Statement from MCPS parent Jennifer Alvaro regarding House Bill 642
Children – Child Care Facilities, Public Schools, and Nonpublic Schools – Contractors and Subcontractors
Support with Amendment
I am graduate and parent of two Montgomery County Public School students. I am bilingual (Spanish speaking) Licensed Clinical Social worker (MD & VA) and a Certified Sex Offender Treatment Provider (VA). I have worked in the field of child sexual abuse for twenty one years. Among other things, over the years, I have conducted child protective services investigations for local county governments. I have provide treatment for convicted sex offenders in Maryland, Washington DC and Virginia. I have worked for a national child abuse prevention agency. For a local archdiocese of the Catholic Church I volunteer to teach their mandatory sex abuse prevention seminar; as well as teaching a nationally recognized secular prevention program.
As you are well aware, Montgomery County has had a long standing issue with sex offenses committed by school employees and contractors. For the past three years I have been advocating to make MCPS schools safer for all our children.
I commend all those who are working to schools and communities safer for our children and vulnerable adults.
Bill 642 would seem to close a loophole and strengthen safety measures to ensure our children are not victimized by those who are already known to law enforcement as being a danger to children.
My concern and my request for action on this legislation is to change the amendment which follows:
(B) A NONPUBLIC SCHOOL CONTRACT SHALL PROVIDE THAT A CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR FOR THE SCHOOL MAY NOT KNOWINGLY ASSIGN AN EMPLOYEE TO WORK ON SCHOOL PREMISES WITH DIRECT, UNSUPERVISED, AND UNCONTROLLED ACCESS TO CHILDREN, IF THE EMPLOYEE HAS BEEN CONVICTED OF A CRIME IDENTIFIED UNDER SUBSECTION (A) OF THIS SECTION.
I would submit to you, no such person referenced should be on school grounds at all while children are present. To suggest this be allowed only if said person does not have "direct, unsupervised and uncontrolled access", is to create an untenable situation. Who is going to define "direct", "unsupervised" or "uncontrolled"?
If this new amendment is allowed to remain, those convicted of crimes against children will still not only have access to our children but also still have opportunities to offend against them.If this amendment is allowed to stand, I would request the following information:
- Who will pay for the supervision of this person while on school grounds (to insure they have no direct, unsupervised or uncontrolled access)?
- Who will meet with said supervisor to educate them about what it means to supervise someone who has offended against children?
- Who will draft a written safety plan about such things as where this person will go to the bathroom, where they can make / take calls, what they should do if a child approaches them?
- Who will provide supervision when the supervisor needs to go to the bathroom or make a call?
- Will parents be given a written safety plan for each convicted offender who will be in the schools?
I fail to see, despite being necessary, how any school would implement these necessary steps to protect children.
I therefore request this amendment be changed to state that if such convicted offenders are allowed to work in a school building, this only be at times when no children are on the premises.
I respectfully request that you act before the bills are passed to change the amendment in both the House and Senate bills so that children are protected and not endangered by the unintended consequences of this problematic amendment.
