The Teens Trapped Between a Gang and the Law

Read the full story in The New Yorker here. By author Jonathan Blitzer, January 1, 2018.

On Long Island, unaccompanied minors are caught between the violence of MS-13 and the fear of deportation.

Juliana grew up with a single memory of her father. He was sitting in the half-light of evening on the porch of their home, in a small town in El Salvador, while her mother cooked dinner in the kitchen. A man in a black mask emerged from the darkness. Juliana heard three gunshots, and saw her father fall off his chair, vomiting blood. She was three years old at the time, and afterward she wondered if the killing had actually happened. The most tangible detail was the man in the mask, who came to seem more present in her life than her father ever was. Juliana used to find her mother by the windows, pulling back a corner of the curtains to be sure that he had not returned. “It was like that man went on living with us,” Juliana told me. One day when she was older, her mother said that a gang called the Mara Salvatrucha, also known as MS-13, had killed her father for refusing to pay a tax on a deli that he operated out of the house.

For five years after the killing, the family moved every six months, staying with relatives throughout El Salvador, trying to keep ahead of the gang. In 2011, after Juliana’s mother, Ramona, testified against the killer, a member of MS-13 tried to stab her at a soccer game, where she was selling refreshments. She escaped, and fled the country, leaving Juliana and her two younger sisters at an aunt’s house, because she couldn’t afford to bring them with her. She went to Brentwood, on Long Island, where she had relatives, and took a job cleaning houses. A few years later, she was returning home from work, when she got a call. “What I need is money to pay a lawyer for the people who have been affected by what you’ve said,” a male voice told her. “I know the people of the neighborhood. I know your family, your kids, your daughter.” One of Juliana’s schoolmates, a sixteen-year-old boy who belonged to MS-13, had kidnapped her from her aunt’s house; for weeks, she was raped and beaten. She managed to call her mother one afternoon, and together they plotted her escape.

Rape Charges to Be Dropped in Case Cited by White House as Immigration Issue

From the New York Times, May 5, 2017, reporter Matt Stevens. for the full story go here.

Prosecutors in Maryland said on Friday that they would drop rape charges against an undocumented immigrant and another high school student, adding a new twist to a case that the White House had held up as evidence of the need to be tough on illegal immigration.

And:

But on Friday, John J. McCarthy, state’s attorney for Montgomery County, said his office had concluded that “the facts of this case do not support the charges originally filed” against the two students, Henry E. Sanchez-Milian, 18, and Jose O. Montano, 17.

 And:

 

Though he said he would drop the rape charges against Mr. Sanchez-Milian, Mr. McCarthy said his office had filed a new child pornography charge against him, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison. Mr. McCarthy did not elaborate. A spokesman for his office said the charge was filed on Thursday.

At a news conference on Friday, lawyers for Mr. Montano said the state had also decided to file pornography-related charges against their client in juvenile court.

“It’s egregious that the state is doing this,” said Maria Mena, one of Mr. Montano’s lawyers. “The purpose of the pornography statute was to go after adult predators, not juveniles.”

And:

Andrew Jezic, a lawyer for Mr. Sanchez-Milian, said if his client is found guilty of what he called a “throwaway” pornography charge, “that’s nearly guaranteed to be fatal to his immigration case to keep him in the country.”

The authorities have not commented on Mr. Montano’s immigration status because he is a minor.

But David Wooten, one of Mr. Montano’s lawyers, said his client’s family members are United States citizens and confirmed that his client is in deportation proceedings.

“He came here on his own in order to be reunited with his family because he didn’t have any family back home left,” Mr. Wooten said.

Michael Subin asks that security be called on reporters at press event in Rockville

Former County Council member Michael Subin asks that security be called on reporters at press event in Rockville: pic.twitter.com/BpqUZBXgug

— Bethesda Beat (@BethesdaBeat) August 8, 2016

Council Will Ignore MSI Litigation, Councilmembers Don't Understand Issue

At today's Montgomery County Council's Education Committee meeting the Education Committee members announced that they intended to ignore the MSI lawsuit against MCPS concerning the Churchill High School artificial turf project.

Council President Craig Rice says the litigation has nothing to do with the "field being constructed."

Actually, President Rice, the litigation has everything to do with the construction of the field because the field is being constructed with PRIVATE funds.

Does the Council imagine that one private club would happily pay to build the Churchill artificial turf football field and another private club could be granted the right to use it?

The MSI litigation has everything to do with the construction of the Churchill High School artificial turf field.

Maybe the Council would like to see the construction begin, and then be stopped by a Court order mid-project? How would that work out for the public school students that attend the school? A public football field closed because private parties are tied up in litigation? 

Model for Board of Education Standards of Conduct

We applaud the Board of Education, notably Board President Phil Kaufman and his committee, for finally trying to instill some ethics into the Montgomery County Board of Education and its staff.  

Sadly, this is something that has been missing for as long as I've been following the issue.

However, Phil's committee seems to be missing a central point.  How can you create allowed/allowable expenses without defining the guiding principles?

As a former federal employee, Phil should be familiar with the federal standards of conduct.  Its a great place to start, as a set of principles many in the DC area already follow.  These date back to Bush 1 in 1989, and have served the feds well, right Phil?  For the rest of the board, who apparently are clueless, the principles for federal employees may be found here:

ELECTRONIC CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS

e-CFR Data is current as of July 2, 2014

Title 5: Administrative Personnel 

PART 2635—STANDARDS OF ETHICAL CONDUCT FOR EMPLOYEES OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH
Subpart A—General Provisions

---

§2635.101   Basic obligation of public service.

(a) Public service is a public trust. Each employee has a responsibility to the United States Government and its citizens to place loyalty to the Constitution, laws and ethical principles above private gain. To ensure that every citizen can have complete confidence in the integrity of the Federal Government, each employee shall respect and adhere to the principles of ethical conduct set forth in this section, as well as the implementing standards contained in this part and in supplemental agency regulations.

(b) General principles. The following general principles apply to every employee and may form the basis for the standards contained in this part. Where a situation is not covered by the standards set forth in this part, employees shall apply the principles set forth in this section in determining whether their conduct is proper.

(1) Public service is a public trust, requiring employees to place loyalty to the Constitution, the laws and ethical principles above private gain.

(2) Employees shall not hold financial interests that conflict with the conscientious performance of duty.

(3) Employees shall not engage in financial transactions using nonpublic Government information or allow the improper use of such information to further any private interest.

(4) An employee shall not, except as permitted by subpart B of this part, solicit or accept any gift or other item of monetary value from any person or entity seeking official action from, doing business with, or conducting activities regulated by the employee's agency, or whose interests may be substantially affected by the performance or nonperformance of the employee's duties.

(5) Employees shall put forth honest effort in the performance of their duties.

(6) Employees shall not knowingly make unauthorized commitments or promises of any kind purporting to bind the Government.

(7) Employees shall not use public office for private gain.

(8) Employees shall act impartially and not give preferential treatment to any private organization or individual.

(9) Employees shall protect and conserve Federal property and shall not use it for other than authorized activities.

(10) Employees shall not engage in outside employment or activities, including seeking or negotiating for employment, that conflict with official Government duties and responsibilities.

(11) Employees shall disclose waste, fraud, abuse, and corruption to appropriate authorities.

(12) Employees shall satisfy in good faith their obligations as citizens, including all just financial obligations, especially those—such as Federal, State, or local taxes—that are imposed by law.

(13) Employees shall adhere to all laws and regulations that provide equal opportunity for all Americans regardless of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or handicap.

(14) Employees shall endeavor to avoid any actions creating the appearance that they are violating the law or the ethical standards set forth in this part. Whether particular circumstances create an appearance that the law or these standards have been violated shall be determined from the perspective of a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts.

Breaking News: Council MOLD Hearing for 1 MCPS School Thursday

You remember the County Council? The group that says:

 "The County Council's involvement with MCPS is largely limited to appropriating its funds." ~ Councilmember George Leventhal 

and does as little as possible to exert any oversight over MCPS.

Well, through some freak of nature (must be a Halloween trick) the Montgomery County Council's Education Committee has found a way to speak up.  Tomorrow, the Education Committee is holding a committee meeting devoted to ONE SCHOOL and ONE issue at that school!

Now take a look at the way the Council set up this hearing. Here was how the hearing was listed on the Committee's Agenda:

Discussion - School Facility Maintenance Policies and Practices

But, the meeting is going to be about one school's issue with mold.  Take a look at the packet that has been released for this meeting.  The Council is even permitting a parent from Rolling Terrace Elementary School to sit at the table for this discussion.

Other MCPS schools with mold issues? Where is your seat at the table?

Obviously, when the County Council wants to insert themselves into the operation of MCPS facilities they know how to do it.

BOE Stiffs Council on Information Request

On March 20, 2013, the Montgomery County Council's Education Committee asked the Board of Education for some very basic information. See pages Circle 1-3 in the document below.
Here was the question:

For each year since 2003, please provide: 

• The number of requests for privately funded facility improvements MCPS has received;

• The number approved and disapproved; and

• A list of projects approved and disapproved.

It is now July.  Did the Board of Education provide that information to the Council?

NO!  The Board of Education provided the Council with the list of approved projects only for FY 2011, FY 2012 and part of FY 2013.  What happened to 2003 through 2010?  Records lost? What about the disapproved projects? Shredded?

Even worse is that Council staff covers for the Board of Education by glossing over the failure to respond in the meeting packet (below) prepared for Councilmembers.

We are now seeing a clear pattern on the part of the Board of Education of ignoring Council Education Committee requests for information.

MCPS Surplus? Council questions go unanswered at hearing and hearing must be re-scheduled.  Charter School? Council questions can't be answered and hearing must be re-scheduled.  Facility Improvements from parents and private sources? See the packet below.

The Council's Education Committee is now in a pattern of re-scheduling hearings on MCPS topics because of the failure of the Board of Education and MCPS to show up and respond.

  20130722_ED1 by Parents' Coalition of Montgomery County, Maryland

Exclusive: Why doesn't the Council Have This Document?

On Monday, July 22, 2013, the Montgomery County Council's Education Committee claims they will be reviewing the one and only MCPS Board of Education charter school. For their meeting Council staff prepares a "packet" of information for Councilmembers.

What's in the Monday "packet" for this discussion?  Fluff from the charter school vendor.  Is that what Council review is about? Letting vendors put on a show?

Well, if the Council was really interested in providing some oversight they would start by reviewing the Charter School Agreement that was executed between the Board of Education and the charter school vendor.  But, the Council can't review that document because they don't have it.

But, we do.

Here is the Charter School Agreement for the MCPS Board of Education's one and only charter school.  Maybe its time the Council's Education Committee read this document and exercised some real oversight over the almost $700,000 in tax dollars this school will receive this year?

  CMCS Charter by Parents' Coalition of Montgomery County, Maryland

  Crossway Charter School Application Montgomery County MD 2011 by freestategal

Charter School Needs to Raise $500,000 Annually to Stay Afloat

What kind of a public school is MCPS' one and only Charter School that it needs to raise $500,000 every year to stay open?  Is this how MCPS runs all of its public schools?  Why was a Charter School allowed to open if they didn't have sufficient funds to be sustainable?

Families at the Community Montessori Charter School have been told that $500,000 needs to be raised.  
What does this mean to those families?  What burden does it put on them now that they have enrolled their child in what they thought was a MCPS public school?

Are the Board of Education and the County Council monitoring this fundraising?  

See #5 on this document from the Community Montessori Charter School:

  Community Montessori Charter School by Parents' Coalition of Montgomery County, Maryland

$9 MILLION for non-monitored "security" systems this year in MCPS

If you read the ‪#‎MoCo‬ County Council Ed Committee memo from July 8, 2013, a TOTAL of $8.996 (just call it $9) MILLION will be spent on non-monitored "security" systems this year.

Just $5.86 Million discussed at this specific (July 8th) meeting: $4.186 MILLION in State taxpayer funds PLUS $1.674 MILLION County borrowed (i.e., money will have to be repaid with interest so actually costing MORE) thru GO Bonds, of which $1.5 MILLION is a shifting of planned monies from FY16-18 to FY15.

Nothing like borrowing from the future!

Oh, if you're counting, that other $3.16 MILLION is already coming from County coffers (but who's counting).

---Great financial leadership there---

Agnes Jones Trower

BOE & Starr Blow Off Council Education Committee discussion of MCPS Surplus

• 5% cut backs for other Montgomery County agencies for FY 2014 while MCPS boasts a $21.8 million surplus for FY 2013 

• The $21.8 million surplus includes 185 vacant school based positions. 

When the Montgomery County Council's Education Committee met on July 8, 2013, to discuss the Monthly Financial Report of MCPS, Superintendent Joshua Starr and the Board of Education members were absent. In fact, there weren't even any Deputy Superintendents or Associate Superintendents in attendance at the committee meeting.

The only representative from MCPS at this discussion was the new MCPS Director of Management and Budget, Thomas P. Klausing.

Where were Superintendent Starr and all of the BOE members during this important budget discussion?

Discussion of MCPS surplus starts at minute 1:25 of the YouTube video:

Criminalizing Children at School

Last Thursday, April 18th, the MoCo County Council's Education Committee and Public Safety Committee spent time discussing the issue of placing School Resource Officers (SROs) in public schools across Montgomery County.  The staff report is here.  Coincidentally, on the same day, a Montgomery Blair HS student was tasered by an SRO, and was sent to the hospital as a result.

Do the citizens of Montgomery County want SROs in the public schools here?

Below is an excerpt from an editorial in The New York Times, from April 18th.  to read the entire editorial, go here.

The National Rifle Association and President Obama responded to the Newtown, Conn., shootings by recommending that more police officers be placed in the nation’s schools. But a growing body of research suggests that, contrary to popular wisdom, a larger police presence in schools generally does little to improve safety. It can also create a repressive environment in which children are arrested or issued summonses for minor misdeeds — like cutting class or talking back — that once would have been dealt with by the principal.

Stationing police in schools, while common today, was virtually unknown during the 1970s. Things began to change with the surge of juvenile crime during the ’80s, followed by an overreaction among school officials. Then came the 1999 Columbine High School shooting outside Denver, which prompted a surge in financing for specially trained police. In the mid-1970s, police patrolled about 1 percent of schools. By 2008, the figure was 40 percent.

The belief that police officers automatically make schools safer was challenged in a 2011 study that compared federal crime data of schools that had police officers with schools that did not. It found that the presence of the officers did not drive down crime. The study — by Chongmin Na of The University of Houston, Clear Lake, and Denise Gottfredson of the University of Maryland — also found that with police in the buildings, routine disciplinary problems began to be treated as criminal justice problems, increasing the likelihood of arrests.

And:

The criminalization of misbehavior so alarmed the New York City Council that, in 2010, it passed the Student Safety Act, which requires detailed police reports on which students are arrested and why. (Data from the 2011-12 school year show that black students are being disproportionately arrested and suspended.)

Achievement Gap Questions that will not be answered on Monday, March 18th

Here is the Montgomery County Council's Staff Packet for the Council's Education Committee meeting with the BOE and MCPS staff on Monday, March 18, 2013 concerning the just released Council Report on the Achievement Gap in MCPS.  (Yes, this is the gap that Superintendent Jerry Weast has told the world he closed.  Apparently, it re-opened.)  

These are the 3 questions that Council staff have suggested that Councilmembers Valerie Ervin, Phil Andrews and Craig Rice should ask the BOE and MCPS staff.  Will the questions even be asked? If they are, will the Councilmembers take smoke and mirrors as answers?

(We know this topic won't be discussed.)

The complete Council Staff packet is shown below in Scribd.

Issue #1: Discuss with MCPS representatives how the school system establishes its funding priorities for closing the achievement gap and how MCPS' FY14 budget request reflects these priorities.


Issue #2: Ask MCPS representatives to describe the school system's explicit expectations for achieving progress in closing the achievement gap based on current trends and planned investments. 


Issue #3: Discuss with representatives of MCPS, Montgomery County Government, and community-based groups how they envision their roles working together to eliminate the achievement gap. 

  20130318_ED1 by Parents' Coalition of Montgomery County, Maryland

Guest Post: Why does FieldTurf have this unreasonable usage restriction in its warranty?

The Parents' Coalition received the following comment from a source in the artificial turf industry.  The poor person doesn't realize that here in Montgomery County our elected officials can't do math and don't like facts.  But, they are trying anyway to get across a point.  So here is their comment: 

Does everyone realize Wootton High School students will only be able to use the field for a max of 2000 hours per year?  According to the deal, the Bethesda Soccer Club is paying $900,000 of the approx. $1.1 million in return for 900-1000 hours / year of use.  The FieldTurf warranty only covers use up to 3,000 hours per year.  A copy of the warranty is part of the Towson University document package that was posted about 1 month ago on the site. 

Let's assume the field is used 300 days per year.  That leaves barely 6 hours per day of use for Wootton students when you also take the 150 hours / year use promised for community use.  If you base the usage on 365 days that leaves 5 hours / day for Wootton students.  Same for Walter Johnson HS students since this "deal" was modeled after that one.  Is this even more than the existing grass field??  Clearly, the actual use will exceed the maximum usage allowed by the FieldTurf and the warranty will be as useless as a screen door on a submarine... 

Why does FieldTurf have this unreasonable usage restriction in its warranty?  Why wouldn't Montgomery County consider other less expensive synthetic turf vendors that do not have this restrictive language in their warranties?  What happens in 8 yrs (if it lasts that long) when the field will need to be removed, disposed and replaced?  Who assumes that very significant cost?  I doubt the Bethesda Soccer Club will be picking up the 500k tab to remove, dispose and replace the turf.  How can the members of the Board of Education neglect to take these very high future costs into consideration?

When will Council Stand up to the Board of Education?

Councilmember Phil Andrews writes in today's Washington Post:  

When will Montgomery stand up to Annapolis?

Councilmember Andrews must have forgotten that just 2 months ago the Montgomery County Council handed over $2,042,000 to the Board of Education without any documentation.  

The Board asked for $2,042,000 in County funds and without producing any contracts or verification for the requested procurement the County Council, including Councilmember Andrews, raised their hands in agreement to turn the $2,042,000 to the Board of Education.  

That money could have been used by the Council for any purpose; libraries, police, fire, or health services.  But, instead the Council, along with Councilmember Andrews, chose to hand that money over to the Board of Education without any documentation.

Now, Councilmember Andrews asks the Montgomery County Delegation to "stand up", something that he is unable to do in his own elected position.  If he can throw around $2,042,000 like it is Monopoly money, why does he expect anything more from the elected officials in Annapolis?

...given fully rational fund managers reasons to jump off the proverbial cliff...

City AM:  Don’t scare away signs of life in City flotations market

...When it comes to the experiences of UK investors in new issues, though, foreign-owned companies aren’t the only ones to have given fully rational fund managers reasons to jump off the proverbial cliff. 

Those who bought shares at the time of the flotations of Ocado, the internet grocer, Promethean World, the whiteboard maker, and Betfair, the internet gaming group, for example, all have reason to rue the new issues market without having gone anywhere near a company owned or controlled by a foreign tycoon...

Love Fest: MCPS and County Council Education Committee

Here's video of the Montgomery County Council's Education Committee November 5, 2012 hearing where they "grilled" MCPS about the proposal to spend $14.5 million dollars of taxpayer funds without any contracts or documentation.
It's your money, here's how the County Councilmembers treat requests by MCPS to spend without documentation.

It's Official! No Contract for Purchase of 2,000 Promethean brand boards. Council will hand MCPS $8.9 MILLION without any strings attached!

In the packet of information for the Montgomery County Council's vote tomorrow to hand over $14.5 million to MCPS, we find this amazing statement about the $8.9 million dollar Promethean brand Interactive White Board purchase:

"MCPS intends to use one of two Statewide contracts to purchase the Promethean Board systems."

Contract One? Contract Two? 

That confirms what we have been telling you on this blog.  There is no current MCPS contract to purchase 2,000 Promethean brand Interactive White Boards.  When Councilmember Phil Andrews asked MCPS' Chief Technology Officer for the pricing for the 2,000 Promethean boards, he couldn't answer.  Of course not!  The prices don't exist yet because there is no contract!

MCPS "intends to use" tells the public that MCPS doesn't have a contract in hand yet.  Intention is not a contractual relationship.

"One of two" tells the public that MCPS doesn't have a contract yet.  It could be contract one, or contract two, or even number three if MCPS changes their mind.  Prices and terms? Not yet final.  No guarantee what taxpayers are getting for this $8.9 million.

What exactly did the Board of Education approve on September 11th?  Guess the BOE has no idea, and the County Council doesn't care.

2012November13 Council hands over $14.5 Million to MCPS without any contracts.

Guest Post: LTISD pays Fieldturf $779k / MCPS pays Fieldturf $1.1mil for same thing

...The field turf is a separate project and was $779,307, with a total of five bids coming in for the project with FieldTurf winning the bidding...

http://laketravisview.com/2012/08/01/new-turf-baseball-lights-press-box-projects-complete-at-lake-travis/

Note - the 779k is a turnkey price.  Includes the sub-base and turf field.  It is also for FieldTurf's new upgraded "Revolution" product...

Where did the extra $300k go?  This is what happens when you circumvent a proper competitive bid process.

Here's a closer example!   

...As per the motion, the board entered into contracts with Field Turf to install the artificial surface ($699,000)...

http://www.tnonline.com/2012/feb/14/turf-field 

just 187 miles north of Montgomery County but they pay $400k less...

--------------

The Parents' Coalition received this Guest Post on the issue of MCPS' sole source arrangement for purchases of artificial turf.  The Montgomery County Council has already held their "hearing" on artificial turf procurement. Cost is not an issue for the Montgomery County Council.

Throw me a party and I'll Sign Your Letter

A few weeks ago, this blog posted about a letter drafted by Dr. Starr concerning Mitchell Rales's request for a public sewer line to his estate in Potomac.

This looked sort of silly - after all, why would a Superintendent of Schools care about the state of the septic system at Glenstone?

More than we even knew. Apparently, all it takes is a few cookies to get Dr. Starr's attention.

When Dr. Starr was new in town, Mitch Rales thought he could do some partying with a purpose. His goal - "introduce him to arts-academic-business people who might not get to meet him otherwise." See August 12, 2012 email from his PR guru, Charlie (all references are to documents at the end of this post).

Funny - but looks as if Dr. Starr probably knew most of the folks who showed up.

-Three Board of Education members - Laura Berthiaume, Shirley Brandman, and Pat O'Neill
-Four County Council members (Andrews, Berliner, Ervin, and Riemer)
-At least two MCCPTA officers
(I thought you folks interviewed him for the job?)

-Six MCPS staff members
(Mr. Edwards - don't you and the rest of these folks see Dr. Starr at work?)

And the rest of the crowd?

Montgomery County Economic Development (two persons), MoCo Planning Board (three members), higher education reps in Montgomery Co (five), state representatives and delegates (two), and a few family members, staff, and friends (at least four by my count).

Can you locate the "business people who might not get to meet [Dr. Starr]?" I had trouble identifying them, perhaps someone else can help out.

I am sure everyone at the party had a great time.

Here is my question.  Is this a new way to conduct business by the Board of Ed, the County Council, and the Planning Board?   Looks to me like a way to make some deals, out of the public view.

Or is sharing a few cookies and drinks and then signing a letter to support the Rales's application for a sewer line no big deal, among friends?

After all, think of the great parties we can have after the Rales get their sewer line. But - if you go, remember, no blogging, because Mr. Rales prohibits bloggers from visiting his premises.
Glenstone