.

Abuse Allegations on Moraga School Board Agenda

Governing board meeting Tuesday evening starts with closed session on lawsuit and claims.

The Governing Board of the Moraga School District has a long closed session scheduled tonight (Tuesday) to go over litigation and anticipated litigation that has been in the news in the last two weeks.

The Governing Board of the Moraga School District meets in closed session at 6 p.m. Tuesday, followed by its regular public meeting at 7:30 p.m. at the Joaquin Moraga Intermediate School auditorium, 1010 Camino Pablo, Moraga.

The board will conference with legal counsel over the case of Cunnane v. Moraga School District, and anticipated litigation with "significant exposure to litigation" through claims by Jane Doe  No. 1 and  No. 2, "both relating to tort claims received alleging injury from unlawful sexual conduct."

The agenda lists board Vice President Charles MacNulty presiding, after President Dexter Louie submitted his resignation last week.

Also on the agenda is:

  • an action item contemplating approval of a board policy on child abuse prevention and reporting.
  • a public hearing on a collective bargaining agreement between the school district and the Moraga Teachers Association.
  • approval of an agreement with the Acalanes Union High School District setting developer fees.

 

Ryan November 13, 2012 at 05:44 PM
took this from their meeting minutes from last week, I believe this is what they are voting on in their closed session: " Responsiblilty for Reporting: When two or more mandated reporters jointly have knowledge of a known or suspected instance of child abuse or neglect, and when there is agreement among them, the telephone report may be made by a member of the team selected by mutual agreement and a single report may be made and signed by the selected member of the reporting team. Any member who has knowledge that the member designated to report has failed to do so shall thereafter make the report." Page 76 of: http://msd-ca.schoolloop.com/file/1240666144253/1251955514192/5414772165765726453.pdf I don't get it, they need two people to have witnessed or have knowledge of an incident before reporting? What if only one person witnesses it, do they have to go find someone else to see it? Does this mean that the district does not have to act if only one person comes forward? Seriously, they can't make this any more ridiculous. Maybe I'm reading this wrong, somebody please help me understand how this helps in any way. Looks to me like they want to cover themselves as usual.
Andrew November 13, 2012 at 08:19 PM
Ryan, you are starting to connect the dots. This is like a virus that refuses to respond to any current medical treatments. What I find incredible is that a former MSD board member and a former MSD superintendent both endorsed Dexter Louie's re-election.
Crowley November 14, 2012 at 12:56 AM
You missed the part leading up to this. This is the section of "Responsibility of Reporting" that deals with situations in which two or more people know of a case, not all cases. They are clarifying the rule, it seems, to be sure SOMEONE reports it. Not everyone needs to officially report the same event. But also, it ensures that no one can point at another person and say, "I thought he/she was going to report it." It seems like they want to make it the responsibility of the people with knowledge of the incident to be sure sure it has been reported, and if it hasn't then they must do it. So one report can be made for a one incident, but all witnesses bear the responsibility that report get made. At least, that is how I read it.
Ryan November 14, 2012 at 01:06 AM
Maybe I'm confused but doesn't the current mandatory reporting law supersede this? Why do they need to make sure "someone" reports it when the mandatory law requires anyone under it to report immediately? It requires all to report, not to "agree" with someone else in order to report it. It just seems to add confusion and the one thing I disagree with is the "I thought he/she would report it" angle. This is exactly what it would create. If you don't require all to report then you are creating a loophole for someone to say "well i thought they saw it too and were going to report it". You are making people form a union, binding them together for no reason when "if you see it, you report it" is sufficient. Just my take but I'm pretty sure that all agree with the current law. why mess with that and why make it more of a mess?
Crowley November 14, 2012 at 01:37 AM
I don't know. I haven't read everything carefully. I just went back to check the section you cited. To me, and this is just me guessing here, it looks like they are trying to be sure there is no wiggle room for reporting and no loopholes or other issues. Honestly, the problems ( or more accurately CRIMES) in the '90s weren't really for lack of rules on reporting, but lack of ethics, responsibility, and care of the kids.
LafayetteRez November 14, 2012 at 03:02 AM
It is ridiculous to need an agenda item to establish a formal policy on an issue as critical as child abuse prevention and reporting. In my view, the implication is that in the absence of a policy, the actions in the past (or in-actions) are justified. If there is any suspicion of child abuse within a school district by any member of the community, I would think it is a duty to report.
Ryan November 14, 2012 at 04:44 AM
I was completely wrong. The MSD removed the most ambiguous part of the language at the end and added "all shall report". Step in the right direction.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »