A brief summery of the story:
Lori Lynn Letsinger attend the high school concert in which her son was performing. She's the wife of a former board member, although I'm not sure if that really adds anything to the story or not. I'm leaning towards the idea it does.
So, Letsinger wants to attend the concert, which is normal. The only problems is that Letsinger is a convicted sexual offender (pleaded guilty in 2004 to indecent solicitation of a child, prosecutors alleged that Letsinger had sex with a 16-year-old boy).
So she goes to the school board to request permission to attend. The school board agrees that she should be allowed to. They don't contact LE to see if this is appropriate. They don't ask for input from other parents or teachers... in fact they hold a "closed" meeting, denying members of the public the right to be present.
The single problem turns out to be the sole board member who refused to agree to her presense at the concert- Gloria Maloney. She alone felt that parents had the right to be warned... so she handed out fliers alerting them to the danger.
So, who do you believe is right in this matter? The board who okayed the presense of a sexual offender without the input of other parents, teachers, or anyone; or the single board member that felt it was her duty to keep the school district informed of what was happening?
Categories: predators, molesters, school,
Lori Lynn Letsinger attend the high school concert in which her son was performing. She's the wife of a former board member, although I'm not sure if that really adds anything to the story or not. I'm leaning towards the idea it does.
So, Letsinger wants to attend the concert, which is normal. The only problems is that Letsinger is a convicted sexual offender (pleaded guilty in 2004 to indecent solicitation of a child, prosecutors alleged that Letsinger had sex with a 16-year-old boy).
So she goes to the school board to request permission to attend. The school board agrees that she should be allowed to. They don't contact LE to see if this is appropriate. They don't ask for input from other parents or teachers... in fact they hold a "closed" meeting, denying members of the public the right to be present.
The single problem turns out to be the sole board member who refused to agree to her presense at the concert- Gloria Maloney. She alone felt that parents had the right to be warned... so she handed out fliers alerting them to the danger.
The board issued a censure, an official statement that carries no weight, saying Maloney's failure to respect "the confidentiality of privileged information" violated the board's code of ethics.
"You are talking about a minor child who was traumatized by your actions," board member Patti Lawrence told Maloney at a meeting Monday.
Maloney, whose motion to remove the censure from the board's agenda was defeated, defended her actions, saying that somebody needed to let the public know about the board's decision in closed session to grant a convicted sex offender the right to attend a school function.
"This didn't have anything to do with the child," said Maloney, who voted against the approval. "It had to do with the parent."
So, who do you believe is right in this matter? The board who okayed the presense of a sexual offender without the input of other parents, teachers, or anyone; or the single board member that felt it was her duty to keep the school district informed of what was happening?
Categories: predators, molesters, school,