PATRICIA O’NEILL, LONGEST SERVING MCPS SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER, DIES AT 71

 https://www.mymcmedia.org/patricia-oneill-longest-serving-mcps-school-board-member-dies-at-71/

Police officers involved in 5-year-old student viral body cam disciplined

 https://wjla.com/features/i-team/police-officers-involved-in-5-year-old-student-viral-body-cam-disciplined?fbclid=IwAR1usWor-oe2J-pulp9m78noaUKz6mNNIBKhVUQbIqydTJXSerEBHGxjU0A

Split Md. high court allows behavior testimony in sex abuse cases

...In its ruling, the majority noted that character testimony regarding a defendant’s peacefulness and truthfulness are admissible when facing charges of assault and fraud. Likewise, a defendant’s appropriateness toward children may be admitted when he or she stands accused of sexually abusing youngsters, the majority added.

But Judge Michele D. Hotten disagreed, saying the analogy does not apply to the “particularly insidious” behavior of child sexual abusers.

“Evidence of appropriate behavior or conduct with children, unlike character for truthfulness or peacefulness in a fraud or assault investigation, adds nothing to a child sex abuse prosecution, because of the nature of the allegations,” Hotten wrote in an opinion Judge Shirley M. Watts joined.

“These types of sexual predators often hide in plain sight,” Hotten added. “They blend into the community and often stand in trust relationships – coaches, clergy, teachers, physicians, or family members – with their victims. They groom victims through these relationships and skillfully manipulate a child into a situation where he or she can be more readily sexually abused and is simultaneously less likely to disclose.”..

https://thedailyrecord.com/2020/08/20/split-md-high-court-allows-behavior-testimony-in-sex-abuse-cases/?utm_term=Split%20Md.%20high%20court%20allows%20behavior%20testimony%20in%20sex%20abuse%20cases%2526nbsp%3B&utm_campaign=Lexington%20Market%20development%20hits%20milestone&utm_content=email&utm_source=Act-On+Software&utm_medium=email

Board of Ed Voted to Overrule Jack Smith. Suspended Student May Not Return to Previous School Placement.

Below are minutes from a Closed Session of the Montgomery County Board of Education.  The matter shown is an appeal from the suspension of a student.  The Superintendent had ruled that the student would be suspended for 10 days and could then return to their home school.

Initially, Board members and Apple Ballot endorsed candidates Pat O'Neill and Judy Docca moved to affirm the Superintendent's decision.  Board member Brenda Wolff agreed with that motion.

However, the rest of the Board of Education did not agree and instead moved to affirm the suspension but reverse the decision to allow the student to return to their home school.

The public does not know what this case involved.  Did this case involve a victim?  Did this decision force an offender to move instead of telling the victim to find a new school? 

https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/BMET5874F709/$file/200310%20Report%20of%20Previous%20Closed%20Session.pdf

Board of Ed. Pat O'Neill Thinks Super Bowl LIV was Played on Artificial Turf #NaturalGrass #NotPlastic

At the Board of Education meeting on February 10, 2020, Board of Education member Pat O'Neill asked MCPS staff to research what the protocols were on the artificial turf in the Hard Rock Stadium in Miami.

Pat O'Neill said, "...I just have a question...Last Sunday when I was watching the Super Bowl in Hard Rock Stadium in Miami I noticed that it was on artificial turf.
(interrupted with correction from public)
It was, it was artificial turf.
(again interrupted) 
No, it was artificial..."
https://mcpsmd.new.swagit.com/videos/40658?ts=3163

Here is a news report on the natural grass football field used in the Hard Rock Stadium in Miami for Super Bowl LIV.

https://www.kshb.com/sports/crews-prep-hard-rock-stadium-field-for-super-bowl-liv

3 teachers in DC region accused of preying on students

County Council Ratifies Illegal Contract Action by Board of Education, Will Take NO ACTION on Inspector General's Report

On Monday, November 18, 2019, the Montgomery County Council will hold a hearing to discuss the contract that the Board of Education entered into to place cameras on the outside of school buses.

The County Council will take no action with regard to this contract even though this action by the Board of Education was not authorized by the Maryland legislature.

Maryland law is clear. LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES are authorized by the legislature to place cameras on the outside of school buses.  

http://parentscoalitionmc.blogspot.com/2019/08/mcps-bus-camera-program-does-not-comply.html

Yet, in Montgomery County, Maryland where laws are apparently optional, the police department did not enter into a contract to place cameras on the outside of school buses.  Instead the Board of Education entered into a contract with a company that has long since been shut down after the FBI began arresting, convicting and sending those involved with that scheme to prison.  The company reformed with a new name, but with most of the same officers and the Board of Education kept sending them money with out a discussion of the original, now void contract.  

The Parents' Coalition of Montgomery County, MD made the Board of Education contract available to the public in September of 2019, three years after it had been signed by Interim Superintendent Larry Bowers on his last day in office as a MCPS employee.

The contract shows that the Board of Education President Mike Durso never signed the contract.  

The Maryland legislature did not authorize Maryland Boards of Education to enter into exterior bus camera schemes, nor did they authorize a Superintendent to enter into a bus camera scheme.  

In July of 2019, the Montgomery County Inspector General issues a report with regard to the Montgomery County Police Department's involvement with the bus camera scheme, but did not evaluate the role of the Board of Education.  The IG's report did not mention that the Board of Education's contract with a bus camera company was not authorized under Maryland law.

The Montgomery County Council will discuss the IG's report but will ignore Maryland law and will take no action with regard to the fact that a private company is sending out citations to County citizens for a bus camera scheme that was not authorized by the Maryland legislature.

MCPS Board of Ed Forces Student to Cross Six Lanes of Traffic. 6 cars and a RIDE ON BUS Pass Stopped Bus. Camera Will Not Protect Children when Bus Stops are Extremely Dangerous.

This video released by Montgomery County Police.  While the video is supposed to show how drivers ignore stopped school buses, what it also shows is that MCPS is putting students in extreme danger by forcing them to cross to the opposite side of roads for their bus stop.  In the past, MCPS did not allow these types of bus stops. Clearly, the Board of Education has decided that safety is not a priority.  Instead of keeping children safe by making sure children never have to cross 6 lanes of traffic to get home, the Board of Education has chosen to simply video these inherently dangerous bus stops, as if a video can correct irresponsible behavior by adults. 

'Save Kelley Park' advocates oppose sacrificing green space for new elementary school

FYI = There is an empty, dedicated elementary school site just about 2 miles away from the location of this park that the Board of Education wants from the City of Gaithersburg.  Why won't the Board of Education build on the elementary school site they own?  The Board of Education leased that land to Comcast, AT&T, SBA Comm, T-Mobile and Verizon.  Instead of using the land they own, the Board of Education was to level a local public park.

Because private companies are more important than public school children.

MCPS Bus Camera Program Does Not Comply with Maryland Law

The Maryland law authorizing the placement of cameras on the exterior of school buses is clear. 

The law requires: 

1.

MD General Assembly

But instead, the Montgomery County Board of Education entered into a contract with Force Multiplier Solutions, Inc. to place school bus monitoring cameras on school buses.

The legislature had been clear that the placing of school bus monitoring cameras was to be done by law enforcement agencies, not county boards of education. 



2.


Bus camera citations in Montgomery County are mailed out by the vendor, not by a law enforcement agency.  



3.

Car owners who receive a citation under the MCPS program are directed to make their payment to a website:  alertbus.com

That website is owned by Force Multiplier Solutions and is used by their customers to pay school bus camera citations.  It is not a site controled by Montgomery County.  Fine money from various jurisdictions goes to that website. 


Note that 100% of the fine money from MCPS bus cameras goes to the vendor. $0 goes to the County or MCPS even though both agencies must hire additional staff to process these citations.  The original intent of the authorizing legislation was that revenue from bus camera fines could be used to fund safety education campaigns. That is not happening in Montgomery County because the County does not get one penny from these fines.

* * * * * * * * *

Here is the full text of the current Maryland law:

§ 21-706.1. Report of violations witnessed by school bus operators

West's Annotated Code of MarylandTransportationEffective: June 1, 2019

West's Annotated Code of Maryland

Transportation

Title 21. Vehicle Laws--Rules of the Road (Refs & Annos)

Subtitle 7. Special Stops Required (Refs & Annos)

Effective: June 1, 2019

MD Code, Transportation, § 21-706.1

§ 21-706.1. Report of violations witnessed by school bus operators

Currentness

Definitions

(a)(1) In this section the following words have the meanings indicated.

(2) “Law enforcement agency” means a law enforcement agency of a local political subdivision that is authorized to issue a citation for a violation of the Maryland Vehicle Law or of local traffic laws or regulations.

(3)(i) “Owner” means the registered owner of a motor vehicle or a lessee of a motor vehicle under a lease of 6 months or more.

(ii) “Owner” does not include:

1. A motor vehicle leasing company; or

2. A holder of a special registration plate issued under Title 13, Subtitle 9, Part III of this article.

(4) “Recorded image” means images recorded by a school bus monitoring camera:

(i) On:

1. Two or more photographs;

2. Two or more microphotographs;

3. Two or more electronic images;

4. Videotape; or

5. Any other medium; and

(ii) Showing a motor vehicle and, on at least one image or portion of tape, clearly identifying the registration plate number of the motor vehicle.

(5) “School bus monitoring camera” means a camera placed on a school bus that is designed to capture a recorded image of a driver of a motor vehicle committing a violation.

(6) “Violation” means a violation of § 21-706 of this subtitle.

Contents of report; warning to owner of vehicle

(b)(1)(i) If a school bus operator witnesses a violation, the operator may promptly report the violation to a law enforcement agency exercising jurisdiction where the violation occurred.

(ii) The report, to the extent possible, shall include:

1. Information pertaining to the identity of the alleged violator;

2. The license number and color of the vehicle involved in the violation;

3. The time and location at which the violation occurred; and

4. An identification of the vehicle as an automobile, station wagon, truck, bus, motorcycle, or other type of vehicle.

(2) If the identity of the operator of the vehicle at the time the violation occurred cannot be established, the law enforcement agency shall issue to the registered owner of the vehicle, a warning stating:

(i) That a report of a violation was made to the law enforcement agency and that the report described the owner's vehicle as the vehicle involved in the violation;

(ii) That there is insufficient evidence for the issuance of a citation;

(iii) That the warning does not constitute a finding that the owner is guilty of the violation; and

(iv) The requirements of § 21-706 of this subtitle.

School bus monitoring cameras

(c)(1) A school bus monitoring camera may not be used in a local jurisdiction under this section unless its use is authorized by the governing body of the local jurisdiction by local law enacted after reasonable notice and a public hearing.

(2) If authorized by the governing body of the local jurisdiction, a law enforcement agency, in consultation with the county board of education, may place school bus monitoring cameras on school buses in the county.

Recorded images by school bus monitoring cameras

(d) A recorded image by a school bus monitoring camera under this section indicating that the driver of a motor vehicle has committed a violation shall include:

(1) An image of the motor vehicle;

(2) An image of at least one of the motor vehicle's registration plates;

(3) The time and date of the violation; and

(4) To the extent possible, the location of the violation.

Civil penalties

(e)(1) Unless the driver of the motor vehicle received a citation from a police officer at the time of the violation, the owner or, in accordance with subsection (h)(5) of this section, the driver of a motor vehicle is subject to a civil penalty if the motor vehicle is recorded by a school bus monitoring camera during the commission of a violation.

(2) A civil penalty under this subsection may not exceed $500.

(3) For purposes of this section, the District Court shall prescribe:

(i) A uniform citation form consistent with subsection (f)(1) of this section and § 7-302 of the Courts Article; and

(ii) A civil penalty, which shall be indicated on the citation, to be paid by persons who choose to prepay the civil penalty without appearing in District Court.

Information sent by by law enforcement agencies

(f)(1) Subject to the provisions of paragraphs (2) through (5) of this subsection, a law enforcement agency shall mail to the owner liable under subsection (e) of this section a citation that shall include:

(i) The name and address of the registered owner of the vehicle;

(ii) The registration number of the motor vehicle involved in the violation;

(iii) The violation charged;

(iv) To the extent possible, the location of the violation;

(v) The date and time of the violation;

(vi) A copy of the recorded image;

(vii) The amount of the civil penalty imposed and the date by which the civil penalty must be paid;

(viii) A signed statement by a technician employed by the law enforcement agency that, based on inspection of recorded images, the motor vehicle was being operated during the commission of a violation;

(ix) A statement that recorded images are evidence of a violation; and

(x) Information advising the person alleged to be liable under this section:

1. Of the manner and time in which liability as alleged in the citation may be contested in the District Court; and

2. That failure to pay the civil penalty or to contest liability in a timely manner is an admission of liability and may result in refusal or suspension of the motor vehicle registration.

(2) The law enforcement agency may mail a warning notice in place of a citation to the owner liable under subsection (e) of this section.

(3)(i) Before mailing a citation to a motor vehicle rental company liable under subsection (e) of this section, a law enforcement agency shall mail a notice to the motor vehicle rental company stating that a citation will be mailed to the motor vehicle rental company unless, within 45 days of receiving the notice, the motor vehicle rental company provides the law enforcement agency with:

1. A statement made under oath that states the name and last known mailing address of the individual driving or renting the motor vehicle when the violation occurred;

2. A. A statement made under oath that states that the motor vehicle rental company is unable to determine who was driving or renting the vehicle at the time the violation occurred because the motor vehicle was stolen at the time of the violation; and

B. A copy of the police report associated with the motor vehicle theft claimed under item A of this item; or

3. Payment for the penalty associated with the violation.

(ii) A law enforcement agency may not mail a citation to a motor vehicle rental company liable under subsection (e) of this section if the motor vehicle rental company complies with subparagraph (i) of this paragraph.

(4) Except as provided in paragraph (3) of this subsection and subsection (h)(5) of this section, a citation issued under this section shall be mailed no later than 2 weeks after the alleged violation.

(5) A person who receives a citation under paragraph (1) of this subsection may:

(i) Pay the civil penalty, in accordance with instructions on the citation, directly to the county; or

(ii) Elect to stand trial for the alleged violation.

Certificates alleging violations

(g)(1) A certificate alleging that a violation occurred, sworn to or affirmed by a duly authorized agent of a law enforcement agency, based on inspection of recorded images produced by a school bus monitoring camera shall be evidence of the facts contained in the certificate and shall be admissible in any proceeding concerning the alleged violation.

(2) Adjudication of liability shall be based on a preponderance of evidence.

Defenses

(h)(1) The District Court may consider in defense of a violation:

(i) Subject to paragraph (2) of this subsection, that the motor vehicle or registration plates of the motor vehicle were stolen before the violation occurred and were not under the control or possession of the owner at the time of the violation;

(ii) Subject to paragraph (3) of this subsection, evidence that the person named in the citation was not operating the vehicle at the time of the violation; and

(iii) Any other issues and evidence that the District Court deems pertinent.

(2) In order to demonstrate that the motor vehicle or the registration plates were stolen before the violation occurred and were not under the control or possession of the owner at the time of the violation, the owner must submit proof that a police report about the stolen motor vehicle or registration plates was filed in a timely manner.

(3) To satisfy the evidentiary burden under paragraph (1)(ii) of this subsection, the person named in the citation shall provide to the District Court evidence to the satisfaction of the District Court of who was operating the vehicle at the time of the violation, including, at a minimum, the operator's name and current address.

(4)(i) The provisions of this paragraph apply only to a citation that involves a Class E (truck) vehicle with a registered gross weight of 26,001 pounds or more, Class F (tractor) vehicle, Class G (trailer) vehicle operated in combination with a Class F (tractor) vehicle, and Class P (passenger bus) vehicle.

(ii) To satisfy the evidentiary burden under paragraph (1)(ii) of this subsection, the person named in a citation described under subparagraph (i) of this paragraph may provide to the District Court a letter, sworn to or affirmed by the person and mailed by certified mail, return receipt requested, that:

1. States that the person named in the citation was not operating the vehicle at the time of the violation; and

2. Provides the name, address, and driver's license identification number of the person who was operating the vehicle at the time of the violation.

(5)(i) If the District Court finds that the person named in the citation was not operating the vehicle at the time of the violation or receives evidence under paragraph (4)(ii)2 of this subsection identifying the person driving the vehicle at the time of the violation, the clerk of the court shall provide to the law enforcement agency issuing the citation a copy of any evidence substantiating who was operating the vehicle at the time of the violation.

(ii) On the receipt of substantiating evidence from the District Court under subparagraph (i) of this paragraph, the law enforcement agency may issue a citation as provided in subsection (f) of this section to the person that the evidence indicates was operating the vehicle at the time of the violation.

(iii) A citation issued under subparagraph (ii) of this paragraph shall be mailed no later than 2 weeks after receipt of the evidence from the District Court.

Failure to pay civil penalties

(i) If the civil penalty is not paid and the violation is not contested, the Administration may refuse to register or reregister or may suspend the registration of the motor vehicle.

Civil penalties for violations

(j) A violation for which a civil penalty is imposed under this section:

(1) Is not a moving violation for the purpose of assessing points under § 16-402 of this article and may not be recorded by the Administration on the driving record of the owner or driver of the vehicle;

(2) May be treated as a parking violation for purposes of § 26-305 of this article; and

(3) May not be considered in the provision of motor vehicle insurance coverage.

Procedures for issuance of citations, trials, and collection of penalties

(k) In consultation with law enforcement agencies, the Chief Judge of the District Court shall adopt procedures for the issuance of citations, trials for violations, and the collection of civil penalties imposed under this section.

Credits

Added by Acts 1988, c. 199. Amended by Acts 2011, c. 273, § 1, eff. Oct. 1, 2011; Acts 2012, c. 124, § 1, eff. July 1, 2012; Acts 2017, c. 683, § 1, eff. Oct. 1, 2017; Acts 2017, c. 744, § 1, eff. July 1, 2017; Acts 2019, c. 429, § 1, eff. June 1, 2019.

MCPS Board of Education Looks to Lower Requirements for Substitute Teachers #Unlicensed #expungement #sexoffenders #backdoor

...The school system’s policy for hiring substitutes, policy GEF, requires an applicant to have at least a bachelor’s degree or certification, and people applying to substitute in vocational programs can be considered without a college degree, but must have at least two years of experience in a related area.

School board members said they hope applicants with associate’s degrees or students at Montgomery College who need student teaching experience to graduate will be allowed to substitute. The only statewide requirement for becoming a substitute teacher in Maryland is a high school diploma.

“The Montgomery Board of Education is committed to being agile and innovative in finding solutions to evolving needs,” according to a resolution introduced by the school board this week.

Superintendent Jack Smith called the proposal a “great idea” and will present recommendations in July...

https://bethesdamagazine.com/bethesda-beat/schools/montgomery-schools-looks-to-lower-requirements-for-substitute-teachers/

School bus camera tickets still raising questions in some parts of Texas #BusPatrol #alertbus.com @RicePolitics @mcps @mocoboe

Amy Hamilton lives in Elgin, a town on the east side of Austin. Last month she got a collection demand for a $422 overdue fine for driving past a school bus that was stopped. She acknowledges that she did it, though not intentionally; an online video link shows her car passing the bus.

And those are the only simple things about what should be a simple case.

The demand letter came from a collections group in Carrollton, in North Texas. The letter says it was a “city of Pflugerville” bus she passed. That town, just north of Austin, doesn’t operate school buses.

The letter says she ignored the original ticket mailed to her in May, so that a late penalty was added to the original fine. Hamilton says she never got the original notice. It’s an all-too-common occurrence when agencies issue tickets or bills for things like automated tollway charges or red-light camera infractions to motorists who, at the time, don’t even know they’ve been tagged.

The collection company says the infraction happened in Austin. But officials in both Austin and Pflugerville deny issuing the original ticket or, in fact, having the authority to do so, since no officer in their employ saw the infraction or knew anything about it.

Who does know about it? BusPatrol, the private company that owns the camera that captured the video — a company, not any political subdivision with ticket-issuing power. The company got involved with Texas school bus safety after a major scandal involving payoffs and federal felony charges took down officials of another company originally involved, as well as leaders of a now-defunct school bus agency in Dallas... 

https://texasmonitor.org/school-bus-camera-tickets-still-raising-questions-in-some-parts-of-texas/?fbclid=IwAR3kCQTSD1DJnky7mE5Vce0JK_G1Oi_hdYbn8PSelJ1yZWtmVXz0CJkPFDs

Man hid tiny cameras in his bathrooms, recorded 60 nude children, prosecutors say.

...Until fall [2017], when Montgomery County police arrested him, Oldale, who lived in Somerset, was a fixture in the town — deeply involved in the lives of his two children and those in the neighborhood.

He led a Cub Scout pack, took photos for the elementary school yearbook and volunteered as a room parent at school. He launched a small summer camp and threw the backyard splash parties...

The videos show multiple cameras were used simultaneously to record what was happening in the bathrooms of his home, authorities said in charging Oldale, and show Oldale checking camera angles.

...“Mr. Oldale would come into the bathroom,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Joseph Baldwin said in court several months ago. “He will check on a camera. He’ll look down at it and make sure the focus is correct and make sure that it’s pointing in the right direction. He did it to the one in the pedestal sink. There’s another video where he comes in, and there’s one that’s pointing from the shower over the commode in the bathroom to the bathroom door. He walks in, he leans in that camera and he artfully pushes it back so that it’s now focusing on the shower.

“You ask yourself, well, why is he doing that?” the prosecutor continued. “Well, 30 seconds later, two young girls come in the bathroom, and they take off their bathing suits, and they get in the shower.”..

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/i-have-disgraced-myself-man-charged-with-hiding-video-cameras-to-film-young-girls-expected-to-plead-guilty/2018/11/13/cf86a410-e796-11e8-b8dc-66cca409c180_story.html?utm_term=.92264afb1bd2