The OIG finds that Biedleman violated MCPS policies and code of conduct

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We can just chalk this up to admin will be admin. Wrist slap please then everyone can move on. No other action necessary. The mcps way.

Or they could launch more investigations until they get one that gives the result they want

That's exactly what the county's "independent" Office of Inspector General is known for - so I suspect that we will have multiple investigations from them all miraculously pointing to the result that they want. Just wait for it. After they released their first investigation report there all of a sudden was another report already in the works, as if the first one wasn't enough for the people who want the predetermined outcome.

This is kind of a weird response. There were always two investigations planned:

1) Did Joel Beidleman engage in bully and sexual harassment?

The report found that yes, he did. You can find the report here: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://montgomerycountymd.gov/OIG/Resources/Files/PDF/IGActivity/FY2024/MCPS_Beidleman.pdf

Top-line results are that he did engage in bullying, make sexually inappropriate comments to a variety of female staff, and engaged in an inappropriate relationship with a direct report. That report makes it clear that he violated the Code of Conduct. I can't cut and paste, but the report is very clear that multiple people reported being sexually harassed, yelled at, intimidated, and subjected to retaliation. I'd cut and paste, but that function is turned off.

2) Did MCPS appropriately investigate and respond to reports it received regarding Beidleman leading up to the Washington Post reporting?

Given how blunt the first report was, and the documentation that appears to exist detailing the bully and harassment, I'm expecting this to be fairly scathing.

One report said this while the other one didn't. Stop cherry-picking facts and try to be objective.

Well, let's be clear:

MCPS dismissed several complaints against Beidelman, but there was never a real "investigation" before the Washington Post broke the story in August.

The first actual "investigation" was the Washington Post investigation, which found that MCPS had received 18 separate complaints about bullying and sexual harassment perpetuated by Beidelman. In total, the Washington Post interviewed 39 people who said they were subjected to harassment, bullying, or retaliation.

The second "investigation" was the Jackson Lewis investigation, which determined that an additional 7 bullying and harassment reports had been made to MCPS but MCPS had failed to log them. That brought the total to 25 official reports that had been filed against Beidelman. The Jackson Lewis summary did not comment on whether Beidelman had or had not engaged in bullying and harassment, but they did make it clear that MCPS had failed to appropriately follow up on reports made by staff. The redacted version of the Jackson Lewis report was eventually released, and made it clear that MCPS leadership had improperly altered the investigation timeline.

The third "investigation" is the OIG report, which delivered a scathing rebuke of Beidelman's conduct and stated in no understanding terms that he engaged in sexual harassment, bullying, retaliation, and made inappropriate comments to female students.

The final "investigation" is still pending, and will hopefully name names in terms of who knew about the misconduct and failed to take appropriate action.

What about the report that found no evidence of wrongdoing?

Which report? Link it.

Or is this like the person who kept posting "Dr. McKnight wasn't even superintendent then" even though she absolutely was. Just flat-out disinformation.

If there is an exonerating report, please go ahead and share with the class.

I thought it was the first one, but they did additional investigations that reached different conclusions.

None of the investigations have exonerated him.

That's odd I had read the first one and found no evidence of wrongdoing,

Others have linked and quoted reports. So just link the "one you read." That should be easy enough.

Their account of things is hardly objective. They're leaving out a lot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe these people wanted the attention from Joel and he wouldn’t give it to them. Y’all are some sickos. Let the county do their job and shut up. What goes around comes around so wishing bad on people is not your job unless you want to feel that karma come back on you.

The one poster clearly is out for blood but could care less about Joel. They just want to crucify Mcknight at all costs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We can just chalk this up to admin will be admin. Wrist slap please then everyone can move on. No other action necessary. The mcps way.

Or they could launch more investigations until they get one that gives the result they want

That's exactly what the county's "independent" Office of Inspector General is known for - so I suspect that we will have multiple investigations from them all miraculously pointing to the result that they want. Just wait for it. After they released their first investigation report there all of a sudden was another report already in the works, as if the first one wasn't enough for the people who want the predetermined outcome.

This is kind of a weird response. There were always two investigations planned:

1) Did Joel Beidleman engage in bully and sexual harassment?

The report found that yes, he did. You can find the report here: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://montgomerycountymd.gov/OIG/Resources/Files/PDF/IGActivity/FY2024/MCPS_Beidleman.pdf

Top-line results are that he did engage in bullying, make sexually inappropriate comments to a variety of female staff, and engaged in an inappropriate relationship with a direct report. That report makes it clear that he violated the Code of Conduct. I can't cut and paste, but the report is very clear that multiple people reported being sexually harassed, yelled at, intimidated, and subjected to retaliation. I'd cut and paste, but that function is turned off.

2) Did MCPS appropriately investigate and respond to reports it received regarding Beidleman leading up to the Washington Post reporting?

Given how blunt the first report was, and the documentation that appears to exist detailing the bully and harassment, I'm expecting this to be fairly scathing.

One report said this while the other one didn't. Stop cherry-picking facts and try to be objective.

Well, let's be clear:

MCPS dismissed several complaints against Beidelman, but there was never a real "investigation" before the Washington Post broke the story in August.

The first actual "investigation" was the Washington Post investigation, which found that MCPS had received 18 separate complaints about bullying and sexual harassment perpetuated by Beidelman. In total, the Washington Post interviewed 39 people who said they were subjected to harassment, bullying, or retaliation.

The second "investigation" was the Jackson Lewis investigation, which determined that an additional 7 bullying and harassment reports had been made to MCPS but MCPS had failed to log them. That brought the total to 25 official reports that had been filed against Beidelman. The Jackson Lewis summary did not comment on whether Beidelman had or had not engaged in bullying and harassment, but they did make it clear that MCPS had failed to appropriately follow up on reports made by staff. The redacted version of the Jackson Lewis report was eventually released, and made it clear that MCPS leadership had improperly altered the investigation timeline.

The third "investigation" is the OIG report, which delivered a scathing rebuke of Beidelman's conduct and stated in no understanding terms that he engaged in sexual harassment, bullying, retaliation, and made inappropriate comments to female students.

The final "investigation" is still pending, and will hopefully name names in terms of who knew about the misconduct and failed to take appropriate action.

What about the report that found no evidence of wrongdoing?

That would be the second report. The first report found evidence of wrongdoing. The second report was the one that was written after Joel’s friend ordered the investigator to change his findings. That was after Joel’s friend improperly leaked information about the investigation to Joel. I know there are a lot of reports to keep track of so just wanted to make sure you keep them all straight.

I think the person who doctored the results did so to try to keep McKnight’s and her team’s hands clean rather than as a favor to Joel. Didn’t look good that McKnight unambiguously supported his promotion to principal with all of these allegations out there and a negative report into them. So once the news hit the WaPo, they changed the results of the investigation to say that there actually was no basis for concern. That way, McKnight and her team could say “see? I had no idea about this stuff when I told the Board to promote him to principal”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We can just chalk this up to admin will be admin. Wrist slap please then everyone can move on. No other action necessary. The mcps way.

Or they could launch more investigations until they get one that gives the result they want

That's exactly what the county's "independent" Office of Inspector General is known for - so I suspect that we will have multiple investigations from them all miraculously pointing to the result that they want. Just wait for it. After they released their first investigation report there all of a sudden was another report already in the works, as if the first one wasn't enough for the people who want the predetermined outcome.

This is kind of a weird response. There were always two investigations planned:

1) Did Joel Beidleman engage in bully and sexual harassment?

The report found that yes, he did. You can find the report here: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://montgomerycountymd.gov/OIG/Resources/Files/PDF/IGActivity/FY2024/MCPS_Beidleman.pdf

Top-line results are that he did engage in bullying, make sexually inappropriate comments to a variety of female staff, and engaged in an inappropriate relationship with a direct report. That report makes it clear that he violated the Code of Conduct. I can't cut and paste, but the report is very clear that multiple people reported being sexually harassed, yelled at, intimidated, and subjected to retaliation. I'd cut and paste, but that function is turned off.

2) Did MCPS appropriately investigate and respond to reports it received regarding Beidleman leading up to the Washington Post reporting?

Given how blunt the first report was, and the documentation that appears to exist detailing the bully and harassment, I'm expecting this to be fairly scathing.

One report said this while the other one didn't. Stop cherry-picking facts and try to be objective.

Well, let's be clear:

MCPS dismissed several complaints against Beidelman, but there was never a real "investigation" before the Washington Post broke the story in August.

The first actual "investigation" was the Washington Post investigation, which found that MCPS had received 18 separate complaints about bullying and sexual harassment perpetuated by Beidelman. In total, the Washington Post interviewed 39 people who said they were subjected to harassment, bullying, or retaliation.

The second "investigation" was the Jackson Lewis investigation, which determined that an additional 7 bullying and harassment reports had been made to MCPS but MCPS had failed to log them. That brought the total to 25 official reports that had been filed against Beidelman. The Jackson Lewis summary did not comment on whether Beidelman had or had not engaged in bullying and harassment, but they did make it clear that MCPS had failed to appropriately follow up on reports made by staff. The redacted version of the Jackson Lewis report was eventually released, and made it clear that MCPS leadership had improperly altered the investigation timeline.

The third "investigation" is the OIG report, which delivered a scathing rebuke of Beidelman's conduct and stated in no understanding terms that he engaged in sexual harassment, bullying, retaliation, and made inappropriate comments to female students.

The final "investigation" is still pending, and will hopefully name names in terms of who knew about the misconduct and failed to take appropriate action.

What about the report that found no evidence of wrongdoing?

That would be the second report. The first report found evidence of wrongdoing. The second report was the one that was written after Joel’s friend ordered the investigator to change his findings. That was after Joel’s friend improperly leaked information about the investigation to Joel. I know there are a lot of reports to keep track of so just wanted to make sure you keep them all straight.

I think the person who doctored the results did so to try to keep McKnight’s and her team’s hands clean rather than as a favor to Joel. Didn’t look good that McKnight unambiguously supported his promotion to principal with all of these allegations out there and a negative report into them. So once the news hit the WaPo, they changed the results of the investigation to say that there actually was no basis for concern. That way, McKnight and her team could say “see? I had no idea about this stuff when I told the Board to promote him to principal”

Can you point to any credible accounts of this alleged doctoring it sounds like you're desperately trying to paint this false narrative by suggesting things the facts don't support?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We can just chalk this up to admin will be admin. Wrist slap please then everyone can move on. No other action necessary. The mcps way.

Or they could launch more investigations until they get one that gives the result they want

That's exactly what the county's "independent" Office of Inspector General is known for - so I suspect that we will have multiple investigations from them all miraculously pointing to the result that they want. Just wait for it. After they released their first investigation report there all of a sudden was another report already in the works, as if the first one wasn't enough for the people who want the predetermined outcome.

This is kind of a weird response. There were always two investigations planned:

1) Did Joel Beidleman engage in bully and sexual harassment?

The report found that yes, he did. You can find the report here: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://montgomerycountymd.gov/OIG/Resources/Files/PDF/IGActivity/FY2024/MCPS_Beidleman.pdf

Top-line results are that he did engage in bullying, make sexually inappropriate comments to a variety of female staff, and engaged in an inappropriate relationship with a direct report. That report makes it clear that he violated the Code of Conduct. I can't cut and paste, but the report is very clear that multiple people reported being sexually harassed, yelled at, intimidated, and subjected to retaliation. I'd cut and paste, but that function is turned off.

2) Did MCPS appropriately investigate and respond to reports it received regarding Beidleman leading up to the Washington Post reporting?

Given how blunt the first report was, and the documentation that appears to exist detailing the bully and harassment, I'm expecting this to be fairly scathing.

One report said this while the other one didn't. Stop cherry-picking facts and try to be objective.

Well, let's be clear:

MCPS dismissed several complaints against Beidelman, but there was never a real "investigation" before the Washington Post broke the story in August.

The first actual "investigation" was the Washington Post investigation, which found that MCPS had received 18 separate complaints about bullying and sexual harassment perpetuated by Beidelman. In total, the Washington Post interviewed 39 people who said they were subjected to harassment, bullying, or retaliation.

The second "investigation" was the Jackson Lewis investigation, which determined that an additional 7 bullying and harassment reports had been made to MCPS but MCPS had failed to log them. That brought the total to 25 official reports that had been filed against Beidelman. The Jackson Lewis summary did not comment on whether Beidelman had or had not engaged in bullying and harassment, but they did make it clear that MCPS had failed to appropriately follow up on reports made by staff. The redacted version of the Jackson Lewis report was eventually released, and made it clear that MCPS leadership had improperly altered the investigation timeline.

The third "investigation" is the OIG report, which delivered a scathing rebuke of Beidelman's conduct and stated in no understanding terms that he engaged in sexual harassment, bullying, retaliation, and made inappropriate comments to female students.

The final "investigation" is still pending, and will hopefully name names in terms of who knew about the misconduct and failed to take appropriate action.

What about the report that found no evidence of wrongdoing?

That would be the second report. The first report found evidence of wrongdoing. The second report was the one that was written after Joel’s friend ordered the investigator to change his findings. That was after Joel’s friend improperly leaked information about the investigation to Joel. I know there are a lot of reports to keep track of so just wanted to make sure you keep them all straight.

I think the person who doctored the results did so to try to keep McKnight’s and her team’s hands clean rather than as a favor to Joel. Didn’t look good that McKnight unambiguously supported his promotion to principal with all of these allegations out there and a negative report into them. So once the news hit the WaPo, they changed the results of the investigation to say that there actually was no basis for concern. That way, McKnight and her team could say “see? I had no idea about this stuff when I told the Board to promote him to principal”

Can you point to any credible accounts of this alleged doctoring it sounds like you're desperately trying to paint this false narrative by suggesting things the facts don't support?

Again, it’s in the Jackson Lewis report (the full report, redacted version).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We can just chalk this up to admin will be admin. Wrist slap please then everyone can move on. No other action necessary. The mcps way.

Or they could launch more investigations until they get one that gives the result they want

That's exactly what the county's "independent" Office of Inspector General is known for - so I suspect that we will have multiple investigations from them all miraculously pointing to the result that they want. Just wait for it. After they released their first investigation report there all of a sudden was another report already in the works, as if the first one wasn't enough for the people who want the predetermined outcome.

This is kind of a weird response. There were always two investigations planned:

1) Did Joel Beidleman engage in bully and sexual harassment?

The report found that yes, he did. You can find the report here: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://montgomerycountymd.gov/OIG/Resources/Files/PDF/IGActivity/FY2024/MCPS_Beidleman.pdf

Top-line results are that he did engage in bullying, make sexually inappropriate comments to a variety of female staff, and engaged in an inappropriate relationship with a direct report. That report makes it clear that he violated the Code of Conduct. I can't cut and paste, but the report is very clear that multiple people reported being sexually harassed, yelled at, intimidated, and subjected to retaliation. I'd cut and paste, but that function is turned off.

2) Did MCPS appropriately investigate and respond to reports it received regarding Beidleman leading up to the Washington Post reporting?

Given how blunt the first report was, and the documentation that appears to exist detailing the bully and harassment, I'm expecting this to be fairly scathing.

One report said this while the other one didn't. Stop cherry-picking facts and try to be objective.

Well, let's be clear:

MCPS dismissed several complaints against Beidelman, but there was never a real "investigation" before the Washington Post broke the story in August.

The first actual "investigation" was the Washington Post investigation, which found that MCPS had received 18 separate complaints about bullying and sexual harassment perpetuated by Beidelman. In total, the Washington Post interviewed 39 people who said they were subjected to harassment, bullying, or retaliation.

The second "investigation" was the Jackson Lewis investigation, which determined that an additional 7 bullying and harassment reports had been made to MCPS but MCPS had failed to log them. That brought the total to 25 official reports that had been filed against Beidelman. The Jackson Lewis summary did not comment on whether Beidelman had or had not engaged in bullying and harassment, but they did make it clear that MCPS had failed to appropriately follow up on reports made by staff. The redacted version of the Jackson Lewis report was eventually released, and made it clear that MCPS leadership had improperly altered the investigation timeline.

The third "investigation" is the OIG report, which delivered a scathing rebuke of Beidelman's conduct and stated in no understanding terms that he engaged in sexual harassment, bullying, retaliation, and made inappropriate comments to female students.

The final "investigation" is still pending, and will hopefully name names in terms of who knew about the misconduct and failed to take appropriate action.

What about the report that found no evidence of wrongdoing?

That would be the second report. The first report found evidence of wrongdoing. The second report was the one that was written after Joel’s friend ordered the investigator to change his findings. That was after Joel’s friend improperly leaked information about the investigation to Joel. I know there are a lot of reports to keep track of so just wanted to make sure you keep them all straight.

I think the person who doctored the results did so to try to keep McKnight’s and her team’s hands clean rather than as a favor to Joel. Didn’t look good that McKnight unambiguously supported his promotion to principal with all of these allegations out there and a negative report into them. So once the news hit the WaPo, they changed the results of the investigation to say that there actually was no basis for concern. That way, McKnight and her team could say “see? I had no idea about this stuff when I told the Board to promote him to principal”

I think it was both.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We can just chalk this up to admin will be admin. Wrist slap please then everyone can move on. No other action necessary. The mcps way.

Or they could launch more investigations until they get one that gives the result they want

That's exactly what the county's "independent" Office of Inspector General is known for - so I suspect that we will have multiple investigations from them all miraculously pointing to the result that they want. Just wait for it. After they released their first investigation report there all of a sudden was another report already in the works, as if the first one wasn't enough for the people who want the predetermined outcome.

This is kind of a weird response. There were always two investigations planned:

1) Did Joel Beidleman engage in bully and sexual harassment?

The report found that yes, he did. You can find the report here: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://montgomerycountymd.gov/OIG/Resources/Files/PDF/IGActivity/FY2024/MCPS_Beidleman.pdf

Top-line results are that he did engage in bullying, make sexually inappropriate comments to a variety of female staff, and engaged in an inappropriate relationship with a direct report. That report makes it clear that he violated the Code of Conduct. I can't cut and paste, but the report is very clear that multiple people reported being sexually harassed, yelled at, intimidated, and subjected to retaliation. I'd cut and paste, but that function is turned off.

2) Did MCPS appropriately investigate and respond to reports it received regarding Beidleman leading up to the Washington Post reporting?

Given how blunt the first report was, and the documentation that appears to exist detailing the bully and harassment, I'm expecting this to be fairly scathing.

One report said this while the other one didn't. Stop cherry-picking facts and try to be objective.

Well, let's be clear:

MCPS dismissed several complaints against Beidelman, but there was never a real "investigation" before the Washington Post broke the story in August.

The first actual "investigation" was the Washington Post investigation, which found that MCPS had received 18 separate complaints about bullying and sexual harassment perpetuated by Beidelman. In total, the Washington Post interviewed 39 people who said they were subjected to harassment, bullying, or retaliation.

The second "investigation" was the Jackson Lewis investigation, which determined that an additional 7 bullying and harassment reports had been made to MCPS but MCPS had failed to log them. That brought the total to 25 official reports that had been filed against Beidelman. The Jackson Lewis summary did not comment on whether Beidelman had or had not engaged in bullying and harassment, but they did make it clear that MCPS had failed to appropriately follow up on reports made by staff. The redacted version of the Jackson Lewis report was eventually released, and made it clear that MCPS leadership had improperly altered the investigation timeline.

The third "investigation" is the OIG report, which delivered a scathing rebuke of Beidelman's conduct and stated in no understanding terms that he engaged in sexual harassment, bullying, retaliation, and made inappropriate comments to female students.

The final "investigation" is still pending, and will hopefully name names in terms of who knew about the misconduct and failed to take appropriate action.

What about the report that found no evidence of wrongdoing?

That would be the second report. The first report found evidence of wrongdoing. The second report was the one that was written after Joel’s friend ordered the investigator to change his findings. That was after Joel’s friend improperly leaked information about the investigation to Joel. I know there are a lot of reports to keep track of so just wanted to make sure you keep them all straight.

I think the person who doctored the results did so to try to keep McKnight’s and her team’s hands clean rather than as a favor to Joel. Didn’t look good that McKnight unambiguously supported his promotion to principal with all of these allegations out there and a negative report into them. So once the news hit the WaPo, they changed the results of the investigation to say that there actually was no basis for concern. That way, McKnight and her team could say “see? I had no idea about this stuff when I told the Board to promote him to principal”

Can you point to any credible accounts of this alleged doctoring it sounds like you're desperately trying to paint this false narrative by suggesting things the facts don't support?

It was in the Jackson Lewis report. Are you dumb?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We can just chalk this up to admin will be admin. Wrist slap please then everyone can move on. No other action necessary. The mcps way.

Or they could launch more investigations until they get one that gives the result they want

That's exactly what the county's "independent" Office of Inspector General is known for - so I suspect that we will have multiple investigations from them all miraculously pointing to the result that they want. Just wait for it. After they released their first investigation report there all of a sudden was another report already in the works, as if the first one wasn't enough for the people who want the predetermined outcome.

This is kind of a weird response. There were always two investigations planned:

1) Did Joel Beidleman engage in bully and sexual harassment?

The report found that yes, he did. You can find the report here: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://montgomerycountymd.gov/OIG/Resources/Files/PDF/IGActivity/FY2024/MCPS_Beidleman.pdf

Top-line results are that he did engage in bullying, make sexually inappropriate comments to a variety of female staff, and engaged in an inappropriate relationship with a direct report. That report makes it clear that he violated the Code of Conduct. I can't cut and paste, but the report is very clear that multiple people reported being sexually harassed, yelled at, intimidated, and subjected to retaliation. I'd cut and paste, but that function is turned off.

2) Did MCPS appropriately investigate and respond to reports it received regarding Beidleman leading up to the Washington Post reporting?

Given how blunt the first report was, and the documentation that appears to exist detailing the bully and harassment, I'm expecting this to be fairly scathing.

One report said this while the other one didn't. Stop cherry-picking facts and try to be objective.

Well, let's be clear:

MCPS dismissed several complaints against Beidelman, but there was never a real "investigation" before the Washington Post broke the story in August.

The first actual "investigation" was the Washington Post investigation, which found that MCPS had received 18 separate complaints about bullying and sexual harassment perpetuated by Beidelman. In total, the Washington Post interviewed 39 people who said they were subjected to harassment, bullying, or retaliation.

The second "investigation" was the Jackson Lewis investigation, which determined that an additional 7 bullying and harassment reports had been made to MCPS but MCPS had failed to log them. That brought the total to 25 official reports that had been filed against Beidelman. The Jackson Lewis summary did not comment on whether Beidelman had or had not engaged in bullying and harassment, but they did make it clear that MCPS had failed to appropriately follow up on reports made by staff. The redacted version of the Jackson Lewis report was eventually released, and made it clear that MCPS leadership had improperly altered the investigation timeline.

The third "investigation" is the OIG report, which delivered a scathing rebuke of Beidelman's conduct and stated in no understanding terms that he engaged in sexual harassment, bullying, retaliation, and made inappropriate comments to female students.

The final "investigation" is still pending, and will hopefully name names in terms of who knew about the misconduct and failed to take appropriate action.

What about the report that found no evidence of wrongdoing?

That would be the second report. The first report found evidence of wrongdoing. The second report was the one that was written after Joel’s friend ordered the investigator to change his findings. That was after Joel’s friend improperly leaked information about the investigation to Joel. I know there are a lot of reports to keep track of so just wanted to make sure you keep them all straight.

I think the person who doctored the results did so to try to keep McKnight’s and her team’s hands clean rather than as a favor to Joel. Didn’t look good that McKnight unambiguously supported his promotion to principal with all of these allegations out there and a negative report into them. So once the news hit the WaPo, they changed the results of the investigation to say that there actually was no basis for concern. That way, McKnight and her team could say “see? I had no idea about this stuff when I told the Board to promote him to principal”

Can you point to any credible accounts of this alleged doctoring it sounds like you're desperately trying to paint this false narrative by suggesting things the facts don't support?

Washington Post, October 13, 2023, Article entitled "MCPS official tampered with investigation of principal, report says"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/10/13/beidleman-investigation-mcps-tampered/

You can find a link to the Jackson Lewis report itself in this WaPo article. But the article summarizes the relevant part as:

"Jackson Lewis also found that a central office employee tampered with the Beidleman investigation.

After the social studies teacher filed her complaint, the district’s Department of Compliance and Investigation launched an inquiry. A first draft of its report found “a preponderance of the evidence to support” at least one of her allegations, according to Jackson Lewis. That draft was submitted to MCPS supervisors June 12, the same day that Beidleman and other finalists were interviewed for the Paint Branch principal job.

Approximately a month later, one day after The Post filed a Maryland Public Information Act request for Beidleman’s personnel file, a central office employee ordered a change to the draft report “to reflect that there was not enough evidence to substantiate” the social studies teacher’s claim. The revision took effect July 12 and was finalized by the Office of General Counsel on July 21.

But a central office employee backdated the change to June 26, a day before Beidleman’s promotion and two days before the OIGE reached out, the report’s authors write. “We find that [redacted] altered the [redacted] investigation timeline in violation of MCPS’s Employee Code of Conduct, which prohibits submitting incorrect or false information to MCPS and requires employees to act honestly in the completion of their job duties.”

[Anonymous]

Any update on this guy? Are our tax dollars still paying for his salary?

[Anonymous]

As far as we all know, yes. MCPS has no problem saying they can’t talk about Beidleman because it is a “personnel issue” but has no problem discussing teachers being put on admin leave (just like Beidleman).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Any update on this guy? Are our tax dollars still paying for his salary?

I think the original investigation found no wrongdoing so was hoping he was back to work already.

[Anonymous]

He is back to work and will win millions from all these psycho women that have accused this black man of wrong doing. Good for him and his family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He is back to work and will win millions from all these psycho women that have accused this black man of wrong doing. Good for him and his family.

He got another job? Guess Mcps cut ties with him then.

[Anonymous]

He should win a full scholarship to state penn

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He is back to work and will win millions from all these psycho women that have accused this black man of wrong doing. Good for him and his family.

You are disgusting. I dare you publicly tell everyone you think the victims are "psycho" for reporting the abuse and sexual harassment they experienced. The fact that you think Biedleman should be absolved from wrongdoing, especially because he's black is sickening.