Will Sen. Frosh Kill Bill with Maximum Protection for Kids?

Dear Senator Frosh,

As the Chair of the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee you now hold the key to what will happen this year with regard to closing the existing loop holes in Maryland law with regard to sexual abuse of teens by persons in positions of authority.

The Maryland House passed a bill that would provide maximum protection for kids, the Maryland Senate passed a bill that would provide minimum protection. Will you support conforming the Senate bill to the House bill with maximum protections?

The differences in the Senate and House bills comes down to the differences in the definition of a person in a position of authority and penalties.

House bill: Person in position of authority would expand current law to include part-time teachers, coaches in recreational programs and volunteers.

Senate bill: Person in position of authority would expand current law to only include part-time teachers and penalties would be lessened.

Will your Committee take the amendments in the House bill and include coaches and volunteers as persons in positions of authority, as we know that in some cases coaches and volunteers may indeed be molesters?  Will your Committee take the amendments in the House bill to provide maximum penalties for offenders?

The House Judiciary Committee has already scheduled a public hearing for March 26th.  Will your Committee hold a public hearing on the House bill so that the public can weigh in on the differences in these bills prior to the next vote?

The Maryland legislative session is short and this year's session is moving toward conclusion.  Parents are watching to see if existing loop holes in current Maryland law will be eliminated this year, or if we must wait for a future legislature to stand up for maximum protection of our children.

Janis Sartucci

Guest Post: Do members of the MD Senate think that coaches never sexually abuse and sexually assault minors in Maryland?

The following is in response to Senator Karen Montgomery's e-mail to the Parents' Coalition suggesting that parents and child advocates come back next year to advocate for legislation that will protect students from sexual predators.
~~~~~

We note that Senator Montgomery mentions that any problems with Senate Bill 460 should be taken up next year.  She does not acknowledge that there will be hearings on cross filed bills where the public can petition legislators about significant problems with the Senate version of the bill. These problems can  be taken up in a conference committee this year.  She does not acknowledge that the House Judiciary Committee amendments provide far more protections than the the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee (JPR) Amendments  in House Bill 781, Senate Bill 460's cross filed bill.  She does not explain why this must be the case. While it is true that Senators rightly deleted a proposed provision concerning the seven year gap and allowed  part-time employees to be penalized for the first time since 2006 after the Senate's JPR struck part-time employees from the House bill that year, a heinous case had to occur causing unnecessary harm to a 14 year-old before they would legislate a common sense provision. This child waited until it was too late.

Instead of following Senator Montgomery's advice to take up problems with the Senate's JPR amendments before the session ends, parents and other citizens concerned with the safety and protection of children should ask the following questions of the members of the Senate's Judicial Proceedings Committee including its Chairman, Brian Frosh, and the sponsor of SB 460, Jaime Raskin :

• Why must children and their parents wait until next year instead of solving these problems in a conference committee?  Why won't the Senate's Judicial Proceeding Committee agree to reconsider its decision to exclude necessary protections in HB 781 which passed the House 129 to 0? Does Senator Montgomery's comments reflect the views of Senator Frosh?   If so, will the Senator retaliate by refusing to go to conference and then kill the bill as the Senate's JPR did last year?

• What public policy demands the Senate's JPR refusal to conform SB 460 to an amendment in HB 781 which would allow prosecutors to charge child sexual abuse which is a felony as well as separately charge a violation of the Position of Authority (POA) law which is a misdemeanor when an educator violates both laws.   Was it to make sure that defense attorneys could pressure prosecutors to accept plea bargains to a misdemeanor rather than a felony? If an educator sexually assaults a child in school it is a felony.  If an educator engages in the same behavior with the same child off-campus off time, it is a misdemeanor. If an an educator commits both types of crimes, why does the Senate's JPR want to continue to prevent legitimate prosecutions of both crimes? 

• Why did the Senate's JPR refuse to conform SB 460 to an amendment in HB 781 that would have raised the current penalty from imprisonment not exceeding 1 year or a fine not exceeding $ 1000 or both to the penalty approved by the House of Delegates, imprisonment not exceeding 5 years or a fine not exceeding $1000.  Why does the Senate's JPR think that the current penalty is proportionate to this serious crime so that it cannot even be increased minimally?  Indeed, if the same criminal behavior is a felony in school, why should the Senate's JPR reward clever molesters or child rapists by permitting them to get away with a misdemeanor rather than a felony merely because of the location perpetrators choose to commit these sexual crimes?   This makes no sense.

• Why did the Senate's JPR refuse to include an amendment requested by the Montgomery County Board of Education to include administrators and Board members  who may not supervise a child, but may hold sway over a child because of their positions?

• Why did the Senate's JPR refuse to include those who work or volunteer in sports and recreational programs who supervise minors under the purview of the legislation as did the House of Delegates?  Do members of the Senate's JPR think that coaches, for example, never sexually abuse and sexually assault minors in Maryland?  Why have other states responded to the Sandusky case by strengthening their laws?  Why has the Senate's JPR ignored this case along with other cases in Maryland which prove that this is a child protection problem here in Maryland?  Mark Hartill, a foremost expert on sexual abuse in sports has stated: " If the sex abuse conviction of former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky did one thing, it was to shatter the assumption that organized sports is an oasis where the well-being of children are always assured." Why doesn't his statement appear to have had an impact on the members of the of Judicial Proceedings Committee?

Sen. Montgomery Tells Parents to Come Back Next Year...Students Can Wait for Protection from Predators

Maryland Senator Karen Montgomery has responded to the Parents' Coalition blog post It's Magic! Senate Committee Amends SB460 Without Introduction of All Amendments

Note that the House passed their version of the Person in a Position of Authority bill after deleting the 7 year gap proposal and leaving in place all other protections for students.  

The Senate not only deleted the 7 year gap proposal but, in addition, many of the protections for students including the prohibition against sexual contact from volunteers and sports coaches.  

Somehow, the House was able to keep the safety of students as their top priority, but the Senate was not. Here is Senator Montgomery's response to the Senate action:

RE: It's Magic! Senate Committee Amends SB460 Without Introduction of All Amendments
From: "Montgomery, Karen Senator" Date: Mon, Mar 17, 2014 12:17 pm
To:  Parents' Coalition
Hello,
I am sorry that there are some differences in opinion on the changes to the bill. However, changing the age gap and adding part-time employees protects children more than they have been previously. If you believe that there should be additional strengths added, please bring them forward next year to the committee.
Sincerely,
Karen S. Montgomery
Senator Karen S. Montgomery
The Senate of Maryland
District 14- Montgomery County
301-858-3625
410-841-3625
James Senate Office Building
11 Bladen Street
Annapolis, MD 21401

State Sen. Karen Montgomery Stands Up for Children!

As we reported earlier this week, 9 Maryland State Delegates have sponsored state-wide legislation to shorten the amount of time parents have to review reports prior to an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) meeting.  IEP meetings are held for students in need of special education programs and services.

On Monday February 20, 2012, an online Petition was posted by a parent that OPPOSED this legislation.  As of today, that Petition is about to hit 400 signatures from all over the State of Maryland.

Today, we learned that Maryland State Senator Karen S. Montgomery is strongly OPPOSED to this legislation. On February 16, 2012, Senator Montgomery wrote to the Bill sponsor and co-sponsors, most of whom are from Montgomery County.  Senator Montgomery's letter to the sponsor and co-sponsors is below. 


Congratulations to Senator Karen Montgomery for standing up and speaking out for Maryland children in need of special education services!  
Sen Montgomery Feb 2012


What other elected officials will join State Senator Karen Montgomery in standing up for children needing special education programs and services?