Anonymous wrote:I hope people start relaying their concerns over MCPS's extremely passive views on sexual assaults in our school system. How this man still has an active job with the school district is beyond me. A likening to young girls, sodomizing a dog. Caught watching Hoover girls undressing. Yuck!!

http://www.wjla.com/articles/2014/11/convicted-peeping-tom-re-arrested-for-molesting-family-dog-still-employed-by-mcps-109340.html

Sicko!!! And he is still working for the district? Do we email Starr to complain?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He's working as a building maintenance worker at a bus depot, where he has zero contact with students.

Do you think that sex offenders should be unemployed, or do you think that they should be employed, but not by the school district, even in a job where they have zero contact with students?

It's not necessarily the access to children; it's the principle of the matter.

Why should a school system CONTINUE to support someone who abused ITS children?

Why should my tax money pay his salary?

FWIW, I'm a teacher in the system and a parent of two kids who attend our local public school.

Sex offenders, IMO, should be jailed. Why should they live freely among us when the whole world is filled with children? jail time? worth every penny!

I'm not supporting the guy but he didn't abuse anyone. If anything he looked through the curtains into the locker room. The crime that he plead quilty to is not even on the Sex Offender Registry. He is working in a bus garage. He doesn't come close to children at work.

If you see the 3 charges against him, you see he is dire need of help. He is really sick. He should not be working at MCPS. And if you don't think what he did is abuse then you are part of the problem.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He's working as a building maintenance worker at a bus depot, where he has zero contact with students.

Do you think that sex offenders should be unemployed, or do you think that they should be employed, but not by the school district, even in a job where they have zero contact with students?

It's not necessarily the access to children; it's the principle of the matter.

Why should a school system CONTINUE to support someone who abused ITS children?

Why should my tax money pay his salary?

FWIW, I'm a teacher in the system and a parent of two kids who attend our local public school.

Sex offenders, IMO, should be jailed. Why should they live freely among us when the whole world is filled with children? jail time? worth every penny!

I'm not supporting the guy but he didn't abuse anyone. If anything he looked through the curtains into the locker room. The crime that he plead quilty to is not even on the Sex Offender Registry. He is working in a bus garage. He doesn't come close to children at work.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Of course I don't know how taxes work.

On average almost half of PS funding in MD comes from local sources. (Montgomery receives almost 65% of its funding from local sources.) Property taxes are local funds. Sales and income taxes also help to fund schools. I buy items; I pay for schools. I work; I pay for schools. I own a house; I pay for schools.

no
I have NO idea how schools are funded.

But maybe you should walk me through a tutorial.

The rest comes from the state.

And YES - I would gladly fork over more TAX money to keep a sex offender in prison.

Here's how taxes work. You pay your taxes to the county, the state, and the federal government. Now the county, the state, and the federal governments have revenue. Then they decide how to spend that revenue. Some of that revenue goes to the salaries of government employees.

It's the difference between "my taxes pay for his salary" and "my taxes go to the county and state, which contribute to the school budget, which his salary comes out of."

I am not the person you are talking to but this is so stupid. Our money goes towards taxes that allow this man to have a job. Period.

That is correct. "My taxes pay his salary" is not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Of course I don't know how taxes work.

On average almost half of PS funding in MD comes from local sources. (Montgomery receives almost 65% of its funding from local sources.) Property taxes are local funds. Sales and income taxes also help to fund schools. I buy items; I pay for schools. I work; I pay for schools. I own a house; I pay for schools.

no
I have NO idea how schools are funded.

But maybe you should walk me through a tutorial.

The rest comes from the state.

And YES - I would gladly fork over more TAX money to keep a sex offender in prison.

Here's how taxes work. You pay your taxes to the county, the state, and the federal government. Now the county, the state, and the federal governments have revenue. Then they decide how to spend that revenue. Some of that revenue goes to the salaries of government employees.

It's the difference between "my taxes pay for his salary" and "my taxes go to the county and state, which contribute to the school budget, which his salary comes out of."

I am not the person you are talking to but this is so stupid. Our money goes towards taxes that allow this man to have a job. Period.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Of course I don't know how taxes work.

On average almost half of PS funding in MD comes from local sources. (Montgomery receives almost 65% of its funding from local sources.) Property taxes are local funds. Sales and income taxes also help to fund schools. I buy items; I pay for schools. I work; I pay for schools. I own a house; I pay for schools.

no
I have NO idea how schools are funded.

But maybe you should walk me through a tutorial.

The rest comes from the state.

And YES - I would gladly fork over more TAX money to keep a sex offender in prison.

Here's how taxes work. You pay your taxes to the county, the state, and the federal government. Now the county, the state, and the federal governments have revenue. Then they decide how to spend that revenue. Some of that revenue goes to the salaries of government employees.

It's the difference between "my taxes pay for his salary" and "my taxes go to the county and state, which contribute to the school budget, which his salary comes out of."

Please, PP - stop being purposely obtuse.

Whether directly or indirectly, we ARE PAYING for his salary.

yeah - Thanks for the Taxes 101 course.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Not the PP but yes. I rather him locked up. He is obviously not seeking help and getting better. He continues to have arrests AS A MCPS EMPLOYEE. [b]Who is to say he won't be good for a year, quietly gain acess to kids again and then what? No convicted predator or pedophile should have a job within a school district, especially one where he was convicted on a school property. How are some of you condoning this? Do we wait until he becomes Matthews and starts kidnapping and killing. Enough already!

If that's the problem, then the solution is to make sure that he can't do this. If MCPS, knowing what it knows, allowed him to have access to students again, then that would in fact be a huge administrative failure.

Well since MCPS has allowed this to happen on prior occasions, of course it would happen again. Prior sex offenders have been substitutes. People slip thru the cracks all the time. How about we just say no known sex offenders should work in MCPS at all, ever. Period - ESPECIALLY if you were convicted within the same district. There were kids in our school district that were violated by this man. You think he still deserves his job within the system? What if it was your child he was peeping on and masturbating to. Would you still want him working at the bus depot?

I am really at a lose why there are certain parents here rationalizing why this man still deserves a job in a school district. Whether or not he is in direct contact with children at this current time is irrelevant. I am really sad how people downplay his actions and lower their standards with a an already faulty system within MCPS to keep our kids safe.

Anonymous wrote:

Of course I don't know how taxes work.

On average almost half of PS funding in MD comes from local sources. (Montgomery receives almost 65% of its funding from local sources.) Property taxes are local funds. Sales and income taxes also help to fund schools. I buy items; I pay for schools. I work; I pay for schools. I own a house; I pay for schools.

no
I have NO idea how schools are funded.

But maybe you should walk me through a tutorial.

The rest comes from the state.

And YES - I would gladly fork over more TAX money to keep a sex offender in prison.

Here's how taxes work. You pay your taxes to the county, the state, and the federal government. Now the county, the state, and the federal governments have revenue. Then they decide how to spend that revenue. Some of that revenue goes to the salaries of government employees.

It's the difference between "my taxes pay for his salary" and "my taxes go to the county and state, which contribute to the school budget, which his salary comes out of."

Anonymous wrote:

Not the PP but yes. I rather him locked up. He is obviously not seeking help and getting better. He continues to have arrests AS A MCPS EMPLOYEE. [b]Who is to say he won't be good for a year, quietly gain acess to kids again and then what? No convicted predator or pedophile should have a job within a school district, especially one where he was convicted on a school property. How are some of you condoning this? Do we wait until he becomes Matthews and starts kidnapping and killing. Enough already!

If that's the problem, then the solution is to make sure that he can't do this. If MCPS, knowing what it knows, allowed him to have access to students again, then that would in fact be a huge administrative failure.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It's not necessarily the access to children; it's the principle of the matter.

Why should a school system CONTINUE to support someone who abused ITS children?

Why should my tax money pay his salary?

FWIW, I'm a teacher in the system and a parent of two kids who attend our local public school.

Sex offenders, IMO, should be jailed. Why should they live freely among us when the whole world is filled with children? jail time? worth every penny!

You don't want your tax money to go to his salary (which, actually, it doesn't, because that's not how taxes work), but you're fine with your tax money going to the equivalent of his salary, every year for the rest of his life, to keep him in jail?

Not the PP but yes. I rather him locked up. He is obviously not seeking help and getting better. He continues to have arrests AS A MCPS EMPLOYEE. Who is to say he won't be good for a year, quietly gain acess to kids again and then what? No convicted predator or pedophile should have a job within a school district, especially one where he was convicted on a school property. How are some of you condoning this? Do we wait until he becomes Matthews and starts kidnapping and killing. Enough already!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It's not necessarily the access to children; it's the principle of the matter.

Why should a school system CONTINUE to support someone who abused ITS children?

Why should my tax money pay his salary?

FWIW, I'm a teacher in the system and a parent of two kids who attend our local public school.

Sex offenders, IMO, should be jailed. Why should they live freely among us when the whole world is filled with children? jail time? worth every penny!

You don't want your tax money to go to his salary (which, actually, it doesn't, because that's not how taxes work), but you're fine with your tax money going to the equivalent of his salary, every year for the rest of his life, to keep him in jail?

Of course I don't know how taxes work.

On average almost half of PS funding in MD comes from local sources. (Montgomery receives almost 65% of its funding from local sources.) Property taxes are local funds. Sales and income taxes also help to fund schools. I buy items; I pay for schools. I work; I pay for schools. I own a house; I pay for schools.

no
I have NO idea how schools are funded.

But maybe you should walk me through a tutorial.

The rest comes from the state.

And YES - I would gladly fork over more TAX money to keep a sex offender in prison.

Anonymous wrote:
It's not necessarily the access to children; it's the principle of the matter.

Why should a school system CONTINUE to support someone who abused ITS children?

Why should my tax money pay his salary?

FWIW, I'm a teacher in the system and a parent of two kids who attend our local public school.

Sex offenders, IMO, should be jailed. Why should they live freely among us when the whole world is filled with children? jail time? worth every penny!

You don't want your tax money to go to his salary (which, actually, it doesn't, because that's not how taxes work), but you're fine with your tax money going to the equivalent of his salary, every year for the rest of his life, to keep him in jail?

While I don't agree with the notions that sex offenders should lose any job, for any reason, just because they are sex offenders, molesting children on the job is a firing offense. Why was he transferred and not fired? That is the question that must be answered. It makes no sense not to fire him in these circumstances.

Anonymous wrote:He's working as a building maintenance worker at a bus depot, where he has zero contact with students.

Do you think that sex offenders should be unemployed, or do you think that they should be employed, but not by the school district, even in a job where they have zero contact with students?

It's not necessarily the access to children; it's the principle of the matter.

Why should a school system CONTINUE to support someone who abused ITS children?

Why should my tax money pay his salary?

FWIW, I'm a teacher in the system and a parent of two kids who attend our local public school.

Sex offenders, IMO, should be jailed. Why should they live freely among us when the whole world is filled with children? jail time? worth every penny!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If he is an MCPS employee with an MCPS badge, can we ENSURE he has zero access to children? I agree that we are all better off if offenders have jobs and are not destitute and desperate with nothing to lose, but I agree they have no business working for any employer whose purpose is to serve children.

In the OP's link, Dana Tofig says, "As a building maintenance worker in a bus depot, an employee would have no contact with students in any way."

You can say that he won't as a normal part of his work duties, but it seems to me that an MCPS badge could be used to obtain access to children.

Anything could be used to obtain access to children.

Also, I don't work for MCPS, so I don't know for sure, but I'd be very surprised if MCPS only issued one interchangeable badge that all MCPS employees could use anywhere.