ROONEY GOES TO PRISON: Ex-LAUSD administrator pleads out in molestation case

By Daily News wire services

08/27/2009 11:55:05 AM PDT - A former Los Angeles school administrator pleaded no contest today to felony unlawful sex and lewd act counts involving four teenage girls from two schools where he worked.

<PHOTO: LAPD

Steve Thomas Rooney, 40, entered his plea to three counts of lewd acts with a child and one count of unlawful sexual intercourse.

He was was taken into custody without bail after the hearing. He is expected to receive an eight-year prison term when he is sentenced Sept. 15.

Rooney is also expected to be ordered to submit to AIDS testing and to register as a sex offender for life, officials said.

The charges involved two girls he met at Foshay Learning Center in South Los Angeles, where Rooney initially worked as a teacher and later became the dean of students; and two other girls he met at Markham Middle School, where he worked as an assistant principal.

Rooney was initially charged with 13 felony counts involving three teenage girls, including a former Foshay Learning Center student who testified at a May 2008 hearing that she began dating him in 2005, when she was 15, and had a relationship with him that lasted about 1 1/2 years and included a pregnancy that ended with a miscarriage.

At the hearing in which Rooney was ordered to stand trial, the other two girls testified that they met Rooney while he was working as an assistant principal at Markham Middle School in early 2008.

One of the girls, who was 13, testified that Rooney repeatedly told her that he loved her, took her on a motorcycle to his apartment and ignored her protests that she didn't want to have sex.

The other girl, a 15-year-old, testified that Rooney had grabbed her buttocks in his office on one occasion and her breasts on another occasion, and kissed her breasts in another instance.

In June, Rooney was ordered to stand trial on five more felony counts involving a fourth teenage girl, who is now 19.

The girl testified that she and Rooney kissed twice at Foshay Learning Center - including once in an office that didn't belong to Rooney - and that he picked her up by her house on one occasion and they went to a park where they "started making out."

She said "everything was consensual," and that she wasn't sure how old she was at the time, although the criminal complaint alleged the conduct occurred between June 2004 and June 2006, beginning when she was 14 years old. She said the two didn't have sex.

The girl acknowledged that she initially told a police investigator that nothing happened, and that she only spoke up after being contacted by an attorney. But she said she did not want to be a plaintiff in any lawsuit against the Los Angeles Unified School District.

Rooney Redux: “WHAT PART OF ‘UNLAWFUL SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP WITH A MINOR’ IS IT THAT YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND?”

opinion by smf | 4lakids

In the PILLSBURY REPORT LAUSD’s hired gun/outside counsel $209,000. investigation of the Rooney Matter – blame is assigned to Dan Issacs, then the District’s former Chief Operating Officer for the memo he sent out following Rooney’s initial arrest.

The report finds that Isaacs did not make clear the allegation that Rooney was a suspected child molester.

 

Here’s the memo:

 

The ‘smoking gun’ part of the Isaacs Memo says:  “Mr. Rooney was arrested on charges of assault with a deadly weapon in an incident that occurred on January 1, 2007. LAPD is also investigating allegations that he had an unlawful sexual relationship with a minor.”

Any and everyone on the distribution of the memo who read those words and didn’t immediately understand the allegations wasn’t paying attention.

LAUSD is governed by memos and bulletins;  informatives, resolutions and policy.

The skill set required of a leader in such an environment is separating the important from the trivial; failure is defined in the inability to do so.  The EdSpeak word for this is “Decoding”.  We expect it of the beginners and we must expect it of the experts.

As memos go, that one was as clear as they come.

The Pillsbury report faults Isaacs in that he did not spell out that the person Rooney allegedly assaulted with a deadly weapon was the stepfather of the girl he was suspected of having an unlawful sexual relationship with.

• Please… Mr Rooney was (and continues to be) an alleged perpetrator, innocent until proven guilty. He continued to be a District employee, albeit one under suspicion of two very serious offences.
• The alleged assault-with-a-deadly-weapon victim and the alleged sexual abuse victim – a minor – are entitled to a certain amount of privacy; the young girl an extraordinary amount of it.

Mr Issacs is also faulted because he did not circulate this memo to the Employee Relations Office and the Staff Relations Office (two silos in the Beaudry bureaucracy) — although it was circulated in a timely manner to those two offices by others on the circulation list.

 

We must stop the blame game and the witch hunt because there is plenty of blame  to go around …and no witches!  There is however darkness and evil. There is black and white and infinite shades of grey.

And though the word has descended into overuse and discredit — there are evildoers preying on children.  —smf

 

THE PILLSBURY REPORT on the LA Times Website, obtained through a Freedom of Information Act Request.  Also known as The Markham Middle School Report or Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman final report re: The Markham Investigation, dated June 2, 2008  -- plus Board Resolutions and Policy bulletins.

3 from the Homeroom: ROONEY REDUX

 

•  Lawsuit alleges school officials knew about suspected molester

• Outside review on molestation episode gets bad marks

• L.A. Unified's new measures to protect students

all by Howard Blume, Times Staff Writer

 

Lawsuit alleges school officials knew about suspected molester

08:57 AM PT, Nov 3 2008 - A recently filed lawsuit claims that senior Los Angeles school officials knew that an assistant principal remained a molestation suspect when they assigned him to a Watts middle school last year.

The lawsuit contradicts assertions by senior LAUSD administrators. They have denied knowing that police believed that Steve Thomas Rooney, 40, posed a risk to other girls. These administrators have contended that they thought Rooney had been cleared by police and by the central district offices.

Rooney quickly got into trouble after arriving at Markham Middle School in September 2007; he faces molestation-related charges involving two students from that school and two from a previous assignment. He has denied wrongdoing.

The new litigation, filed by Michael Hopwood -- a district employee who is also a former elected member of the Compton school board -- calls into question an internal report on the Rooney episode commissioned by the school district. The report, by the law firm Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman,  is examined in today’s Times.

---

(see: Report cites mistakes in L.A. Unified's handling of suspected child molester, following)

also:

• Markham Middle School report (Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman final report re: The Markham Investigation, dated June 2, 2008 plus Board Resolutions and Policy bulletins.)

• Dan Isaacs memo

• Discipline policy

---

The report by the law firm has been used by Supt. David L. Brewer to assert that no current district employee is directly to blame for sending Rooney to Markham. In particular, Brewer defended Carol Truscott, who heads one of the district's eight geographic areas.

In preparing the report, the law firm interviewed 28 people, but missed  Hopwood, an operations coordinator under Truscott who has now come forward with explosive allegations in a lawsuit filed last month.

In his lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, Hopwood alleges job discrimination and retaliation for, among other things, protesting Truscott's decision to return Rooney to a school site.

Hopwood, an elected member of the Compton school board in the 1990s, contends that he met with Truscott and Anthony Armendariz, another operations coordinator, in the summer of 2007 to discuss the handling of Rooney. At the time, Rooney, an assistant principal at Fremont High in South Los Angeles, had been removed from contact with students because police were investigating both a gun-brandishing charge and possible sexual improprieties. But no sex charge was filed, and the gun charge was dropped because the girl at the center of the case wouldn’t testify against Rooney.

In the lawsuit, Hopwood alleges that he urged Truscott not to return Rooney to a campus, but that Truscott responded that “she would not have a ‘non-productive’ administrator.” Hopwood also charges that after police arrested Rooney for allegedly molesting two girls at Markham, Hopwood claims that Truscott warned him “that he must be loyal to her in the Rooney matter.”

Truscott could not be reached for comment on the lawsuit, but in the law firm’s report she denied knowing that police investigators continued to suspect that Rooney was a sexual predator. And in a statement to The Times, she said that “had the full law-enforcement details been shared with me, I would have acted differently. Anyone who knowingly puts children in danger should be fired.”

Hopwood and Armendariz declined to be interviewed.

-- Howard Blume

 

Outside review on molestation episode gets bad marks

08:55 AM PT, Nov 3 2008 -- A report into how a man suspected of sexual misconduct was returned to contact with students received mostly poor grades from those who reviewed it at The Times' request.

Former assistant principal Steve Thomas Rooney, 40, faces molestation-related charges involving four students — two from Markham Middle School in Watts and two from Foshay Learning Center in South Los Angeles, where Rooney had previously worked. He has denied wrongdoing.

After Rooney’s March arrest, the LAUSD hired an outside law firm -- Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw, Pittman -- to review Rooney’s path to Markham.

The report has been used as the basis for imposing no apparent substantial discipline on any current district employee. But the report has obvious shortcomings, said district and law enforcement sources. Some of these issues are outlined in a today's L.A. Times article, but there are others.

One is the range of interviews conducted by the law firm.

As an example, the law firm accepted the contention by members of the Employee Relations and the Staff Relations departments that they did not know Rooney was suspected of sexual misconduct. They said they knew only of a gun charge against Rooney and insisted that their contacts with police never mentioned anything else.

The law firm never verified the accounts of these departments with police, according to the list of interviews conducted.

Employee Relations was responsible for tracking criminal cases involving district employees. Staff Relations was responsible for advising officials regarding these employees once an investigation had concluded. Neither department raised concerns about Rooney being returned to contact with students.

In fact, if these L.A. Unified employees had contacted detectives or reviewed documentation related to the investigation, they could not have missed that the inquiry was primarily a sexual-misconduct investigation, law enforcement sources said.

Almost all sources spoke on the condition that their names would not be used. The district employees noted that they were unauthorized to speak. Some law enforcement sources also were not authorized, and they emphasized the importance of maintaining a good personal and departmental working relationship with the school system.

One person who commented was A.J. Duffy, head of United Teachers Los Angeles. He questioned why the gun charge by itself didn’t warrant an internal review. Rooney was originally arrested in February 2007 for allegedly brandishing a gun at the stepfather of a student.

“That’s an issue that should be taken with the greatest degree of seriousness,” Duffy said. “If they didn’t, that shows how bad they are at doing their jobs.”

Moreover, at least two Fremont teachers had complained about alleged outbursts of anger from Rooney on the job.

Others took issue with the report’s focus on former district Chief Operating Officer Dan Isaacs. The report criticized Isaacs for not telling everything he knew about the police investigation of Rooney in a brief memo Isaacs sent to the Board of Education, L.A. schools Supt. David L. Brewer and 11 other top officials.

Isaacs sent out the memo at the time of Rooney’s February 2007 arrest, and about five months before his own retirement. At that point, Rooney’s job status remained in limbo; he was being kept out of contact with students in a desk job at the local district office.

In a recent interview, Brewer named only Isaacs as a person deserving blame for the Rooney episode.

“You cannot lead and manage by memo,” said Brewer, who had a cool relationship with Isaacs. “The chief operating officer walks out of the door, and it was a single point of failure. He had the information and nobody else had it.”

One on-the-record defense of Isaacs and his memo came from Michael O’Sullivan, president of Associated Administrators of Los Angeles, which represents L.A. Unified administrators.

“The content of that memo was extraordinarily well done,” said O’Sullivan, who has hired Isaacs to work part-time for the association. “It does not give unnecessary information. It simply states the facts. It was the typical heads-up memo. And it went to everyone who should have it.”

Another matter that drew critical response was the report's handling of who, if anyone, was responsible for making sure Rooney was fit to return to a campus. The report ultimately faults no one directly, although it acknowledges district policy stipulating that the local district superintendent (Carol Truscott) and an employee's immediate supervisor were responsible for a follow-up probe. In this context, Truscott's underling Greg Braxton supervised Rooney after he was pulled from Fremont High in South Los Angeles. (Braxton has since become the principal at the new Roybal Learning Center.)

The relevant policy is laid out in Bulletin 3357, adopted in October 2006. It states that an employee’s administrator and the local district superintendent should conduct an internal investigation once a law enforcement inquiry or trial has ended with no conviction. That’s because such an employee may still deserve to be fired, face other discipline or pose a threat of some sort.

As described briefly in today’s Times article, the law firm’s report accepted Truscott’s and Braxton’s contention that they never saw the 2006 policy.

A couple of district sources, who were not directly involved in the Rooney case, insisted that they too were unaware of the 2006 policy. Others found that contention difficult to believe.

Still, administrators aren’t supposed to conduct probes that parallel or precede police investigations, because that can undermine police work, said former district general counsel Kevin Reed.

The problem, he added, was that some administrators took the admonition not to interfere with police matters too far. To clarify matters, the district adopted a sexual harassment policy in 2004.

Sexual harassment, as defined, includes inappropriate “conduct of a sexual nature.” And the policy stipulates that “as soon as the law-enforcement agency completes its investigation,” administrators are responsible for “conducting a prompt investigation into whether sexual harassment had occurred.”
Thus, anyone who missed the 2006 policy should at least have been aware of the 2004 sexual harassment policy.

Twice a year, administrators must certify in writing that they have reviewed the sexual harassment policy as well as rules pertaining to the reporting of child abuse.

One reason for the 2004 policy — and its repeated review — was to instill the notion that all employees must take personal responsibility for the safety of children. No one should assume that keeping children away from harm is someone else’s job.

But even with the 2004 policy, not everyone seemed to be getting the message. The 2006 policy was necessary, Reed said, because there was “an incomplete understanding” that once a criminal prosecution ceased, administrators must ensure that it’s appropriate to return an employee to contact with students.

In other words, Truscott and Braxton were perhaps far from alone in their mistaken understanding of how they should proceed.

In the wake of the Rooney incident, Brewer has centralized the management of employees under a cloud, an adjustment that Braxton commended.

“I am glad the district has instituted a policy for returning people to schools that involves a series of checks and screenings at the central district level,” Braxton wrote in an e-mail to The Times. “This is where many of us had always understood it to be.”

Similarly, Truscott noted: “As tragic as this is, it has resulted in stronger protections for the children.”

The new system may be improved as far as tracking and managing these cases, but it moves in a different direction than insisting on individual responsibility at all levels, which Reed was trying to accomplish.

-- Howard Blume

Rooney Redux: REPORT CITES MISTAKES IN L.A. UNIFIED’S HANDLING OF SUSPECTED CHILD MOLESTER

No current employee is directly blamed. Administrators refuse to disclose what disciplinary action was taken in the case of Steve Thomas Rooney.

By Howard Blume - From the Los Angeles Times

November 3, 2008 - A confidential investigation into how a suspected child molester was assigned to a Los Angeles Unified School District middle school has concluded that no current employee was directly to blame, even though several made mistakes. The report itself has been criticized, as has the response of the district, which declined to disclose what, if any, disciplinary action resulted.

Steve Thomas Rooney became an assistant principal at Markham Middle School in Watts last year after police had warned the district that they suspected Rooney had had a sexual relationship with an underage former student.

Months later, police arrested Rooney on suspicion of molesting students at his new school. Rooney, 40, faces charges involving four students -- two from Markham and two from Foshay Learning Center in South Los Angeles, where he had previously worked. He has denied wrongdoing.

After Rooney was arrested in March, the district hired a law firm, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, to review his path to Markham. The Times obtained the report through a Public Records Act request.

---

• Markham Middle School report (Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman final report re: The Markham Investigation, dated June 2, 2008 plus Board Resolutions and Policy bulletins.)
• Dan Isaacs memo

• Discipline policy

---

Among its findings:

* Local District Supt. Carol Truscott, who made the decision to move Rooney to Markham, violated district policy by not first initiating an internal probe to see whether he posed any threat or should be disciplined. She responded that she didn't know that district policy mandated such an inquiry.

* Scott Braxton, who worked for Truscott overseeing schools, violated the same policy and offered the same reason.

* Dan Isaacs, the district's former chief operations officer, failed to share sufficient details regarding allegations against Rooney.

* The district's Employee Relations Department tracked only a gun allegation against Rooney, and the separate Staff Relations Department didn't advise Truscott to launch an internal review. Representatives of both departments claimed to be unaware of the sex allegations.

* The Los Angeles Police Department failed to keep reminding district employees about the sex allegations.

The $209,000 inquiry revisited district actions between February and September of 2007. At the start of that period, police detectives were investigating allegations that Rooney, on Jan. 1, 2007, threatened the stepfather of a former student with a gun.

Detectives quickly concluded that Rooney had a sexual relationship with the underage girl, whom he had taught at Foshay, according to police.

As related in the report, police alerted senior L.A. Unified officials in early February about their intent to arrest Rooney on the gun charge. At the time, Rooney was an assistant principal at Fremont High in South Los Angeles. Over several days the police had multiple conversations with the district regarding the alleged sexual improprieties, the report said. Those briefed included Isaacs, two aides, school district Police Chief Lawrence E. Manion and two of his officers.

Isaacs called Truscott and sent a brief memo to the Board of Education, Supt. David L. Brewer and 11 other top officials but did not inform the Employee Relations Department, which monitors criminal investigations involving employees. (Isaacs told the law firm that he called that department.) The memo stated that, in addition to the gun charge, "LAPD is also investigating allegations that [Rooney] had an unlawful sexual relationship with a minor."

The report criticized Isaacs because the memo "failed to mention everything Isaacs knew."

In a statement in June, Brewer went further, singling out Isaacs for "the mishandling of the Rooney case."

District and law enforcement sources criticized the report's focus on Isaacs, who retired more than two months before Truscott approved sending Rooney to Markham. Isaacs declined to comment.

In an interview, Kathleen Collins, an attorney for L.A. Unified, defended the Employee Relations staff and criticized police: Staff members "are interfacing with law enforcement, but law enforcement wasn't telling them about the sex allegations," Collins said.

Police officials had no comment on that. But "when you talk to the school district chief of police and the head of district operations, you've made that notification," said Charlie Beck, LAPD chief of detectives.

After the gun arrest, Truscott assigned Rooney temporarily to a desk job under Braxton. Months later, the Staff Relations Department told Truscott and Braxton that the gun charge had been dropped, so Rooney could be returned to a campus.

L.A. Unified policy, adopted in 2006, stipulates that both the local superintendent (Truscott) and the employee's supervisor (Braxton), are responsible for follow-up investigation regardless of whether prosecutors file charges. The case stalled mainly because the Foshay student wouldn't testify against Rooney.

The report says that Truscott told the law firm that "because she was never specifically told by the district to investigate, she did not investigate or inquire about investigating. . . . Truscott also stated she did not investigate because the incident did not occur at school, did not warrant 'digging deeper,' and she did not know a former student was involved."

Braxton told The Times that he had believed that his responsibility was to follow the direction of the central office.

Truscott relayed a statement through the district. "I think about those families all of the time," the statement said in part. "I didn't know about the new policy, and had the full law enforcement details been shared with me I would have acted differently."

This explanation falls short for Gordon Phillips, an attorney representing the students.

"A teacher is exhibiting bizarre behavior, brandishing a firearm, and you're also told he's having sex with a minor," Phillips said. "What else do you need to hear?"

Brewer said the district disciplined one or more employees but would offer no specifics. He defended Truscott, a 30-year employee, by saying that it was easy to miss new and amended policies because the district recently replaced paper distribution with online postings.

But according to veteran administrators, new bulletins are still distributed by e-mail, with Internet posting for reference. This system has been in place for about five years. In addition, local districts have monthly principal meetings at which new policies are reviewed. And, twice a year, administrators must certify that they've reviewed certain policies, including those pertaining to child abuse and sexual harassment. One of several changes arising from the Rooney case is that the superintendent himself now must sign off before an employee under a cloud returns to a school.

TWO SENIOR LOS ANGELES SCHOOL DISTRICT MANAGERS WILL RETURN TO WORK + SUPERINTENDENT BREWER’S STATEMENT REGARDING ONGOING ROONEY INVESTIGATION

They had been removed for their handling of sexual misconduct allegations against a former assistant principal.

By Mary Engel, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

June 7, 2008 - Two senior Los Angeles school district administrators who were removed from their jobs last month for their handling of sexual misconduct allegations against former Assistant Principal Stephen Thomas Rooney will return to work Monday, according to a Los Angeles Unified School District statement released late Friday.

Rooney, who is being held in lieu of $1-million bail, faces sexual misconduct charges in connection with three current and former district students.

In the statement, Supt. David L. Brewer said an internal investigation of the two administrators' roles in the scandal concluded that they should be returned to their work sites "as quickly as possible." Brewer could not be reached for further comment.

The statement did not name the administrators. But in early May, Senior Deputy Supt. Ramon C. Cortines had announced that local district Supt. Carol Truscott and Scott Braxton, who formerly worked for Truscott, had been relieved of duties and assigned to work in the central office for their roles in assigning Rooney to Markham Middle School.

Rooney had been removed from a previous school and assigned to a desk job for allegedly waving a gun at the stepfather of a student.

Although an investigation turned up allegations of a sexual relationship with the student, an apparent communications breakdown led to his being reassigned to the Watts middle school, where he is accused of molesting two students. Truscott oversaw the last three schools where Rooney worked.

 

smf chimes in: Earlier reporting in the Times on May 7th reported:

"Two senior Los Angeles school district administrators have been removed from their jobs for failing to investigate allegations of sexual misconduct against an employee and then clearing him to work at a Watts middle school, where he allegedly molested two additional students.

"Local district Supt. Carol Truscott and Scott Braxton, who formerly worked for Truscott, have been relieved of duties and assigned to the central office pending further investigation into how they dealt with former Assistant Principal Stephen Thomas Rooney

"Braxton was slated to be principal at the long-awaited Edward R. Roybal Learning Center, originally named the Belmont Learning Complex, scheduled to open next fall. He was managing the setup of that school on the edge of downtown – an assignment that would go only to a highly regarded administrator. Under Truscott, he had responsibility for administrative assignments, including Rooney’s."

SUPERINTENDENT BREWER’S STATEMENT REGARDING ONGOING ROONEY INVESTIGATION -AGGRESSIVE NEW SAFEGUARDS IMPLEMENTED

"A thorough preliminary investigation has revealed that the key central office personnel most responsible for the mishandling of the Rooney case, including the previous chief operating officer, are no longer working at the District."

LAUSD PRESS STATEMENT

June 6, 2008 - This statement concerns the recent completion of an investigation into the handling by two LAUSD administrators of the deeply disturbing case involving Mr. Steven Rooney. After a thorough investigation of their respective roles in the matter, LAUSD has concluded that both administrators should be returned to their worksites as quickly as possible on Monday morning. The Los Angeles Police Department has further assured the District that no criminal investigations are pending on either of these two employees.

I want parents to know that we take allegations of abuse very seriously. A thorough preliminary investigation has revealed that the key central office personnel most responsible for the mishandling of the Rooney case, including the previous chief operating officer, are no longer working at the District. However, further investigations are ongoing, and discipline of other personnel may result in the immediate future.

The investigation also concluded that while the District routinely handles such matters effectively, in this instance there were multiple systems breakdowns that led to a tragic situation. Based on these findings, the District has immediately implemented aggressive safeguards to ensure this does not ever happen again.

Those changes include:

a. A comprehensive District-wide educational campaign to raise awareness, including parents and students;

b. Strategic realignment of key divisions that respond to reports of abuse, as well as creation of a Safety Task Force;

c. Creation of the Superintendent’s Reassignment Committee to review each case involving employees removed from the worksite, pending allegations of wrongdoing;

d. Oversight by the Superintendent, who will be routinely briefed by the Reassignment Committee and will personally make all final decisions in critical cases;

e. Clearer definition of accountabilities, roles and responsibilities throughout all lines of LAUSD leadership and support personnel;

f. Enhanced formal collaboration with law enforcement;

g. Expanded professional development and training for staff; and

h. Effective use of technology to manage and track key information.

With respect to Mr. Rooney, we understand that he has been held to answer and will stand trial on multiple criminal counts. Because the District is determined to fully cooperate with law enforcement, further details regarding his case cannot be released at this time.

We will act immediately upon receiving reports of abuse. We have policies and procedures in place to investigate such cases, even when the police are unable to bring charges. Any individual posing a threat of abuse to students is removed immediately from the school site.

The students and families of LAUSD have a right to expect that children will be safe at school. Ensuring student safety is a moral imperative, and it is my highest priority.

Two senior Los Angeles school district managers will return to work - Los Angeles Times

LOCAL DISTRICT SEVEN PARENTS PROTEST ACTION+INACTION BY BIG DISTRICT, LAW ENFORCEMENT & PROSECUTORS IN ROONEY MATTER

4LAKids

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Friday morning May 16 at 10AM a small dedicated group of parents gathered at the Local District Seven offices in South Los Angeles to protest the administrative action taken by LAUSD Beaudry against Local District Superintendent Carol Truscott and Director Scott Braxton in the Steven Rooney affair. Rooney is the Assistant Principal at Markham Middle School accused of having sexual relations with students at Markham and at an earlier assignment at Foshay Learning Center,

Parent Kelly Bedford, organizer of the event reports that the protest was orderly, with demonstrators representing Latino and African American parents agreed that Ms. Truscott and Mr. Braxton are scapegoats and victims of a cover-up and overall lack-of-accountability by LAUSD, law enforcement and prosecutors in failing to properly act on the first round of accusations against Rooney - before he was reassigned to Markham and continued his alleged victimization of students.

Despite the fact that invitations were extended to news outlets only one local paper showed up to cover the demonstration - one that has produced national news coverage.

The parents have also not received response from earlier requests for information and engagement made to Superintendent Brewer, Senior Assistant Superintendent Cortines and members of the Board of Education. - smf

Following is a copy of the press release and some earlier correspondence.

LOCAL DISTRICT SEVEN PARENTS: LAUSD Hides Their True Face! They Continue To Bob And Weave To Avoid Responsibility.

 

May 15, 2008

PRESS RELEASE

Re: LAUSD Hides Their True Face!  They Continue To Bob And Weave To Avoid Responsibility.

Dear Assignment Desk Editors:

The Los Angeles Unified School District is experiencing yet another critical situation. But this time it has gone too far! Parents want to speak to the truth of the matter so the public is no longer confused about the manner in which they operate.

LAUSD parents are outraged at recent action taken by LAUSD top officials. They are holding two (2) key administrators responsible for the alleged deviant behavior of another employee. Specifically, this matter is related to the already reported news story regarding Stephen T. Rooney, Assistant Principal of Markham Middle School. Mr. Rooney has been charged with engaging in sexual relations with minor children, etc. Local District administrators are being blamed for that which is the sole responsibility of the Personnel Department --- employee clearance and assignment. The Personnel Department provides clearance of employees before they are assigned to available positions within the District. However, 2 high ranking administrators who are as committed to providing quality education to students as they are to providing safety to them have been pulled from their duties and responsibilities as a punitive measure --- because someone has to take the fall for this man’s actions --- someone’s head must roll so that we may escape both accountability. To pull these administrators from their duties is similar to committing genocide against our children. Our chief administrators of our Local District were making strides toward increased student achievement. Chief Operations Officer, Ramon Cortines, should have thought about this more carefully before coming into his new position and acting as though he would save the world but would first start by cleaning the house (so to speak). He has acted in haste and caused emotional distress for many.

Parents are outraged at the Board of Education for not accepting their responsibility in the matter. With a quick glance at their Organizational Chart, responsibility for employee actions first rest with the Board Members followed by the Superintendent of Schools, David L. Brewer, III. From the Superintendent of Schools there is the Chief Operating Officer and you travel down the ladder from there. These high ranking officials are to ensure a quality education as well as safety for our children. They have failed miserably at both. They are blaming our Local District leaders for their lack of follow-through and incompetence. Parents will no longer stand for it.

The Superintendent of Schools, David L. Brewer, III must also take responsibility for this mess as well. He does not even admit to being knowledgeable about the situation stating that he’s not certain whether he received notification of pertinent facts regarding this matter. It has been reported that he claims to have a mountain of paperwork on his desk. Nonsense! He has a full-time secretary who opens, deciphers and prioritizes his mail. It is his responsibility to review every single sheet on his desk. Both the Board Members and Superintendent Brewer are blame-shifting their responsibility and refusing to admit what is possibly unintentional negligence. They refuse to accept blame for what has occurred and choose to hide behind our hard-working and dedicated Local District Administrators. Their actions are cowardly and shameful. Parents want them to stop bobbing and weaving the truth.

Parents would like to publicly address this issue in a press conference tomorrow morning, Friday, May 16, 2008 at 10:00 am. We will meet in the front of our school home, LAUSD Local District 7 Office, 10600 South Western Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90047. We are praying that you will attend to televise the event.

I have attached a couple of parent letters in support of our Local District administrators as well as a statement from LAUSD’s Chief Operation Officer, Ramon Cortines regarding the matter.

We are requesting our Local District administrators be cleared of all allegations. There has obviously been a miscarriage of justice and an abuse of authority in this regard! We are truly in a state of emergency when politics and money becomes the driving force in education! Please help us spread the word of truth so that our children are protected.

Please feel free to contact me for more information. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Kelly Bedford

LAUSD Parent

KELLY BEDFORD

__________________________

[address & phone # removed for publication]

May 11, 2008

Board Of Education

Los Angeles Unified School District 

333 South Beaudry Avenue, 24th Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90017

By Facsimile Transmission to (213) 241-8953

By Email Transmission to All Board Members

Re: Letter in Support of Carol M. Truscott, Local District 7 Superintendent

Dear Members of the Board of Education:

I submit this letter to you in support of my Local District Superintendent, Carol M. Truscott, who has recently been accused of taking improper action in regards to the horrid misconduct of one of your employees. I respectfully request careful consideration of this letter as well as any other letters, telephone calls or emails which are sure to be on their way to your offices, before taking any action which may be in haste and unwarranted.

As a parent within the Los Angeles Unified School District, I am certainly not privy to all details concerning the matter of Stephen T. Rooney, former Assistant Principal of Markham Middle School. Having worked in corporate America, I understand all information is not public information. However, that which I do understand about this situation and feel deep to my core concern me in a way that I am compelled to speak against it.

Let me first begin by stating what I know about Carol Truscott. In addition to her expertise as an educator with over 30 years of experience, she has been:

• Dedicated To Educating Our Children;
• Committed To Providing High Quality Education For All Students;
• Supportive And Loyal To Parents As Well As The Community;
• Steadfast In Her Efforts To Steer Education Toward Positive Change.

I also know Mrs. Truscott to be an approachable person who is as transparent as she is able to be in her position as Local District Superintendent. With each and every challenge we face in Local District 7, her unwavering focus for high quality instructional delivery to students is admirable and constant. Certainly, our educational arena has been plagued with issues that existed prior to Mrs. Truscott becoming the Superintendent of Local District 7 such as hard-to-staff schools and “must place” teachers and administrators. These diversions aim to retract the focus of providing high quality education to students; but the one thing I know about Mrs. Truscott is that she is a true operations person who is committed as much to her duties as she is to the students of this District. I state unequivocally that any action taken or not taken on behalf of this District has been done under the direction of other District officials who were directly responsible for making such decision(s). Being an operations person, Mrs. Truscott’s professional nature is one that follows strict protocol, adherence to proper lines of communication and procedural guidelines as set forth by her employer, Los Angeles Unified School District. I do not believe Mrs. Truscott would ever take any action without first checking with District department heads who are responsible for providing the guidance, assistance and support that is assumed to be true and correct. Moreover, a prudent person would reasonably believe District department heads hold a fiduciary obligation to govern their employees and at the same time provide education and safety to students. In meeting their obligations, they are entrusted to provide only the best administrators, teachers and staff to support students. Therefore, it would follow that each and every employee should be appropriately placed but only after submission to a comprehensive background investigation. Many believe Local District 7 gets dumped on with regards to assigning teachers, administrators and staff to available positions. Resources exist to improve conditions but delivery of these resources is unfairly selective to students who are not in the most need. This leads me to my next point of contention.

I am frustrated with senior District personnel including our Superintendent of Schools, David L. Brewer, III for not taking responsibility for the creation of this muddle. I am likewise disappointed that these same senior District personnel have refused to properly address and take any and all necessary action with regard to this matter. The District has repeatedly requested ownership of responsibility from students and parents but one lingering question that permeates with parents is “Where is the accountability for District personnel?” It is situations like this that are sure to heighten the level of distrust parents have for District administrators as well as Board Members. I plead with you to take a firm stand and do the right thing this time by holding harmless Mrs. Truscott and Mr. Scott Braxton, former Director of Schools. If we are to come to a “meeting of the minds” it would behoove the District to practice what they preach. With everything being said about this incident as well as what I have read, the District is blame-shifting its responsibility. This is both a shameful and cowardly act. It saddens me to know that instead of admitting to unintentional negligence a senior District employee such as Mrs. Truscott has become a scapegoat who has faced public humiliation and been placed on a “time out” at the Central District office. Mrs. Truscott has committed her life to educating students and during her tenure in education she has gained the respect of her colleagues, parents and the community. I would think that she and Mr. Braxton deserve to be treated justly. I appeal to your sense of decency and ask that you take just a moment to consider that it could be you who is wrongly accused. How would you want to be treated? As an employer, you may be responsible for invoking authority to an employee and then revoking it but the one thing that most certainly belongs to Mrs. Truscott is her integrity--- that is, integrity that could never be stripped from her even in the midst of this horrible situation.

From a more personal aspect, it makes no sense at all for Mrs. Truscott to forgo her professional career for any acts of impropriety, especially for someone who has allegedly committed harmful acts toward minor children. Think about it! She is definitely not going to implement any action under these circumstances without receiving the appropriate clearance to do so from her “higher ups” who are responsible for authorizing a particular course of action.

Now, let’s get to District hierarchy. I have reviewed the District chain of command as set forth in the District’s Organizational Chart for the year 2007 – 2008 and dated 4-4-2008. [* - see endnotes] At the head of the helm lists the Board of Education followed by the Superintendent of Schools which is trailed by the Senior Deputy Superintendent. Subordinate to these positions are various department administrators including local district superintendents. Please be mindful and give importance to the fact that each of these subordinates has an area of expertise they are assumed to possess. Now, when I consider who may be responsible for taking improper action(s) in regards to this matter the responsibility ultimately falls upon the Board of Education who are followed, on second, by the Superintendent of Schools. Neither seems to be willing to acknowledge their contribution toward this fiasco.

When an even more telling tale of job descriptions come into play, one will discover that it is not Mrs. Truscott at all who is responsible for any wrongdoing. And, even more interesting is the Inter-Office Correspondence from Dan Isaacs, former Chief Operating Officer, which is dated February 8, 2007. [* - see endnotes] This memo informs both the Members of the Board as well as Superintendent Brewer that one of their assistant principals was arrested by the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) with 3 district employees serving as witnesses. The memo states, the charges were assault with a deadly weapon. It is also mentioned that the LAPD were also investigating allegations of improper sexual conduct with a minor. The memo states that the suspect would be assigned to a non-school site pending the results of the assault with a deadly weapon charge only. What about the serious allegations of improper sexual conduct with a minor? Mr. Isaacs’ memo only states the suspect may face a compulsory leave from the District should additional charges be filed. So, this now retired, senior District official, through his own words, admits that the District would only be concerned about these additional allegations only if charges are filed, otherwise they would choose to overlook the matter. I believe this is negligent in and of itself. Is it not District policy to conduct internal investigations for acts of impropriety? Finally, in regards to this memo, Mrs. Truscott is copied only as an after-thought. In the midst of this confusion surrounding a Local District 7 employee, she was the very last administrator to be copied. Anyone who has worked as an administrative assistant, secretary or another related position knows that one usually lists the persons copied in order of priority-to-know. Apparently, Mrs. Truscott was not considered to be a person of priority to this matter albeit the matter concerned an administrator who worked within the boundaries of the local district she governed. This leads me to believe that it is highly probable Mrs. Truscott was intentionally kept out-of-the-loop regarding certain pertinent facts to this matter. However, this would not be the first time that I have noticed this behavior and discourteous treatment.

Briefly, I am reminded of the Green Dot takeover of Locke High School. It appeared decisions were made about one of the schools in Local District 7 without the full inclusion of Mrs. Truscott in the discussions which led to the decision. It appeared Mrs. Truscott was disrespected, disregarded and steam-rolled all at the same time. Needless to say many parents and District staff were left disappointed and angry. Taking all happenings into consideration, one might wonder whether the District has previously made clandestine plans to dismiss Mrs. Truscott prior to this incident and have conveniently decided to capitalize on the issue involving Mr. Rooney to do this. While many persons will not admit it, it has become common knowledge that it is desired by some administrators and parents to secure a person of Hispanic origin into the position of Local District Superintendent as well as other teaching and administrative positions. It is felt by some that as the majority of our students within this local district are of Hispanic origin that it may be more responsive to their needs to have someone of a similar culture in this as well as other positions. I hang my head in shame to think the District would not consider the true qualifications of an applicant rather than their race to fill any position available within the District. It is extremely unfair to Mrs. Truscott and Mr. Braxton to have their careers in ruin to appease any particular group of people.

I have read comments made by our Superintendent of Schools, David L. Brewer, III. He claims he may or may not have received Dan Isaacs’ Inter-Correspondence dated February 8, 2007 [* - see endnotes] as he has mountains of paperwork on his desk. I am certain Superintendent Brewer has a full-time secretary who is responsible for opening, deciphering and prioritizing his mail deliveries. It is his responsibility to review every item that comes across his desk and take the appropriate action needed. But, even if he did not see or receive the memo, Mr. Isaacs certainly had knowledge of the situation and he, at least, should have followed up on the matter and left behind copious notes regarding the matter upon his retirement from the District. He was the Chief Operating Officer. Simply because you inform others of a situation does not release you from the responsibility of the matter. Additionally, once the LAPD informed Mr. Isaacs, a top District official, of the situation it would be considered that the District, as a whole, received notice of the situation. What occurred subsequent to Mr. Isaacs acquiring knowledge is anyone’s guess. Everyone needs to stop hiding behind lame excuses and accept the consequences of their actions or lack thereof. Let’s not have the District stifled yet again by distractions that keep you from doing the real work --- educating students.

I also consider the role of the employee union with regard to this matter. It is a common perception the union protects employees even when they are accused and perhaps found guilty of acts of impropriety. How is it allowable not to be able to terminate employee relationships that deserve to come to a conclusion? These employees are retained by the District and tolerated. They continue working around our children while possibly continuing the same deviant behavior which caused them to previously receive disciplinary action. More specifically, when Mr. Rooney was first accused of misconduct in the year 2007 and placed at a non-school site he most probably consulted with his union representative and perhaps an attorney. I would think that either one of these representatives would have contacted the Central District Office in an attempt to defend him. As such, the District would have received notice of the situation on yet another occasion(s). So, comments and statements by District officials indicating lack of knowledge could not be true.

I take issue with District Statement #07/08-328 dated May 6, 2008 from Ramon Cortines, Senior Deputy Superintendent. [* - see endnotes] The statement begins by placing blame on someone other than those directly responsible for providing employee clearance prior to making assignments --- Personnel. Similarly, the District heads are not indicated as having any responsibility for the matter. In the first paragraph, it is stated that it is clear what “missteps” occurred. These alleged “missteps” obviously led to the removal of two (2) key administrators from Local District 7, Carol Truscott and Scott Braxton. Mr. Cortines states that although information regarding sexual allegations was disclosed, the memo issued by Dan Isaacs failed to detail in full the information passed on to him. Again, there should have been copious notes maintained by Mr. Isaacs and passed along before he retired. He should have followed the matter from the inception of his involvement until the day he retired. Who was the ball passed to upon his retirement? I suggest it was probably fumbled. The Statement admits that all pertinent personnel were not copied on the memo. As such, how can Carol Truscott be held responsible? The Statement goes on to place blame on the LAPD and others for not mentioning the sexual allegations once they informed Employee Relations of the matter. I reiterate, your Chief Operating Officer received notice of the circumstances regarding the matter and communicated and copied the memo to those he deemed appropriate. Please stop looking for others to accuse. All the information you need in regards to the person(s) responsible is directly in front of your faces and I’m certain you know it.

This memo goes on to state Local District personnel was responsible for Mr. Rooney. No. The Central District including Board Members is ultimately responsible for employees. Please revisit your Organizational Chart. Also, Personnel has the responsibility of providing clearance for employees to work within the District. The Statement claims the Local District personnel did not conduct its own internal investigation of the matter. If this is true, I wonder whether a policy or procedure is written for Local District Superintendents or in some way clearly defined for them. Have other Local District Superintendents conducted a comprehensive internal investigation when acts of misconducts occur in their local districts? Is this requirement clearly outlined somewhere? I may have overlooked it but I do not see it listed in the job description for Local District Superintendents. Perhaps it falls under the catch-all function of “other duties as assigned.” Now, that’s ambiguous. I will state again that it would be unlike Mrs. Truscott to take action without being given a directive to do so in a matter such as this. Finally, the memo attempts to distract you even further into the cyclone of information – fact or fiction, by prompting you to gaze into a myriad of diagrams and charts.

This Statement contains a clear admission that the District process needed “correcting.” So if the process was flawed to begin with how is it that Mr. Cortines is allowed to pull administrators from their duties and hold them responsible for an already defective process. This is completely surreal. The Statement then outlines the current steps taken to avoid such incidents in the future. However, these are efforts that should have already been taking place and clearly outlined in District policy and procedure; and perhaps have already been established as District policy and procedure. I scoff when I think the District has often been caught in a mode of regurgitating that which already exists and placing a new name on it. Again, who develops District policy and procedure? I am left flabbergasted when reading the last 2 paragraphs of the Statement. The revised process includes measures to improve communication, decision-making and accountability for superintendents (does this include the Superintendent of Schools), principals and other District managers. Unless the Board of Education has immunity, what about the accountability for board members? The same rules should apply for anyone responsible for engaging or interacting with our children.

I respectfully request careful consideration of all things stated herein and a decision to hold Carol Truscott and Scott Braxton harmless from any wrongdoing. The absence of Mrs. Truscott from our Local District has hurt personnel, parents and most importantly our students. I pray for a resolution to this matter that is equitable. Mrs. Truscott nor Mr. Braxton deserves the sort of treatment and public humiliation that they have received. They each deserve full pardons and public apologies. They also deserve the option of returning to the assignments held prior to this incident. I again appeal to your sense of decency and empathy and remind you that it could be any one of you in a similar situation. We all know that what may appear to be is not often the case. Please do not FEAR doing the right thing. Afterall, FEAR is nothing but False Evidence Appearing Real.

I thank you for your attention and consideration to this matter.

Sincerely,

Kelly Bedford

* endnotes    THE NEW LAUSD ORG CHART

STATEMENT BY SENIOR DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT RAY CORTINES REGARDING LAUSD EMPLOYEE EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT (May 6, 2008) + THE ISAACS MEMO (Feb. 8, 2007)

LAUSD’s MARKHAM ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL SCANDAL: District officials, claiming ignorance, were warned about Steven Rooney

by Tibby Rothman – LA Weekly

published: March 27, 2008 |  photo: LAPD

WHEN LOS ANGELES SCHOOLS SUPERINTENDENT David Brewer declared recently that top district officials were unaware of the past behavior of alleged Markham Middle School molester Steven Rooney, longtime teacher Mat Taylor* was appalled. He’d known Rooney when they worked together at Fremont High School, and the picture fresh in his mind was an unpleasant one.

According to Taylor, a little over a year ago he filed an official grievance charging that Rooney exhibited violence, shoving another administrator, while he was, ironically, vice principal in charge of discipline at the sometimes troubled Fremont campus.

“They had their warnings,” Taylor tells the Weekly. “There’s no reason why [district administrators] could claim that they didn’t know what was going on — except incompetence. They knew what was going on, they just passed him on anyway. ... Somebody had to call up and say, ‘Put this guy back in a position’” that resulted in his transfer to unsuspecting Markham.

Media accounts have reported that Rooney was investigated by the Los Angeles Police Department for statutory rape at Fremont before being arrested on March 4 for allegedly sexually assaulting a 13-year-old girl who attended Markham.

But according to Taylor, Rooney had well-known anger-management issues at Fremont. Taylor’s allegations dispute Brewer’s premise that district administrators did not realize they had a problem on their hands when they moved Rooney to Markham. In fact, school-district policy calls for a standard of internal investigation that is far more strict than LAPD’s threshold of criminal wrongdoing.

In 2007, as a vice principal in charge of discipline at Fremont, Rooney was investigated by police for alleged statutory rape of a 17-year-old former student and was arrested for allegedly pulling a gun on that teenager’s stepfather. Rooney was removed from his post while the case was investigated, and no charges were filed. He was then transferred to Markham.

But according to Taylor, the teachers union had also filed an official grievance against Rooney after he allegedly pushed a Fremont dean during an argument. Marla Eby, director of communications at UTLA, confirms that a grievance was filed, but won’t discuss details.

“IN ALL MY YEARS OF TEACHING, I’ve never heard of an administrator pushing a teacher,” says Taylor, an outspoken union activist who has taught in South-Central for more than 20 years. “You have somebody who obviously had problems with two previous schools, gun problems, problems with female students, at Fremont — anger issues — and they just pass him on to another school!,” says Taylor, who represents UTLA at Fremont. Both the school district’s legal counsel and its communications office refused to comment.

Taylor contends, “When [Rooney] was an assistant principal at Fremont, more than a few teachers came to me and said, ‘I had an argument with Rooney and he was really aggressive and lost his temper.’” Taylor says he notified Fremont’s principal.

Taylor says Rooney had a particularly challenging job as vice principal of discipline at a campus of about 4,500 students, adding that students there are unfairly stereotyped, and that many teenagers are “desperate to learn ... wonderful, wonderful kids [who] see school as a sanctuary.” But Rooney dealt with the underside of that world: teenagers who got into fights, got caught with guns or were linked to drug dealing or felonies on campus.

It was Rooney’s job to coordinate deans, security personnel and the district’s own police force to make sure the school was safe. So, according to Taylor, when teachers brought Rooney’s anger problems to his attention, Taylor informed Principal Larry Higgins, hoping that help would be made available to Rooney. Taylor says that Rooney did not improve, and he does not know if Higgins intervened. (Higgins declined to comment.)

“Before he was transferred to Markham, someone should have looked at that file,” states Taylor, who holds responsible the local superintendent of District 7, Carol Truscott, who oversees both Markham Middle School and Fremont High School. Truscott’soffice would not comment.

Taylor says Rooney’s arrest at Fremont in 2007 occurred on a street next to the high school where Rooney had parked his car — and that it was carried out in view of students. A second Fremont employee confirmed that students saw Rooney arrested and gossiped about the widely-known arrest incident.

Taylor also says students told him they saw police remove a gun from Rooney’s car, and Taylor passed the students’ comments to Higgins. Says Taylor: “My inquiry was: Was [Steven Rooney] walking around Fremont with this gun?” But, Taylor claims, “I could never get an answer.”

Taylor was concerned enough about the alleged discovery of a gun in Rooney’s car that he spoke to an elected member of the LAUSD Board of Education. Taylor was perplexed, later on, “when I heard that [Rooney] went back to being an assistant principal [at Markham]. I thought, ‘They didn’t find anything there.’” Now, Taylor says in disbelief, “How could they not know?”

Reach the writer at tibbyrothman@gmail.com.

* LA Weekly Editor's note: An earlier version of this story incorrectly spelled Mat Taylor's name as Matt Taylor. Also, an earlier headline of the story referred to Steven Rooney as vice principal. He was in fact an assistant principal.

 

COMMENTS FROM LA WEEKLY WEBSITE:

1. Its incidents like this that give school districts a black eye. Afraid of litigation for unlawful termination, they let people like Taylor manipulate the system to protect their benefits and job security while keeping them in a prime spot for preying on their victims.

   Comment by Kim on Mar 28th, 2008, 08:39 am

2. This is poor reporting. Mr. Rooney was not investigated for statutory rape. He was investigated because the stepfather of a student for accused pulling a gun during an argument. During the investigation it was alleged that Mr. Rooney had a year-long affair with a student, which would have made her 17 at the time. There was no evidence of assault with a deadly weapon, only an accusation. The former student did not cooperate. If Mr. Rooney protected himself with a gun, he was not in the wrong, but its just as likely that the charge was made up in revenge against Mr. Rooney. The hearsay and rumors would have been enough of a reason to transfer him, even if he is innocent. Once transferred, Mr. Rooney would have been vulnerable to rumors based on his history form the other school, and would have been easy to set up for a false accusation by students with axes to grind against him because of the disciplinarian nature of his position.
   Ms. Rothman did not disclose that people who did not talk to her are not allowed to talk to her (this is where an unidentified source if appropriate to quote), and basically printed Mr. Taylor's account and opinions. For all you know, Mr. Taylor had an axe to grind because he didn't like Mr. Rooney's aggressive attitude, and did not win discussions or arguments because of his own passive nature. Rooney may indeed be guilty of molesting the Markham student (and kidnapping if anyone can prove they saw her go to his apartment), but you have presented no facts or evidence supporting any claim of statutory rape or molestation. You presented one point of view, and left out the reasons why the other sources and school authorities you contacted would not comment. You are basically greasing the path to prison — at least for your readers — for an untried, unconvicted man. And the Weekly dares to publish criticism of the Times? For shame. Another sacrificial white male gets the treatment

   Comment by LA Weekly Reader on Mar 31st, 2008, 09:08 am

3. I worked with this racist bigot and he had the nerve to make false allegations against me while we worked together at Foshay. Iam more than elated to see the tables turn on "looney Rooney"

   Comment by spin on May 14th, 2008, 23:54 pm

4. I represent three of the minors allegedly molested by Asst Principal Steven Rooney. If you have any information concerning this case and/or Rooney's transfer to Markham Middle School after LAUSD learned of the accusations, please contact me. The information you provide may be helpful to the prosecution of the minors' case. Thank you. Ricardo Antonio Perez, Esq. 626-353-9734

   Comment by Ricardo Antonio Perez, Esq. on May 29th, 2008, 22:11 pm

5. this man makes me sick of the things he has done.

   Comment by juan alvarado on Jun 23rd, 2008, 11:15 am