Update, Nov. 2. Comment from school district in Cunnane case.
Two new claims against the Moraga School District accuse administrators of failing to follow up on abuse allegations made in the 1990s.
The two claims for $15 million each alleged the district and its administrators allowed molestations to take place because of flawed investigations at Joaquin Moraga Intermediate School, according to a story in the Contra Costa Times.
The claims allege abuse by former Joaquin Moraga teacher Daniel Witters, who committed suicide in 1996 shortly after the original allegations were made, the Times reported. The two "Jane Does" making the claims read about another abuse allegation made against Witters in the 1990s in an investigation earlier this year by the newspaper.
The district is also defending itself against a lawsuit filed in September by Kristen Cunnane a former JM student claiming abuse by Witters and another teacher at the school in the 1990s. In an October legal filing, the district stated "Carelessness and negligence on (Cunnane's) part proximately contributed to the happenings of the incident and to the injuries, loss and damages," according to the Contra Costa Times.
The district in June established a Board Committee for Student Safety to review "policies, practices and training regarding child abuse and mandated reporting."
Moraga School District Superintendent Bruce Burns declined to comment on the new claims.
It appears they were silent in order to protect their jobs instead of the innocents in their charge. Outrageous!
http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_21906364/moraga-school-district-child-sex-abuse-victim-was
The protection and well being of the students in their charge is primary to those positions. And they failed. Why did the police fail to follow up with charges? This is ugly and getting worse.
The suicide did NOT impact these claims, which is why (per the District) the victims should not have waited this not top chase them. Time, on the other hand, can limit claims. Even if the DIstrict "hid the smoking gun," it is not normal to NOT sue just because you don't see a smoking gun. If you are laying blame with the party charged with pursuing possible liability, that would be the victim and her family, not the police. This is just the way our system works. you can assess whether that is a good attribute. BTW, historically these claims are barred after one year. VERY VERY favorable legislation changed these rules, but it is still not clear that these claims are not barred. Again, you can assess whether this is good or bad.
Let's see---- $15M*3=$45M/1800(students) = $25,000 per student. Just ask the parents to cut the checks to the "Don't be Disgusting Fund." Since some can't/won't pay, you should probably ask for $100K per student.
http://www.contracostatimes.com/ci_21899769/trial-begins-san-jose-principal-accused-failing-report?IADID=Search-www.contracostatimes.com-www.contracostatimes.com
If you were the sole member of the District's board, what, exactly, would you do here so as to avoid being cowardly and disgusting? Would you do it before or after requiring the plaintiffs to make their cases and withstand legal defenses? Look, innocent children who suffered horribly at the hands of teachers (or anyone) deserve compassion, but they don't necessarily deserve unlimited access to nearby deep pockets without first establishing a legal right to compensation. These cases are not slam dunk. I am not trying to marginalize the suffering of the kids, but rather to ridicule those (like you) who think the District should not defend itself.
If we cannot protect our children from predators, where have we gone as a society?
There is a clinical coldness to your writing that diverts attention to 'what it will cost us' from concern about these innocents that are preyed upon and then allowed to continue by spineless administrators. Every incident should immediately be given the benefit of any doubt (sometimes kids tell tales), discretely turned over to the police for immediate investigation, while the involved individual is suspended. Immediate attention makes for quicker. more accurate disposition. Administrators that fail to report incidents immediately become accomplices after the fact and suffer penalties similar to the perpetrators. An objective analysis of these incidents finds the breakdown in the process seems to occur when the Principal becomes involved, they being the highest point in the hierarchy. HR folks, nurses, etc. should be able to escalate past recalcitrant local authority and go to the police directly if they find the process is stalled. The sooner the offender and his/her crimes are revealed, the sooner the healing begins for the victim and it is better in terms of remuneration through future law suits, far better. And the criminal is removed from the equation sooner.
Apart from policy reform (which these lawsuits do not seek, and the judges cannot award), how would you deal with with the litigation if you were in charge of the District?
More administrators need to learn this and leave their twisted moralities out of the equation.
The cultural dynamic relative to pedophiles in this country needs to 'grow up'. Until fairly recently the aberrance we call 'pedophilia' lived in the shadows. Incidents were hushed up and swept under the rug, essentially because administrators and school board members were not trained to deal with such matters. The training did not exist. The cultural taboos are so powerful that hardly anyone wanted to face the fact that these sick folks could crop up anywhere at anytime. Now, years later, the victims (also stymied by cultural impedance) are coming out of their psychological safe havens and spilling all. Meanwhile, authorities stumbled around trying to deal with the "effect" when the "cause" went ignored. Not the 'cause' that gives us pedophiles, but the mechanism that deals with incidents of pedophilia when it occurs. If these acts are exposed and dealt with as they occur, instead of years later, the severity of the repercussions is reduced dramatically. The new culture, brought about by ridding ourselves of the "Hide it" taboo, allows those in charge to act confidently and intelligently to purge the criminals quickly. The victims enter treatment and the perpetrators are removed in short order. The predominate reactions to hearing such vile news has been to keep it under wraps, to protect the institution's image, to save one's job. Now, with a cultural shift that says, 'we know this can happen, how do we stop it?', we can.
MSD was & is 'Careless and Negligent' then and NOW as they demonstrated by their 'legal response' to this highly respected swim coach. That's why she sued. I've never sued & I'm not a fan of it - but she must have seen how they operate and now we all can. MSD should print an apolgy... Action Plan: Stop the Abuse of Public Humiliation today MSD. Clearly they don't 'get it' still - someone at the top approved their 'legal response' - @ Cooper H. - not good form. Manipulative adults collude, kidnap, rape and cover up a 12-ish year old child in their care & she's the one with the problem. What's going on ?
I don't fault the plaintiffs from seeking a big cash payoff here, but if they choose to go that route they (and their supporters) should not blame the DIstrict for defending itself-- including the assertion of many powerful (if not awkward) defense theories. I am sorry that reality is so crass, but these cases are about money. Pretending otherwise changes nothing. If the lawyers were working pro bono and the plaintiffs pledged to give all of their proceeds to relevant charities, I might have a different view.
Does a child abuse victim deserve a pile of money? Maybe, if you believe that money can heal the wounds. Does the victim deserve money taken from other children's education or from citizens who had no part in the crime? No way. Get the money only from people who were to blame, not from the blameless.
The district and Ms. Cunnane are engaged in a PR war at the moment. They must ascertain how public sentiment is swinging. This case won't make it to trial. Both sides are trying to determine who has the best negotiating advantage so that a final dollar figure that's mutually agreeable can be reached. Civil cases such as this one are about PR. To think otherwise is naive.