Stonington Board of Education sold out, didn't protect children
Kicking the can down the road, Stonington failed to protect its children. To negotiate a settlement before a thorough investigation is complete is a coverup. This teacher will have nothing in the record, nothing in any recommendation from Stonington, about this matter and therefore can apply for a job in another district as an ordinary applicant.
Sarah Eagan was correct to cite the reporting standard as, "Reasonable suspicion" as it is in CGS17a-101a, but the Department of Children and Family's standard is "belief" which requires only the reporter's belief, no supporting data is required to report a suspected instance of abuse. Stonington missed reporting in both instances.
The sad part of this is that their decision was an economic one. We can hear their lawyer saying, "we can make this go away for $81,000 and it’s over. A hearing will cost more and there is no guarantee we'd win."
They failed in their role of “in loco parentis" and put money before child welfare.
This was a sell-out not a buy-out.
Stories that may interest you
As a previous employer, I was required by law to submit an I-9 employment eligibility verification form. If I failed to do so, I could be fined, which could be increased up to $10,000 per illegal employee, jail time if it was found to be a pattern. In Mississippi a raid just accounted for...
I can understand The Day's concern for inclusion and sensitivity, "High school mascots for today's sports teams," (July 9). Are we taking the concerns too far? I have seen no threatening or...
I don’t suppose New London will see any tax revenue from the new Coast Guard Museum. As a friend of mine said, “New London is owned by the feds, the state and God.” None of them pay taxes. Jane Price New London
About two months ago an article ran in The Day, about infants, children, teenagers, adults and the elderly who are poor, hungry, homeless, no medical care, no money for...