!
DeleteStay tuned, there's more.
"We offer no explanation why such a question would ever be asked of anyone. Ever. We have no idea how this relates to the special education services that a child receives in public school as part of their free, appropriate education."
ReplyDeleteThe lawyer's fee is determined by the number of questions he asks. It does not matter if the questions are relevant or not. The taxpayers should be asking the members of the BOE about the lawyer.
What I don't understand is how this attorney is allowed to introduce such inane questions. I think that MCPS needs to take a long look at how they are wasting the taxpayers money.
ReplyDelete@Anonymous July 17 9:11PM, it is not MCPS that needs to take a long look, it is the voters and taxpayers. It is you. We are the ones who are wasting our money. MCPS works for the BOE which members are elected by you. Look in the mirror. BOE elections are coming up in November. Are you going to vote for the same people again? Let's see if the incumbents win -- again.
ReplyDeleteJanis - Thank you. Here's my last contribution. It attempts to explain what the MCPS lawyers are doing pursuing this line of inquiry. I should say that am uncomfortable with the tone of the inquiry, but also understand that adversarial processes get that way.
ReplyDeleteI am basing this entirely on an interpretation of the excerpts published, so it may or may not have anything to do with reality. But here goes anyway: the supposition behind MCPS' attorney's line of questioning would be that the parents, based on their experience and advice from experts, know the best interests and needs of the child. Thus one could surmise that the parents' practices define an acceptable environment for the child.
Under law, MCPS is obligated to provide an acceptable educational environment for the child. Therefore, the argument would go, if MCPS proposes an environment that matches or exceeds the standard of what the parents provide (defining that acceptable environment), then the MCPS proposal may be adequate.
Briefly put, MCPS' point in pursuing this could be: "MCPS is, or can be, as clean as the parents' house and therefore meet that standard for an acceptable educational environment." Given the legal principles at work, that is not an irrelevant argument to make. It is a "gotcha" argument, which makes it ugly, but the point of the questions would not be to show that "the parents have a dirty house and they are bad" but that "MCPS is at least as good as the parents and is therefore acceptable." Please note that I have no basis to form an opinion on the persuasiveness of the particulars of this argument. I also do not know what evidence/arguments the parents may have introduced to open this line of questioning. That would be valuable context for understanding what's going on here. And please note that just because I don't think these questions are necessarily harassment doesn't mean I absolve MCPS, even if that were in my power or inclination.
A couple of other points: I believe MCPS does make the cost-benefit calculation on these cases. For them to truly address the institutional failures (large and small) that let this kind of affair bubble to this point would be costly - not only monetarily, but also to the reputation of MCPS and individuals inside MCPS. It is "cheaper" in that regard to circle the lawyers and fight. Plus there are the additional advantages of scaring off others who may face similar situations. So when I look at this story, I glimpse the tip of an iceberg of institutional failure, not penny-ante corruption or even harassment. I would hate for readers to dismiss the story as one of MCPS wasting another few thousand dollars (that's a dog bites man story), or prompt them to dismiss the story because it rests on out-of-context quotes.
Finally, to clear one thing up: It's fair to say I don't want taxpayers to _inappropriately_ pay for a private school education, but I have no expertise or knowledge (or standing) on which to judge what the appropriate course of action is for this child in these actual circumstances. There's a process for deciding that, and it appears to be an ugly one.
@ Gary - You "believe" that MCPS does a cost-benefit calculation on these cases? We are sure they don't.
DeleteIf you think such calculations exist, prove it. File a Maryland Public Information Act request for these documents. MCPS will redact the personal information. We will be more than happy to post any such documents.
But, it is clear that in the case of little M.T.V. - MCPS did no such analysis. The aunt of this little child was only asking for speech therapy once a week. MCPS spent over $84,000 (that we know of) on hearings fighting this child. $84,000 - you, want to cost that out and find out how many DECADES of speech therapy that would pay for?
And, what about the litigation where MCPS failed to pay a parent's attorneys fees as ORDERED by the court? The cost benefit analysis was - let's see, we already lost, so let's spend some more money and lose again. Which is exactly what happened.
Since when has the BOE or MCPS cared about their "reputation?" Board of Education member Patricia O'Neill has been VERY clear that she considers some parents PIAs - pain in the a**. She has stated that in a public Board of Education meeting and the video is online. Not a single BOE member or MCPS administrator has ever said she was out of line in that position.
I am a friend of this family and I can tell you that this child most definitely needs special help in the classroom arena both medically and educationally. If THIS child is not getting help, I'm not sure who would even qualify! And I actually skipped over this post at first because I knew that "wiping a pitbull down" had zero relevance to my friend's child's educational rights, not realizing that somehow this post WAS a part of the hearing. ASTOUNDING. I'm shocked at this inane and absurd line of questioning when all they are requesting is a special smaller classroom for their child. Shame on this attorney - not sure how they sleep at night. For the record, I have rarely seen this child over the years strictly due to the fact that the child cannot be exposed to many outside germs.
ReplyDeleteAccusations and misinformation is the tool and, unfortunately, justice doesn't always prevail at due process hearings. However, the credibility of MCPS takes a hit as well as our community's integrity. This child could have been sent to a private school just on the monies spent to fight. What a waste!
ReplyDelete