Whitman Teacher and Crew Coach Arrested

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have no faith in MCPS but I truly believe Dr. Dodd cares. He couldn't even get through the letter he was so upset when he shared the news with staff. He was hand picked by Dr. Goodwin to be his successor, so Dr. Goodwin clearly thinks he's up to the task, too. This is a problem that runs deep. There are some principals who bury their head in the sand or worse, they know and do nothing, but this is not one of those cases. The real issue is the investigative piece and when MCPS decides, or doesn't decide, to do anything more than write a strongly worded letter for the teacher's record.

Are you on Whitman staff?

If there’s signs that an employee is breaking the Employee Code of Conduct (texting students, giving students rides, having students at his house, etc) but nothing criminal is known, what power does the principal have to get rid of the teacher/coach?

Can the principal put a teacher on par and not renew the athletic contract? Or is Central Office making the calls at that point? Who has the blame when criminal charges come forward later?

It seems like if a principal knows or should have known questionable behavior was occurring then that principal holds a good chunk of responsibility for not protecting children on his watch. Same for everyone in Central Office that were aware of complaints but failed to step in to protect students.

Its a club sport separate from the school. If I wanted to wake up at the crack of dawn and row on the Potomac it would cost my family thousands. Whereas if I wanted to be a baseball player i think the MCPS subsudizes that.

[Anonymous]

He was a teacher at the HS, too. Likely much of the grooming was done on school property, and likely at least some of the behavior violated mcps code of conduct. Plus at least one allegation was reported to mcps.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have no faith in MCPS but I truly believe Dr. Dodd cares. He couldn't even get through the letter he was so upset when he shared the news with staff. He was hand picked by Dr. Goodwin to be his successor, so Dr. Goodwin clearly thinks he's up to the task, too. This is a problem that runs deep. There are some principals who bury their head in the sand or worse, they know and do nothing, but this is not one of those cases. The real issue is the investigative piece and when MCPS decides, or doesn't decide, to do anything more than write a strongly worded letter for the teacher's record.

Are you on Whitman staff?

If there’s signs that an employee is breaking the Employee Code of Conduct (texting students, giving students rides, having students at his house, etc) but nothing criminal is known, what power does the principal have to get rid of the teacher/coach?

Can the principal put a teacher on par and not renew the athletic contract? Or is Central Office making the calls at that point? Who has the blame when criminal charges come forward later?

It seems like if a principal knows or should have known questionable behavior was occurring then that principal holds a good chunk of responsibility for not protecting children on his watch. Same for everyone in Central Office that were aware of complaints but failed to step in to protect students.

There are instances when principals know because teachers have alerted them to concerns. From what I have heard from Whitman teachers, I don’t believe this particular instance falls under that category. Some principals are disgusting and look out for “their own.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have no faith in MCPS but I truly believe Dr. Dodd cares. He couldn't even get through the letter he was so upset when he shared the news with staff. He was hand picked by Dr. Goodwin to be his successor, so Dr. Goodwin clearly thinks he's up to the task, too. This is a problem that runs deep. There are some principals who bury their head in the sand or worse, they know and do nothing, but this is not one of those cases. The real issue is the investigative piece and when MCPS decides, or doesn't decide, to do anything more than write a strongly worded letter for the teacher's record.

Are you on Whitman staff?

If there’s signs that an employee is breaking the Employee Code of Conduct (texting students, giving students rides, having students at his house, etc) but nothing criminal is known, what power does the principal have to get rid of the teacher/coach?

Can the principal put a teacher on par and not renew the athletic contract? Or is Central Office making the calls at that point? Who has the blame when criminal charges come forward later?

It seems like if a principal knows or should have known questionable behavior was occurring then that principal holds a good chunk of responsibility for not protecting children on his watch. Same for everyone in Central Office that were aware of complaints but failed to step in to protect students.

See the Employee Code of Conduct document (https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/staff/Employee_Code_of_Conduct/0503.21_EmployeeCodeofConduct_BOOKLET_ENG_Web.pdf), page 8. Your question asks about when "nothing criminal is known" but keep in mind that there are also recommended procedures for when something criminal is alleged.

Technically, the answer is: "Except for serious infractions, including but not limited to the prohibited criminal conduct discussed on the following pages, the lowest appropriate level of disciplinary action should be applied initially to focus on ensuring that an employee understands expectations and does not repeat the inappropriate conduct. In general, discipline should progress to a more severe level after a lesser disciplinary action has been implemented and proven to be ineffective. Nevertheless, a more serious infraction may warrant suspension or termination, even for a first-time offense, or repeated offenses, depending on the circumstances. This may be the case even when the infraction violates a standard of conduct that is not specifically enumerated in writing but involves common-sense application of governing principles or criminal law."

So it appears to leave the option open for the principal to pursue suspension or termination. But it's vague, saying it 'may warrant' either of those.

In trying to understand how this all works (as laid out in the 'enforcement' sections on page 8 and following, it makes me wonder about the Department of Compliance and Investigations (DCI) and whether it's one of the problems here. The document explains that DCI is basically doing all the 'investigations' and recommending all the disciplinary actions that may or may not arise. They sort of fill the role of the Inspector General for cases of sexual abuse by MCPS teachers staff, which was proposed upthread. But they aren't independent from MCPS.

I wonder if we need to look more there--perhaps a need to ask them further questions, try to hold them more accountable?

[Anonymous]

Adding...or perhaps the issue with DCI is that they report to the Assoc. Superintendent of Employee Engagement and Internal Relations, which sounds like it's supposed to liaise with the teachers'/staff unions?
(https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/associationrelations/)

I suspect most teachers/staff that are members of the unions are completely opposed to the idea of protecting predators. However, it does seem from DCUM chatter generally (I really don't follow these things firsthand) that the unions hold powerful sway in what MCPS does as an organization, ie, they sound intimidating or at least like they want to throw their weight around.

It does strike me as likely that having DCI report to the employee-union relations part of MCPS would make the activities of DCI beholden to the interests of the unions, and thereby, less assertive on disciplining employee misconduct. OR am I barking up the wrong tree?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have no faith in MCPS but I truly believe Dr. Dodd cares. He couldn't even get through the letter he was so upset when he shared the news with staff. He was hand picked by Dr. Goodwin to be his successor, so Dr. Goodwin clearly thinks he's up to the task, too. This is a problem that runs deep. There are some principals who bury their head in the sand or worse, they know and do nothing, but this is not one of those cases. The real issue is the investigative piece and when MCPS decides, or doesn't decide, to do anything more than write a strongly worded letter for the teacher's record.

Are you on Whitman staff?

If there’s signs that an employee is breaking the Employee Code of Conduct (texting students, giving students rides, having students at his house, etc) but nothing criminal is known, what power does the principal have to get rid of the teacher/coach?

Can the principal put a teacher on par and not renew the athletic contract? Or is Central Office making the calls at that point? Who has the blame when criminal charges come forward later?

It seems like if a principal knows or should have known questionable behavior was occurring then that principal holds a good chunk of responsibility for not protecting children on his watch. Same for everyone in Central Office that were aware of complaints but failed to step in to protect students.

See the Employee Code of Conduct document (https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/staff/Employee_Code_of_Conduct/0503.21_EmployeeCodeofConduct_BOOKLET_ENG_Web.pdf), page 8. Your question asks about when "nothing criminal is known" but keep in mind that there are also recommended procedures for when something criminal is alleged.

Technically, the answer is: "Except for serious infractions, including but not limited to the prohibited criminal conduct discussed on the following pages, the lowest appropriate level of disciplinary action should be applied initially to focus on ensuring that an employee understands expectations and does not repeat the inappropriate conduct. In general, discipline should progress to a more severe level after a lesser disciplinary action has been implemented and proven to be ineffective. Nevertheless, a more serious infraction may warrant suspension or termination, even for a first-time offense, or repeated offenses, depending on the circumstances. This may be the case even when the infraction violates a standard of conduct that is not specifically enumerated in writing but involves common-sense application of governing principles or criminal law."

So it appears to leave the option open for the principal to pursue suspension or termination. But it's vague, saying it 'may warrant' either of those.

In trying to understand how this all works (as laid out in the 'enforcement' sections on page 8 and following, it makes me wonder about the Department of Compliance and Investigations (DCI) and whether it's one of the problems here. The document explains that DCI is basically doing all the 'investigations' and recommending all the disciplinary actions that may or may not arise. They sort of fill the role of the Inspector General for cases of sexual abuse by MCPS teachers staff, which was proposed upthread. But they aren't independent from MCPS.

I wonder if we need to look more there--perhaps a need to ask them further questions, try to hold them more accountable?

Ding ding ding! DCI may have done more thorough investigations in the past, but now they don't do a thing other than put teachers on leave unless CPS or police or bad press is involved. In those cases, they don't do much beyond wait to see what comes out. There are a lot of reasons for the way they do things, and none are excusable. It puts children in harm's way. The way they operate isn't good for children and it's bad for falsely accused teachers on top of that.

[Anonymous]

Bumped into my neighbor today whose daughter is on the crew team. She said the crew team knew about this 3 years ago and reported it to MCPS and CPS, and they investigated and said they could find no credible evidence of wrongdoing.

Maybe he got sloppy after that with things like text messages (you can see copies in the indictment) and that's how he finally got caught.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is a question I have reading through these comments.

Bethesda is chock full of well to do entitled folks whose general attitude is rules, regulations, laws, and processes don't apply to them on account of their wealth in society.

Many Bethesda people are K Street lobbyists whose livelihood depends on finding loopholes, writing new loopholes or how to extract their interests after breaking the law. They will write Whitman teachers demanding they change their kid's grade because it impacts their ability to apply for Harvard.

When something bad happens or a mistake is made by a Whitman student, the MO of the Bethesda community for the past three decades is to pass the buck, blame someone else, rig the process and buy the best lawyer and go to court. Say things along the lines of, "my perfect angel could not have done ____ and I fear this will impact their chances at Yale."

After the 1994 drunk driving crash on River Road (going toward the Beltway, right side of road after Wilson Ln), Dr Marco installed a zero tolerance policy which stated if you drink and come to campus you get banned for a year from school activities including graduation. A student tested this in their senior year and got ZT. Well their parents got the best lawyer money could buy and took the school to court and prevailed, they walked the stage.

My question is why are people on this board so angry at the actions of MCPS policy or process, CPS, the police department, the organization that employed Shipley as coach? You can't have it both ways where you get angry that processes and rules aren't being followed when many in the Whitman community seek out ways to bend rules and processes when it suits them.

What does this have to do about a predatory coach and teenager that was allegedly raped? I am curious what your theory is about the former security guard at Richard Montgomery HS?

All I can say is that you and the people amening this have issues.

There are multiple layers to the onion here, and multiple discussions going on here. This is in reference to folks complaining that the process or protocols weren't followed by MCPS, CPS, Safesport, Whitman Crew, etc.

One thing is for sure, even though he is not from Bethesda, Kirkland's behavior fits the Bethesda culture. Clearly bad actions and decisions can be excused with money, imbued with a sense of rules not applying to them. I think its the hypocrisy going on here, Bethesda people sowing rage at rules and processes not being followed but at the same time have no issue throwing people under the bus when it doesnt suit their own professional or personal needs.

Personally, I want accountability and I hope Kirkland pays the price. I am hopeful the District of Columbia court will have a backbone unlike say the Moco courts which are lax.

It sickens me to see how parents and boosters turned a blind eye just so boats could go fast. At what cost??

Shipley didn't live in Bethesda, but he did live in a tony part of Georgetown and managed to evade an earlier and credible allegation of grooming, with the help of legal counsel. If we are talking about how a certain profile of wealthy white folks don't typically face consequences for their actions, Shipley fit that criteria until last month.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bumped into my neighbor today whose daughter is on the crew team. She said the crew team knew about this 3 years ago and reported it to MCPS and CPS, and they investigated and said they could find no credible evidence of wrongdoing.

Maybe he got sloppy after that with things like text messages (you can see copies in the indictment) and that's how he finally got caught.

Yes, the crew team knew about these allegations 3 years ago. The reason MCPS didn’t find anything is that they did their own investigation. They have no threat of perjury when they interview, no ability to get access to cell phone records or vehicle information or security tape to corroborate stories. They did not interview any other peers of the victims from other crews at the boat house where Shipley also worked. All of this evidence existed (texts, etc.) when the abuse was initially reported. The key question to ask is whether MCPS ever reported these charges to the police and whether the police ever investigated.

We have to be a society that believes women when these things are reported. Can you imagine if we believed these girls 3 years ago? Instead we encourage them to report and then gaslight them during the course of a sloppy investigation and conclude that they are not telling the truth because the half-ass investigation turned up “no credible evidence of wrongdoing”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bumped into my neighbor today whose daughter is on the crew team. She said the crew team knew about this 3 years ago and reported it to MCPS and CPS, and they investigated and said they could find no credible evidence of wrongdoing.

Maybe he got sloppy after that with things like text messages (you can see copies in the indictment) and that's how he finally got caught.

And the parents on the crew board renewed his coaching contract. THREE more times.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bumped into my neighbor today whose daughter is on the crew team. She said the crew team knew about this 3 years ago and reported it to MCPS and CPS, and they investigated and said they could find no credible evidence of wrongdoing.

Maybe he got sloppy after that with things like text messages (you can see copies in the indictment) and that's how he finally got caught.

Yes, the crew team knew about these allegations 3 years ago. The reason MCPS didn’t find anything is that they did their own investigation. They have no threat of perjury when they interview, no ability to get access to cell phone records or vehicle information or security tape to corroborate stories. They did not interview any other peers of the victims from other crews at the boat house where Shipley also worked. All of this evidence existed (texts, etc.) when the abuse was initially reported. The key question to ask is whether MCPS ever reported these charges to the police and whether the police ever investigated.

We have to be a society that believes women when these things are reported. Can you imagine if we believed these girls 3 years ago? Instead we encourage them to report and then gaslight them during the course of a sloppy investigation and conclude that they are not telling the truth because the half-ass investigation turned up “no credible evidence of wrongdoing”.

This scenario is replicated over and over in MCPS. If a child comes forward to report grooming behavior or abuse, MCPS has failed over and over again to call CPS and the police. Then they botch their investigation. Finally, they turn on the child that was brave enough to come forward.

If an IG went through the complaints and spoke to the families, I am sure a lot of skeletons would fall out of the MCPS closet. Compare the dates of the initial complaint with arrests that years later were made and you will have a long list of victims that could have been spared had principals and Central Office reacted to the initial complaint.

For Whitman, MCPS knew for 3 years. 3 years of doing nothing. Keeping a predator working with students at school and in the community. Something needs to be done in MCPS to put students safety first.

[Anonymous]

This teacher has been arrested. Now we need an accounting of staff members currently working in MCPS after being subjected to a bogus "investigation."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This teacher has been arrested. Now we need an accounting of staff members currently working in MCPS after being subjected to a bogus "investigation."

I agree.
As the MCPS Memo pointed out (https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/childabuseandneglect/Annual%20CAN%20MEMO%20to%20BOE_Update%20Policy%20JHC%20CAN_FY20.pdf)
for FY20 (which a PP points out is relatively low because of virtual learning), this is what action MCPS took as a result of their "follow up investigation" for cases of alleged abuse and neglect by MCPS employees. (It's on page 7).
No action: 68
Conference/memo for the record: 106
Reprimand or other disciplinary letter:48
Suspension: 0
Removal from employment: 14
Pending: 35

So there are 222 cases in the "no action/conference/reprimand." Not sure how many individuals are involved (this reporting framework is quite a poor way of presenting the numbers, and has to be improved)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
If an IG went through the complaints and spoke to the families, I am sure a lot of skeletons would fall out of the MCPS closet. Compare the dates of the initial complaint with arrests that years later were made and you will have a long list of victims that could have been spared had principals and Central Office reacted to the initial complaint.

Too bad MCPS doesn't have an IG and has opposed one for years. For an organization with a $2.5bln budget.

Can you imagine if a private company of that size didn't have an independent auditor? The board would kick out the CEO immediately for that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have no faith in MCPS but I truly believe Dr. Dodd cares. He couldn't even get through the letter he was so upset when he shared the news with staff. He was hand picked by Dr. Goodwin to be his successor, so Dr. Goodwin clearly thinks he's up to the task, too. This is a problem that runs deep. There are some principals who bury their head in the sand or worse, they know and do nothing, but this is not one of those cases. The real issue is the investigative piece and when MCPS decides, or doesn't decide, to do anything more than write a strongly worded letter for the teacher's record.

Are you on Whitman staff?

If there’s signs that an employee is breaking the Employee Code of Conduct (texting students, giving students rides, having students at his house, etc) but nothing criminal is known, what power does the principal have to get rid of the teacher/coach?

Can the principal put a teacher on par and not renew the athletic contract? Or is Central Office making the calls at that point? Who has the blame when criminal charges come forward later?

It seems like if a principal knows or should have known questionable behavior was occurring then that principal holds a good chunk of responsibility for not protecting children on his watch. Same for everyone in Central Office that were aware of complaints but failed to step in to protect students.

See the Employee Code of Conduct document (https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/staff/Employee_Code_of_Conduct/0503.21_EmployeeCodeofConduct_BOOKLET_ENG_Web.pdf), page 8. Your question asks about when "nothing criminal is known" but keep in mind that there are also recommended procedures for when something criminal is alleged.

Technically, the answer is: "Except for serious infractions, including but not limited to the prohibited criminal conduct discussed on the following pages, the lowest appropriate level of disciplinary action should be applied initially to focus on ensuring that an employee understands expectations and does not repeat the inappropriate conduct. In general, discipline should progress to a more severe level after a lesser disciplinary action has been implemented and proven to be ineffective. Nevertheless, a more serious infraction may warrant suspension or termination, even for a first-time offense, or repeated offenses, depending on the circumstances. This may be the case even when the infraction violates a standard of conduct that is not specifically enumerated in writing but involves common-sense application of governing principles or criminal law."

So it appears to leave the option open for the principal to pursue suspension or termination. But it's vague, saying it 'may warrant' either of those.

In trying to understand how this all works (as laid out in the 'enforcement' sections on page 8 and following, it makes me wonder about the Department of Compliance and Investigations (DCI) and whether it's one of the problems here. The document explains that DCI is basically doing all the 'investigations' and recommending all the disciplinary actions that may or may not arise. They sort of fill the role of the Inspector General for cases of sexual abuse by MCPS teachers staff, which was proposed upthread. But they aren't independent from MCPS.

I wonder if we need to look more there--perhaps a need to ask them further questions, try to hold them more accountable?

Ding ding ding! DCI may have done more thorough investigations in the past, but now they don't do a thing other than put teachers on leave unless CPS or police or bad press is involved. In those cases, they don't do much beyond wait to see what comes out. There are a lot of reasons for the way they do things, and none are excusable. It puts children in harm's way. The way they operate isn't good for children and it's bad for falsely accused teachers on top of that.

I think you've been watching to see whether we would keep circling around enough to get closer and closer to the problem!
So, who has the authority to 1) Restructure DCI to hold it accountable? It's current management would not have any interest in doing so, evidently.
2) Having an independent investigation conducted of MCPS/CPS/DCI's past practices of handling of allegations/investigations for predators in school?

Is this something that the county council or county exec could make happen?