CHILDREN - CHILD CARE FACILITIES, PUBLIC SCHOOLS, AND NONPUBLIC SCHOOLS - CONTRACTORS AND SUBCONTRACTORS
Sponsored by: Delegate Luedtke
SUPPORT ONLY IF AMENDED
Submitted by Ellen Mugmon
Before the Maryland House Ways and Means Committee
March 12, 2015
HB
642 was prompted by the still unresolved sexual abuse scandal in the
Montgomery County Public Schools. It adds certain contractors and
subcontractors to the entities that must request fingerprint based
federal and state criminal history records for their employees who
work in schools and thus have access to children. This portion of the
bill should receive the approval of the Committee.
The
significant problem with the bill is related to the the definition of
an “APPLICABLE OFFENSE.”
The list of crimes is significantly under-inclusive and will lead
employers and school personnel to hire and retain individuals with
histories of sexual misconduct and violence against vulnerable
populations. This would imply that if an offense is not applicable,
it must not be a serious problem.
Moreover,
one of the contractors who testified at the Senate hearing for the
crossfiled bill, SB 508, did not acknowledge that his employee had
been previously convicted of second degree assault for groping three
women, a crime not considered an “APPLICABLE OFFENSE.” So one
should rightly ask why second degree assault is not listed as an
APPLICABLE OFFENSE in the bill. This technician worked in 58
Montgomery County schools and subsequently groped students. How does
this list solve this problem? It does not. It makes it worse.
Section
14-101 of the Criminal Law Article has a very limited number of
crimes that do not reflect all the other crimes that teachers and
other personnel have committed against vulnerable students, although
the name of the statute, “Crimes of Violence,” would lead one to
believe that all violent crimes are listed. That is hardly the case.
There is also another list of violent crimes in Section 5-101 of the
Public Safety Article. Both lists are not the same. Moreover, merely
adding Section 3-307 of the Criminal Law Article, which is a third
degree sex offense, as well as section 3-602 of the Criminal Law
Article, is grossly insufficient because the proposed legislation
does not include other crimes particularly related to the protection
of children. The absence of Section 3-308 of the Criminal Law Article
in particular, is glaring. Pedophile
activist groups in Maryland contend that a 4th degree sex offense
involving a child, though now a crime, is not harmful to children and
should eventually be legalized.
Unfortunately, this list of crimes inadvertently sanctions their
disordered, self-serving thinking.
In
addition, Section 5-101 of the Public Safety Article lists second
degree assault as a crime of violence. Generally, it is considered a
Domestic Violence crime which is, of course, violent. But it is not
a crime of violence in Section 14-101 of the criminal Law Article.
Most
importantly, it is a crime that is too often a plea bargain down from
sexual crimes. A
Rockville teacher was convicted of second degree assault, which has
no sex- offense component to it. He was originally charged with
child sexual abuse, a 4th degree sex offense, which again is not one
of the “APPLICABLE OFFENSES”. So an employer or human resource
director could hire or retain an individual who molests children
under the assumption he did not commit a sexual crime. As
a result this scheme does not protect children sufficiently.
It never has and never will.
Other
offenses which are deemed inapplicable include child pornography
possession, distribution, and manufacture.
This applies when certain educators collect child pornography or have
taken explicit pictures of students, or photoshopped them and then
distributed them on the internet. Moreover, a building service
worker was retained by the Montgomery County School System after he
was arrested for surreptitiously spying on little girls in school,
and then was convicted of unnatural and perverted sex practices. Both
crimes are not listed [in Bill 642].
Please note also that the following crimes are inapplicable
crimes [not included] according to this bill;
- sexual relationships with high school students off-campus off time:
- indecent exposure;
- statutory rape;
- sex trafficking;
- stalking:
- trespass (Trespass is associated with stalking, peeping Tom, and malicious destruction of property. Children have been the victims of these crimes.);
- sexual solicitation of a minor;
- child physical abuse in the first and second degree and child neglect;
- sexual and physical abuse or neglect of a vulnerable adult;
- harassment;
- false imprisonment;
- presence of a minor in sight and hearing of a crime of violence;
- allowing or encouraging a child to engage in obscene photography, films, poses, or similar activity;
- reckless endangerment;
- indecent, lewd conversations and texting with minors;
- illegally carrying a concealed firearm on school property;
- and animal cruelty which in the literature is specifically correlated with child abuse; and as mentioned above 4th degree sex offense and unnatural and perverted sex practices.
I
am aware that sections 2-206.1 and 6-113 of the Education Article are
current law. But the public policy of picking and choosing crimes in
this way in legislation has clearly turned out to be a dangerous
mistake when evaluating individuals in positions of public trust
concerning vulnerable children. In fact, it serves to protect
certain offenders rather than school children. Therefore, I
respectfully request that the Committee amend out of the bill the two
sections above, and instead ask MSDE to develop guidelines in
consultation with national experts on screening.
If the Committee wishes to continue with a list, it should at least
add to the meaning of “APPLICABLE OFFENSES” the additional crimes
listed above for the safety and well-being of Maryland’s children
The Committee must know, however, that while this approach is an
improvement, it is still inadequate because the list in this
testimony is incomplete.
In
my view, these cases need to be examined individually. Employers
need to ask for charging documents and an explanation from employees
concerning their convictions. This procedure acknowledges plea
bargains and lenient way the court system handles sexual crimes
against children, as the Committee can see from the attached articles
and summary prepared by a member of the Parents’ Coalition of
Montgomery County.
As
a longstanding child advocate, I therefore ask that you give HB 642 a
favorable report only
if amended.
Thank you for considering my views.
No se preocupe:
ReplyDelete2011- Ways and Means Committee
2013- Chair, Finance Resources Subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee (Member, 2011)
2013- Vice Chair's Committee of the Ways and Means Committee
2013- House Chair, Joint Committee on Gaming Oversight
Maintaining the tradition of the institution.
ReplyDeleteHere we go again, by the time this Bill matures the victims will be on Hospice.
ReplyDeletePerhaps someone can ask Luedtke why the only response he has to the issues outlined above is "she's wrong." As for me, I believe a longtime, award winning child advocate instead of an MCPS employee.
ReplyDeletePossibly because teachers are conditioned to use terse phrases when dealing with pupils.
DeleteIf Luedtke can't explain why she is wrong, then his bill is setting MCPS up for failure again.
ReplyDeleteThe bill is sponsored by Luedtke, which is not the same as authored by him.
DeleteSo who wrote the bill? Anyone want to claim responsibility?
DeleteLet's ask the delegate directly.
DeleteEgregious exacerbation of secondary education is a culmination of the part-time legislation.
ReplyDelete