Welcome to the Citizen Alliance for Sexual Predator Educator Reform

An estimated five million students in United States schools have been assaulted sexually by teachers, according to a congressional report. But no one is calling for investigations or law enforcement crackdowns, there have been no campaigns to ban the offenders from schools, and in many states there aren't even any requirements such predator attacks be reported to education licensing agencies.

The Llano County Public Policy Forum is taking a pro-active stance in curbing this trend in the Llano Independent School District and the Burnet Consolidated School District which overlaps in to the northeast section of Llano County by forming the Citizen Alliance for Sexual Predator Educator Reform.

C.A.S.P.E.R.'s Mission and Goals have been adopted from S.E.S.A.M.E., a national organization of similar concern.

Mission

"To be a local voice totally committed to preventing sexual exploitation,
abuse, and harassment of students by teachers and school staff."

Goals

C.A.S.P.E.R. (Citizen Alliance for Sexual Predator Educator Reform) works as a voice for the prevention of sexual exploitation, abuse, and harassment of students by teachers and other school staff.  This local organization directs its efforts to the following goals:

The Llano County Public Policy Forum will post articles of sexually predator activities within both those school districts such as those that follow, and encourages all local citizens to report such activities to the Llano County Public Policy Forum and law enforcement agencies. Anyone interested in keeping our schools safe from sexual predator educators is welcome to join the Llano County Public Policy Forum and become active in this important endeavor.

Posted C.A.S.P.E.R. Articles and Comments

Sexual Predators among Texas Educators is Growing - Part 1 (Posted August 6, 2007)

September 1, 2003 a Texas law went into effect that made it a 2^nd Degree Felony for a teacher to have sexual relations with a student, even if the sex is consensual and the student is of legal age. Regardless of the law, educators in Texas, as well as elsewhere, have the highest incidence of sexual assaults against teenage and pre-teen students than any other profession. But regardless of this law and the prevalence of its offenders, only five Texas teachers have served any jail time under the statute making it a felony although proven incidences of such conduct abound throughout the state.

 Here’s a developing story that dramatizes the failure of law enforcement to curb the trend. It was reported to me by a reader in Sonora who has personal knowledge of the underlying facts.

 Sonora is a small town rural community in Sutton County where most everybody knows each other, if not intimately at least by reputation. The Sonora ISD’s enrollment of 1,008 is made up of predominantly Hispanic students. Its high school is the home of the Broncos and Lady Broncos and embraces the following mission “To graduate all students with the capacity to compete successfully in society by encouraging high achievements in a caring, supportive, and highly motivated environment.” Apparently, not all teachers or coaches at the high school agree.

Clayton Taylor is 37 years old, married and has two children. Before this incident came under investigation, he was a sophomore math teacher at Sonora High School. The student involved, who I’ll call Tammy, was a 17-year-old female high school student and attended the same school where Taylor taught. Their families knew one another socially. Tammy’s parents bought their house from Taylor, she was a babysitter for his children and on occasion they’d get together socially, the last time by watching the Super Bowl together with Taylor and his family at his house.

Shortly after the Super Bowl, rumors started circulating among some of Tammy’s friends concerning possible inappropriate behavior between Taylor and Tammy. To quell their concerns, Taylor stopped by Tammy’s house and spoke with her mother about this. He denied what was being talked about at school and claimed they were just rumors saying: “he would never do anything like that.”

Fortuitously, Tammy’s father stumbled across an unsigned typewritten note in Tammy’s closet that said, “Thanks for this morning, you were awesome.” Tammy’s father became concerned because of the rumors he had heard and because the note didn’t sound like something another teenager would say. He shared those concerns with his wife but they decided to give Tammy the benefit of the doubt for the time being and took no further action.

Shortly thereafter, however, another note of stronger content and handwritten was found in the home. I’ve read a summary of what the note contained. Nothing was left to the imagination. Tammy’s mother confronted Tammy about it. At first Tammy denied that such a note existed but when her mother told her she had a copy of it, Tammy admitted that she and Taylor had been seeing each other and that they had sex together. About 20 additional notes were later found substantiating the relationship.

Ironically, some of their sexual trysts were held at a vacant house owned by the school and located next door to the High School and Jr. High School Principals’ offices.

Tammy’s mother arranged for a meeting with Taylor at a nearby rodeo arena to seek collaboration of Tammy’s statements. Tammy’s father stayed home for fear of what he might do to Taylor if he met him face to face. Taylor admitted to the on-going relationship with her daughter and the mother so informed her husband.

While Tammy’s parents were deciding what action they would take, Taylor’s wife, who is also a teacher and heads up the Special Education Department for all of Sonora’s schools, appeared at Tammy’s house to inform Tammy’s parents that she knew all about the affair between Tammy and her husband having come across a note in Taylor’s pick-up truck that Tammy had written to Taylor. When confronted by his wife, Taylor admitted the relationship to her. Taylor’s wife’s concern, however, was what Tammy’s parents were going to do about it out of fear of the possible affect it may have on her two young children.

Surprisingly, Taylor’s wife told them that Taylor was a girl’s coach at Paint Rock ISD in Concho County, when she attended high school there. A rumor circulated at the time that Taylor was dating a female Paint Rock High School student. Taylor was about 27 years old when this presumably occurred. Tammy’s parents suspect the high school girl may have been Taylor’s present wife.

Upon further investigation by Tammy’s parents they found out that the affair has been going on for the past six months and was substantiated by numerous cell phone charges and notes found around the house.

Next week I’ll describe what action Tammy’s parents took, the result of the Texas Ranger’s investigation and the present status of the case. .

And remember Klee’s Law: “The death of democracy is not likely to be an assassination from ambush. It will be a slow extinction from apathy, indifference, and undernourishment.” (Robert Hutchins)

©2007 Harvey H. Klee

Sexual Predators Among Texas Educators is Growing - Part 2 (Posted August 6, 2007)

Tammy’s parents subsequently met with the High School Principal, Raul Chavarria. Chavarria told them that the School Superintendent, Doug Bawcom, had inquired as to the rumors between Taylor and Tammy and mentioned that Taylor had been calling in sick and not appearing at school.

Following this rather unproductive meeting, Tammy’s mother met with Bawcom. She told him of their concerns about their daughter and one of the school’s teachers and the conversations she had with Taylor and his wife. She also showed him copies of the notes and phone records mentioned above. Bawcom told her he would notify the police and that she could expect to be contacted by them. She never heard from Bawcom again after this meeting. It was at this time that Taylor resigned from the Sonora School District and is employed by Walsh Welding, a construction company.

 Eventually the Sonoma District Attorney’s office was informed of the incident and they, in turn, notified the Texas Rangers who started their own investigation into the matter. But things started to change. For one, Bawcom had no further communication with Tammy’s parents. The District Attorney told the parents she had tried to contact Bawcom but that he never returned her calls. When Tammy’s parents were eating at a local restaurant, Bawcom entered, noticed the two sitting together but avoided making any contact or conversation with them, whatsoever. The “bunker mentality” that most school administrators get when confronted with bad news of this nature had already began to settle in.

 Both Tammy and her mother gave the investigating Texas Ranger their separate statements. In the interim, however, Taylor called Tammy’s mother. He apologized and encouraged her to drop the investigation against him saying it was hurting his kids and family. To my knowledge, no charges of obstruction of justice have been filed against Taylor for attempting to coerce Tammy’s parents into withdrawing the complaint that had been filed against him.

A meeting later was held with the Sonora District Attorney, Laurie K. English, the Texas Ranger investigating the matter and Tammy’s parents to update them on the status of the case. They were notified that Taylor had admitted to the relationship with their daughter and had turned himself in to the authorities.

At this same meeting, the D.A. informed Tammy’s parents of a similar case in Ft. Stockton that she took to trial only to have the teacher found not guilty and let go. The D.A. was offering Taylor 5 years deferred probation in exchange for his guilty plea in the Tammy matter. When the parents objected, they were informed that the penalty aspect of the proceeding was up to Tammy, not the parents.

The parents’ attorney was not allowed to be present at this meeting. If he were, he could have informed the D.A. that when a crime has been committed, it is not up to the victim to determine if it should be prosecuted but rather, the District Attorney. Even if Tammy is reluctant to testify against Taylor, there is enough evidence available without her testimony to establish that a 2^nd Degree Felony had occurred.

The parents’ lawyer became further concerned when he learned that the daughter-in-law of one of the Assistant District Attorneys is Taylor’s wife’s sister i.e. Taylor’s sister-in-law. That relationship put her in a position to prejudice the prosecution against Taylor.

Other matters have since come to light: Taylor’s father is purportedly an ex-school superintendent, Larry Taylor, and believed to be a mentor to new superintendents in the area. Tammy’s parents have been told that, “He’s working overtime to keep this quiet.” Further, Tammy’s parents say that instead of prosecuting wayward or marginal teachers, the district allows them to resign and allow them to be hired to teach elsewhere in a different school district. Sound familiar?

What will become of Mr. Taylor remains to be seen but the problem is pervasive throughout the State of Texas. Just as some communities appear lax in enforcing laws concerning drug use and abuse (I am informed there are many known “meth” labs in Llano County, for example, that seem to operate with impunity), so it is with sexual predator educators across the state. Drugs and sex may have come to River City – but nobody seems to care. 

When it comes to taking strong action against teachers who sexually assault students, the education establishment turns a deaf ear to what is going on in their own schools. Instead, they sweep the problem under the rug hoping it will go away and allow the offenders to be hired by other school districts where they can molest children there. School administrators are able to get away with it under the claim of government immunity. If they were employed in the private sector, they’d be held responsible for what goes on in their organizations and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

The Texas Education Agency is useless in attempting to weed out offending educators as are the sundry educational-related organizations that exist throughout the state. Our children and their parents, as well as the taxpayers in general, deserve better.

I’ll keep you posted as further information become available.

And remember Klee’s Law: “A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion deep.” (Saul Bellow)

©2007 Harvey H. Klee

CORRECTION: The vacant house they were using is not by the High School and Jr. High School Principals’ offices as reported in "Sexual Predators Among Texas Educators is Growing – Part 1." The vacant house is located between their residences. The school owns these 3 houses in a residential area and the house they used is in the middle of their houses.

Friday Night Lights – Out! (July 31, 2006)

Former Burnet High School Coach Sued for Sexual Assault upon a Minor

It wasn’t one of Foy Campbell Jr.’s most sterling moments, although he had several of them in his illustrious career. As a football coach in the local school district he was a hero on campus, admired and looked up to by his colleagues and students alike. High moral standards were expected of him both on and off the field. After all, he was the coach. Not just any coach but one of the football coaches of the Burnet Bulldogs – one of the most successful teams in the conference from Central Texas. It was 2003 and once again they found themselves in the playoffs heading for the state finals as they had the year before.

Campbell had more to celebrate that Tuesday night than just a winning season. He was engaged to Rikkie Love, a teacher at Burnet High School, and was soon to be married. His friends cooked up a bachelor party for Coach Campbell, sort of a last fling at the single life before exchanging marriage vows of lifelong fidelity. According to court documents, around 10:00 p.m. as Campbell was driving under the influence of alcohol on highway 29, he spied a couple of girls from Burnet High School driving down the same highway. He signaled them to pull over in an uninhabited and unlit area. What follows is abstracted from a sworn complaint filed July 25, 2006 in the United States District Court, Western District of Texas, Austin Division.

Once they had pulled over, Campbell invited the two girls to take a drive in his new truck. Campbell said he would let Veronica, the 18 year-old and driver, to drive his truck. However, he coerced the female passenger, 16 year-old Paige, into his truck by saying she could either wait by the side of the highway in this dark and deserted area until they came back or go with them. Paige didn’t have a driver’s license or even a learner’s permit and was unable to drive home by herself. Besides, Veronica was Paige’s cousin and older; she felt reasonably safe in getting into the truck.

Once inside the truck, however, Campbell forced Paige to perform fellatio on him in spite of her spoken refusals and pushing him away. Campbell was older and stronger than Paige and held a position of authority over her as a coach at the High School. She conceded, thinking it the only way she would be able to get home. Campbell’s conduct is bad enough but what followed, in my opinion, borders on criminal irresponsibility by the school district and several of its employees.

Paige’s aunt notified Nick Prewitt, Assistant Principal of Burnet High School, as to what had happened to her niece. Alleged in the sworn complaint filed in this matter, he stated, “This should be kept quiet because we (are) in the playoffs and this could hit the news media and not be good for Paige or the school.”

Two days later, Paige and her mother appeared at a meeting called by school officials. Jeffery Hanks, Superintendent of the  Burnet Consolidated Independent School District; Ed Middlebrooks, Assistant Superintendent of the BCISD; Craig Spinn, Principal of Burnet High School; and Prewitt were present. These four school representatives were all males. The female school counselor, who called Paige’s mother encouraging her to call Principal Spinn, did not attend the meeting. In fact, no victim’s advocate, nurse, or anyone familiar with assisting child victims of sexual assault attended the meeting which lasted over an hour and twenty minutes.

Following the meeting, Principal Spinn told Paige’s mother that Child Protective Services would be notified and would contact her about the incident as per school policy. Paige’s mother asked the school to provide counseling for her daughter. Child Protective Services, however, has never contacted Paige nor did the school arrange counseling for her.

Aggravating the situation further, Spinn told Paige’s mother that he was aware Campbell had engaged in sexual relations with a student in the Lampasas school district during his prior employment in that district and that it had been “swept under the carpet” when Burnet High School hired him. As it turned out, Campbell had engaged in multiple instances of sexual misconduct with Lampasas students in 2001, yet he was hired by BCISD.

Matters didn’t come to a halt following this high level meeting with school administrators; Paige was assigned to a class taught by Rikki Love, who by then had married Campbell. Paige immediately got leave from another teacher to go to the office to get her class assignment changed. She didn’t want to be in a class taught by the wife of the man who sexually assaulted her. In the hallway, Paige was approached by teacher Denise Love, Rikki’s mother and now Campbell’s mother-in-law, who called Paige a “slut.” Both Rikki and Denise were later overheard talking about Paige, calling her a liar and stating that they “didn’t care who heard them” talking. The harassment continued.  Paige was assigned to take classes from teacher Frank Love, Campbell’s father-in law. The school refused Paige’s mother’s request that she be reassigned.

Criminal charges were brought against Campbell to which he pled guilty but only after the charges were reduced to that of a Class “A” misdemeanor. He was placed on 30 days probation, fined $1,000 and $198 in court costs. This is the extent of the penalty paid by Campbell for sexually assaulting a 16 year-old child even though the prosecuting attorney submitted evidence of "Multiple instances of sexual misconduct, inappropriate sexual behavior and improper relationship between and educator and" two students in Lampasas County, Texas, where Campbell was previously employed.

No penalty has been paid by the Burnet Consolidated Independent School District, its administrators or teachers, however; although they knew or should have known of Campbell’s propensities before he was hired. It appears they chose to blame the victim after Campbell’s assault against Paige became known. The District along with the administrators and teachers mentioned herein, and of course Campbell, are all named defendants in the lawsuit.

Employment at BCISD seems to be a family affair and perhaps explains why the teachers and administration take on a bunker mentality when any of their own comes under attack.  Football may rule in Texas but it shouldn’t trump the welfare of our children.

©2006 Harvey H. Klee

[NOTE: The northeast section of Llano County lies within the Burnet Consolidated ISD therefore this matter affects Llano residents. ]

Did The DA’s Office Dropped the Ball in the Baggett Case? (October 23, 2006)

On July 25, 2006 Paige Eileen Baggett filed suit against the Burnet Consolidated Independent School District, certain school administrators, teachers and a male coach previously employed by the district, due to an alleged sexual assault committed against plaintiff Baggett on or about September 30, 2003. [NOTE: although the Civil Complaint states the incident occurred on this date, the criminal complaint filed earlier alleges the date of offense as September 30, 2004] The background facts, as based on the sworn Complaint filed in this matter, are described in detail in the article “Friday Night Lights – Out!” posted on the “Llano ISD” section of this web site. Aside from the specific offense against Baggett, there are two aspects of this case that deserve attention: The school district’s culpability in this matter and the criminal prosecution of Coach Campbell.

Criminal charges were brought against Coach Foy Leighton Campbell in the 33^rd District Court of Burnet County, Texas under Article 22.04, Section (a) (3) of the Texas Penal Code, Injury to a Child, a Class A misdemeanor.  

Based on the sworn allegations set forth in the Civil Complaint, however, Campbell’s conduct would constitute a First Degree Felony as an Aggravated Sexual Assault, not a Class A misdemeanor. A person commits an offense under Section 22.04 “if he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence…causes to a child…bodily injury.” “Child” is defined under this section as “a person 14 years of age or younger.” Baggett was 15 years old at the time of the offense and there is no evidence of her suffering bodily injury. In other words, the offense as charged simply does not fit the facts. On the other hand, one who commits the kind of act of which Campbell was accused, regardless of the age of the victim, commits a Felony in the First degree under Section 22.021 of the Penal Code i.e. Aggravated Sexual Assault.

Should felony charges have been brought against Campbell, he still may have been given a non-felony or misdemeanor sentence.  Under Section 12.44 (a) of the Penal Code, “A court may punish a defendant who is convicted of a state jail felony by imposing the confinement permissible as punishment for a Class A misdemeanor if, after considering the gravity and circumstances of the felony committed and the history, character, and rehabilitative needs of the defendant, the court finds that such punishment would best serve the ends of justice.” As worded, this section applies to one “who is convicted of a state jail felony” i.e. in order to apply Class A misdemeanor punishment under this section one need first be convicted of a felony.

Campbell may have initially been charged under Penal Code 22.021, a felony, and later plea bargained it down to a Class A misdemeanor since if convicted under Section 22.021 he still stood the chance of having a lighter Class A misdemeanor sentence imposed. By plea bargaining it down to a Class A misdemeanor he automatically would be subject to Class A punishment. In addition, the reclassification would not only lighten Campbell’s potential sentence, it would also avoid his having to register as a sex offender. 

The case was heard before Judge Doug Shaver on May 16, 2005. Eddie Shell represented Coach Campbell. Cheryl Nelson represented the District Attorney’s office on behalf of the State of Texas. The maximum punishment Campbell was facing, including enhancements, if any, was a $4,000 fine and/or one year in jail. Before the final decision on the case, ADA Nelson filed a Supplemental Notice of Extraneous Offenses with the Court. In it, Nelson advised the Court of prior Crimes and Bad Acts of defendant Campbell: Multiple instances of sexual misconduct, inappropriate sexual behavior and improper relationship between an educator and a student on or about June 1, 2001 with two students in Lampasas County, Texas, where Campbell was previously employed. Arguably, the Burnet Consolidated Independent School District knew or should have known of these prior “Crimes and Bad Acts” of Coach Campbell before he was ever hired and once known, should not have hired him. More about this in another article.

In spite of the charges Campbell was facing with respect to Baggett and the prior sexual offenses against two Lampasas students in which he was involved, the Court only found Campbell guilty of the offense “Injury to a Child,” a Class A misdemeanor. The plea agreement also provided the placement of Campbell on 30 days probation and he was to have no contact with the victim (Baggett) or her family.

It’s possible that Judge Shaver may have felt obliged to honor the plea bargain agreement entered into between the parties but the court is always free to disavow a plea agreement in the interest of justice. But even with a Class A misdemeanor conviction, Campbell was facing up to one year in jail and a $4,000 fine. Judge Shaver could have imposed the maximum sentence but that didn’t happen. The sentence imposed was thirty days in the county jail – probated i.e. suspended, and Campbell was placed on community supervision for 30 days instead. He was given a $1,000 fine and was required to pay court costs amounting to $198!  

There you have it. An educator who appears to have a pattern and practice of sexually abusing teenage students finally gets caught and is only penalized $1,198, given a 30-day community supervised sentence and is prohibited from having any contact with the victim or her family. Why Campbell wasn’t prosecuted for Aggravated Sexual Assault involving a minor remains a mystery. Why he was given the lightest of sentences imaginable is beyond comprehension. What kind of message does the Campbell case send to those who are in a like relationship with teenage students who may be inclined to commit the same or similar offense?

And remember Klee’s Law: “”Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.” (Abraham Lincoln)

©2006 Harvey H. Klee

The Burnet CISD and the Baggett Case (October 30, 2006)

Sexual assaults between teachers, school administrators and students are becoming endemic. According to a major study by the U.S. Department of Education – by far the most in-depth investigation to date – millions of children might be victims of sexual misconduct by teachers or other public school employees. In fact, says the study’s author, Charol Shakeshaft, professor of educational administration at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York, the figures suggest “the physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests.”

The problem is just as much local as national. Recently a former Llano High School teacher and native Llanoite was arrested on two charges of sexual assault of a child. Ex-coach Foy Leighton Campbell of the Burnet CISD was convicted of “Injury to a Child” for having sexually assaulted a 15 year-old female student at Burnet High School in 2004. He, and others, is currently facing civil action. School districts are prone to cover their tracks quickly when allegations of sexual misconduct between teachers and students arise. The local media also is loath to report such instances in a misguided attempt to remain on good terms with the local school districts and protect their image. Accordingly, it is impossible to get a good handle on how prevalent the problem is locally. If national instances are any indication, however, the occurrences are frequent, as the above-referenced study suggests.

What are the local school districts doing about it? Apparently very little. Campbell was employed by the Lampasas ISD before being hired by the Burnet school district as a football coach. While at Lampasas, according to the 33^rd District Attorney’s Office, Campbell was involved in “multiple instances of sexual misconduct, inappropriate sexual behavior and improper relationship between an educator and a student on or about June 1, 2001 with two students in Lampasas County, Texas,” The Burnet CISD either knew or should have known of these prior “Crimes and Bad Acts” before Campbell was hired and once known, should not have hired him. That’s why background checks are conducted: to weed out the incompetent or undesirable. As later explained, according to one of the allegations in the Complaint, the Burnet CISD did in fact know of Campbell’s prior sexual relations with at least one student while employed at Lampasas ISD.

Finding out whether or not a back ground check was in fact conducted on Campbell and, if so, what were the findings is harder than pulling teeth. The entire system of government-run education hides behind a cloak of secrecy when it comes to such matters and hide behind a claim of “immunity!” when they fail in their responsibility to protect our children.

It appears that Campbell’s propensities were known beforehand but the district hired him anyway. I base this in part on the indifference expressed by the Assistant High School Principal when the Plaintiff’s aunt apprised him of what had occurred, as alleged in Plaintiff’s sworn Complaint: “On or about November 19, 2003, Co-Defendant Rick Prewitt, assistant high school principal, was made aware of the incident against the Plaintiff by Plaintiff’s aunt. He stated to Plaintiff’s aunt that ‘this should be kept quiet because we [are] in the playoffs and this could hit the news media, and would not be good for Paige (plaintiff) or the school.’”

The Complaint, however, goes further. It states that Craig Spinn, High School Principal, told the Plaintiff’s mother that “he was aware that co-defendant Foy Campbell had engaged in sexual relations with a student at Lampasas during his employment by the school system in Lampasas, and that it had been ‘swept under the carpet’ when Burnet High School hired him.”

Based upon these allegations, more concern was placed on the success of the BCISD’s football team and later, the school’s reputation, than on the welfare of a 15 year-old female student who was violated by one of their coaches or the welfare of other similarly situated female students in the future.

As if throwing salt into an open wound, school officials advised the Plaintiff’s mother that Child Protective Services would be contacted as a matter of school policy and that the school would provide counseling for her daughter, according to the Complaint. Almost three years later, however, Child Welfare Services has yet to contact the Plaintiff, making one wonder if they were not notified in the first place, nor has counseling been set up by the high school. At this point counseling would be a mute issue other than to reflect on the school’s bad faith and insensitivity.

I earlier alluded to government-run schools having a “bunker mentality” when their practices or procedures come under attack. A good example is the recent case of the Lake Travis ISD suing a student’s parents because they had exercised their rights under the Texas Open Records Act. The district is claiming the requests were excessive while the parents claim they have a lawful right to the information requested. Apparently the district, not unlike most government agencies, doesn’t like it when too much power is given to the people to investigate the goings on by government officials.

Incidentally, Jennifer Riggs is the attorney representing the parents in that case. Riggs also was recently successful in getting a federal court to strike down part of the Austin smoking ban and is the attorney representing Marian C. Bloss in her case against Ron Moore, Llano County Administrator for the Department of Natural Resources.

©2006 Harvey H. Klee

Are School Districts a Haven for Sexual Predators? (December 18, 2006)

On or about November 27, 2006 a call was made to the Burnet Police Department from the Burnet Consolidated Independent School District concerning a female teacher’s aid and her sexual involvement with a 17 year-old male high school student. That much was confirmed by local authorities. No further information was given because the matter was purportedly under investigation.

My sources, however, told me a student had seen the employee taken into custody, handcuffed and removed from campus. Ironically, the police investigation has been stalled because the notifying party, the Burnet CISD, has of this date not filed a formal complaint and neither the teacher’s aid nor the student will talk to police authorities, both having hired lawyers. Both the teacher’s aid and student we’re interviewed by school officials, however, the matter still goes officially as “unreported.” 

Earlier this year the wife of Burnet Middle School Principal, Richard “Rick” Elsasser, was indicted for having sexual relations with an 18 year-old male student. The accused, Danya Jean Elsasser, was reportedly a teacher at R.J. Ritchi Elementary School and long-distance track coach for the District at the time. She was later indicted for the crime.

It was reported in one local paper that her alleged crime, “inappropriate conduct between an educator and a student” was known by district officials but never reported until Jeff Hanks, District Superintendent, was confronted by law enforcement officials. Prior to that, no report of the incident had been made by the school district as required under the Texas Administration Code. It was further reported that investigators were told by teachers that, “A message was sent from the administration asking school employees not to talk about the incident.” Apparently fearing repercussions if they talked, the teachers complied until confronted by police investigators.

At a hearing on December 14, 2007, Elsasser had her case continued.  The matter is now expected to go back to the grand jury sometime in January of next year.

Ex-coach Foy Leighton Campbell who was employed by the Burnet CISD was convicted of “Injury to a Child” for having sexually assaulted a 15 year-old female student at Burnet High School in 2004 is now the subject of a civil lawsuit. [Read the full story in my article, “Friday Night – Lights Out!”]

Again earlier this year, a former Llano High School teacher and native Llanoite was arrested on two charges of sexual assault of a child. Trial in that matter is also pending.

These cases have one thing in common: school districts tend to stone-wall the issue, sometimes even to the extent of outwardly denying that such incidents had occurred in face of contrary evidence.

Government-run schools are the sacred cow of “public education” and anything that might reflect badly upon them is hushed up by the powers that be i.e. principally the school districts - Burnet CISD’s refusal to file a formal complaint in the Elsasser and teacher’s aid incidents are just two examples.

As I indicated in my article, “The Burnet CISD and the Baggett Case” (posted October 30, 2006), sexual assaults involving teachers, school administrators and students are becoming pandemic. According to a major study by the U.S. Department of Education – by far the most in-depth investigation to date – millions of children might be victims of sexual misconduct by teachers or other public school employees. In fact, says the study’s author, Charol Shakeshaft, professor of educational administration at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York, the figures suggest “the physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests.”

Protecting the image of government-run schools takes precedence over protecting our children – and that’s the dirty secret local school officials are trying to hide. The story of ex-coach Campbell, the Burnet CISD and members of its administration being sued, for example, would probably never have been published but for my submitting the information to The River Cities Tribune in advance of my posting the story on this web site. No one in the media as of this date has picked up on the Teacher’s Aid story and incidences of inappropriate sexual conduct between educator and student are seldom, if ever, followed up, the Burnet Middle School teacher’s case being an exception.

The problem with the middle school teacher and teacher’s aid cases is with the school district failing to file formal complaints against the errant employees so that the authorities can investigate the matter officially. The school districts are mandated by statute to report these incidents but are more prone to cover them up.

The schools have been hiding behind a cloak of immunity for so long that they feel they can get away with anything, no matter how offensive it might be. A perfect example was when two teachers employed by the Llano ISD were found to have violated certain sections of the Texas Election Code. Those involved were, in essence, unlawfully electioneering in favor of school board candidates favorable to the same school superintendent who took no action to discipline them after they were found guilty.

Or in the Campbell case, the Burnet CISD should never have hired Campbell when his prior proclivity for sexual misconduct with students was well known to the authorities? His involvement in “multiple instances of sexual misconduct, inappropriate sexual behavior and improper relationship” with two students in the Lampasas School District was a matter of record.

Paradoxically, the Burnet CISD recently hosted a town hall meeting to educate parents on the potential dangers of Internet use by children – with emphasis on protecting children against sexual predators. The Burnet CISD might well start with cleaning its own house by reviewing its hiring practices, conducting extensive background checks, and promptly prosecuting sexual predators among its own ranks.   

Lord only knows what goes on behind closed doors in executive sessions or how many teachers or staff members may be involved in sexual indiscretions that we’re only now beginning to learn about. Parents need to know the extent of the problem and what is being done about it, if anything.

A simple downplaying of the issue isn’t going to satisfy any parent in light of the tendency of administrators, teachers and school boards to cover up what might be embarrassing to the school district. It’s incongruous that school districts should go to great lengths to assure a “drug-free” school environment but take little or no action to assure that our local schools are free of sexual predators.

©2006 Harvey H. Klee

[Update: “Teacher Aid” later identified as student teacher, 24 years-old. The 17 year-old male student’s mother is purportedly a teacher for the district. Craig Spinn Burnet High School Principal) reported the information to the Burnet PD as “information only” i.e. a drop slip. It was assigned Case No. 20060441]

Baggett v Burnet CISD, el alia – An Update (December 11, 2006)

Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the case against them in Baggett v Burnet CISD, et alia on August 15 of this year. One reporter with a local newspaper asked the attorney representing Baggett what she was going to do now that she lost the case. Apparently this reporter believed that filing a Motion to Dismiss automatically dismisses the action and the case is over.

To those of us who live on this side of reality, that’s not the way it works. A Motion to Dismiss is a request made by a party to a Complaint for the court to consider dismissing the Complaint against them based on material facts and law. Sometimes the Motion is for a dismissal as to only certain portions of the Complaint. But in either case, it’s up to the court to decide, not the party filing the motion. Put another way, it’s not over until the fat lady sings i.e. the court rules on the Motion..

The court has sung regarding Defendants Motion to Dismiss:

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss was directed against Plaintiff’s original Complaint. Subsequent to its filing, the original Complaint was amended and filed October 24, 2006. Defendant’s Motion therefore was denied as being moot since the First Amended Complaint had the legal effect of superseding the original Complaint. Defendants are free to bring a new Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint at a later date should they choose to do so.

In addition, Defendants Jeffrey M. Hanks, Craig Spinn, Ed Middlebrooks and Rick Prewitt were removed as parties to the action and identified in the First Amended Complaint as agents acting on behalf of the Burnet CISD i.e. they’re off the hook. The named defendants now are the Burnet CISD, Denise Love, Frank Love, Rikki Love Campbell, Robin Castillo and Foy Leighton Campbell, Jr.

Plaintiff [Baggett] was granted additional time for discovery. The parties were directed to submit a proposed scheduling order and an Initial Pretrial Conference will be set by the court at a later date. 

©2006 Harvey H. Klee

Parent Responds to “Sexual Predators in Our Schools” Article (January 8, 2007)

Your article about child predators in our schools is very disturbing to me, to say the least, and should be more disturbing to all of our citizens.  I know that there are a lot of "bad" people out there, but to have them so close to our children and grandchildren makes me sick.  Our kids are our future.  When people in such "respected" positions are NOT respectable and can't control their twisted cravings, it ruins these young people for life. 

I home-schooled my son and more and more people are doing it all the time.  Although my son came through fine, he didn't have the fellowship and interactions with classmates.  It's too bad that ADULTS who are supposed to be encouraging our kids to want a good education are actually making it impossible for them to enjoy school..

If things don't change in our system and the administration doesn't handle these the problems the way they should, there may be vigilantism rising.  Predators, before you think about harming our children, watch your back!  There are some people who won't put up with this behavior.

Thanks for letting me vent.

Neva Burfiend

Buchanan Dam

Ye Shall Know Them by Their Fruits (February 12, 2007)

That’s Biblical for “actions speak louder than words.” Many profess concern about sexual predator educators in our schools but few actually care enough to do anything about it. No, I take that back. Many encourage the practice by their refusal or failure to take corrective measures – and that includes school officials, law enforcement, district attorneys, local media and the community-at-large. Take the recent case involving a sexual tryst between a student teacher and student at the Burnet Consolidated Independent School District reported on earlier. See: “Are School Districts a Haven for Sexual Predators?” 12/18/2006.

According to a Burnet Police Department report dated November 27, 2006 written by Tobie Bias, Officer Bias was advised by Captain Nelson at approximately 3:50 p.m. of a report of an inappropriate relationship between a student and a student teacher at Burnet High School. Officer Bias, Captain Nelson and Officer Hartgrove met with the school Principal, Craig Spinn, who had originally notified the police of the situation.

According to Principal Spinn, he was approached by Deidre Stewart, a teacher at the high school of theater arts. She stated to Spinn that her student teacher, Meagan Kinkaid, had confided in her that she had been having an inappropriate relationship with a student (identified to me as a male student of 17 years of age and the son of another teacher at the high school). Stewart went on to state that Kincaid had said she and the student had engaged in sexual intercourse.

Apparently this revelation occurred when Stewart had taken Kincaid to get an oil change on her vehicle and observed that she was getting many text messengers. When asked who she was text messaging, she named the student. Further into the conversation, Kincaid stated that the previous Monday night was the first time the two had “sober sex.” A written statement of the incident was completed by Stewart and filed with the police. Stewart should be commended for her actions.

Spinn spoke with several students about the incident and determined that the relationship was a common rumor around the school. Several students stated that there was a party attended by both Kincaid and the student involved at which the couple was intoxicated and flirting.

Both Kincaid and the student, who are represented by counsel, denied the allegations. I understand that Kincaid recanted her earlier statements to Stewart. However, Spinn named three individuals who may have personal knowledge about their relationship in addition to Stewart. Based upon Spinn’s investigation of the matter, Kincaid was dismissed from employment and told she was no longer approved to be at the school.

It was reported to me that one of the Burnet Police Officers made the remark: “I don’t know what all the fuss is about. They were consenting adults.” Now one would think that the police are supposed to enforce the law and not serve as a super legislature in deciding what laws to enforce and what laws not to enforce. Whether this particular police officer believes in the law is irrelevant, he’s sworn to uphold it – personal feelings not withstanding.

Section 21.12 (a) and (b) of the Texas Penal Code, Improper Relationship Between Educator and Student, provides in pertinent part:

(a)   An employee of a public…primary or secondary school commits an offense if the employee engages in sexual contact, sexual intercourse…with a person who is enrolled in a public primary or secondary school at which the employee works and who is not the employee’s spouse.

(b)  An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree.

 In light of this felony statute and the circumstances described above, one would think a Grand Jury indictment would be forthcoming but then you don’t understand the local culture. In fact, the case was treated by the police as “unfounded” and “closed!”

Although Spinn did investigate the matter and decided to terminate Kincaid’s employment, to my knowledge no report has been made to the Texas Education Agency. Without a central state agency being made aware of this incident, Kincaid would be able to find employment in another school district without them being any the wiser as to her background.

The police dropped the ball. Clearly there was enough circumstantial evidence to warrant an arrest e.g. statements against interest made by Kincaid, teacher and student witnesses, Kincaid’s reputation on campus, etc. The police have a law to enforce but they failed to enforce it, perhaps because they didn’t believe in the law. The fact that the parties were represented by legal counsel and refused to talk to investigative officers is immaterial. Most individuals facing criminal charges and represented by counsel don’t talk to the police yet charges are filed and prosecution follows.

 The district attorney’s office should convene a grand jury and seek indictment of Kincaid on felony charges but they haven’t and it’s unlikely they will. In the case against Campbell, the high school coach who engaged in unlawful sexual conduct with a 15 year-old, Campbell was let off with a slap on the wrist. Rumor has it that the Burnet school principal’s wife and teacher now facing charges of inappropriate sexual conduct with a student will again go before a grand jury to be indicted on a lesser charge. In other words, there is no aggressive prosecution of these cases.

The local media has failed to report on these cases, as if to protect the reputations of the schools involved. Unfortunately, the same consideration isn’t being given to protecting our children against sexual predator educators. As one publicist told me as to his publication policy: “We want the community to feel good about itself,” instead of reporting the news as it occurs. The community and parents in particular, need to know that sexual predator educators are lurking within our schools.

As for the community-at-large, they seem to be too engrossed in getting more pay for teachers and more bond money for the schools to give a damn about the welfare of our children. For example, a new local organization has been created to combat the issue of sexual predator educators in the Llano and Burnet school districts called Citizens Alliance for Sexual Predator Educator Reform (C.A.S.P.E.R.) yet not one individual has joined the Llano County Public Policy Forum since the announcement of this organization and get involved in such a worthwhile cause.

©2007 Harvey H. Klee

Update on the Baggett Case (Posted July 12, 2007)

Seldom is there any local media coverage of law suits filed the local school districts. Much less are such cases followed-up as to their current status. Accordingly, Klee’s Kaleidoscope tries to fill the gap of unreported school district news. See, Friday Night Lights – Out! (July 29, 2006); The Burnet CISD and the Baggett Case (October 30, 2006); Baggett v Burnet CISD, ET alia – An Update, (December 11, 2006). This is the latest on the status of that case.

Litigation tends to be a slow process. Much of the time is taken up with discovery and, as often is the case, results in new evidence being discovered and original complaints being amended. The Baggett case is no exception. The attorney for Paige Baggett has filed her Third Amended Complaint in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas April 30, 2007. Additional claims have been added as new facts came to light. The amended complaint’s factual allegations are set forth below. Realize, however, the plaintiff has the burden of proving her allegations in court. Until then they remain simply that, allegations.

On or about September 30, 2003, and despite her initial refusals, Plaintiff Paige Baggett was coerced into entering Foy Campbell’s truck with her cousin, Veronica Matlock, an eighteen-year old female who wanted to drive Campbell’s truck. Campbell, a coach at Burnet High School, had pulled up beside them in his vehicle around 10:00 PM, after attending his own bachelor party for his impending wedding to Ricki Love, also a teacher at Burnet High School. They subsequently stopped with him on an uninhabited and unlit turnoff area of state highway 29, where Paige was given the choice of either going for a ride in Foy Campbell’s new truck, with her cousin driving, or waiting alone by the side of the road for her cousin to come back. Paige was sixteen years old and had neither a driver’s license nor a learner’s permit at the time.

During the subsequent ride in his truck, Campbell forced Paige into performing fellatio upon him. Campbell was also under the influence of alcohol. Despite her refusals again, as well as the action of pushing him away while riding as a passenger in his truck, Paige eventually conceded to Campbell’s show of anger and his demands that she perform oral sex upon him, in order that he let her go.

The record reflects that Campbell later testified before a grand jury regarding this incident and was formerly indicted by the Grand Jury. He entered into a plea agreement and subsequently formerly plead guilty to the criminal charge of “injury to a child” in the 33^rd District Court of Burnet County, Texas.

Rick Prewitt, BCISD Assistant High School Principal, was made aware of the sexual assault against Paige by Paige’s aunt, Terry Matlock. Prewitt stated to Paige’s aunt that “this should be kept quiet because we (are) in the playoffs and this could hit the news media and would not be good for Paige or the school.”

Two days later, Craig Spinn, Principal of Burnet High School, and a female school counselor, Margaret Sullivan, initially questioned Paige with her mother present but Paige was too embarrassed and ashamed to admit the assault took place.

After confiding to her mother later that the incident had happened, however, Paige was called in to Burnet High School and interviewed by four male administrators: Craig Spinn, Jeffrey Hanks, BCISD Superintendent, Ed Middlebrooks, BCISD Assistant Superintendent and Rick Prewitt. The administration did not ask School Counselor Sullivan to attend this second interview although she might have had some training in dealing with victims of sexual assault. They questioned Paige for over an hour and one half without anyone but her mother present on her behalf.

Spinn told Paige’s mother that according to school policy, Child Protective Services would be contacted about the matter but as of the date of the meeting, neither Paige nor her mother had been contacted by them nor was Paige contacted by local law enforcement or the investigative arm of the Texas Education Agency. Paige’s mother had requested counseling for her daughter but to no avail.

A third interview had been arranged by the school whereat they asked Paige to identify her attacker from a group of photos, which she did. Subsequently, Spinn told Paige and her mother that he was aware that Campbell had engaged in sexual relations with a student at Lampasas during his employment by the school system there and it had been “swept under the carpet” when Burnet hired him. In fact, Campbell had engaged in multiple instances of sexual conduct with Lampasas students yet despite this, he was hired by BCISD Athletic Director, Bob Shipley.

Rickie Love Campbell, a teacher at Burnet High School who later married Campbell, and her mother, Denise Love, Athletic Department secretary and Campbell’s mother-in-law, were overheard discussing Paige on school grounds, calling her a ”liar” and stating that they “didn’t care who heard” them. Paige’s mother complained to Principal Spinn who issued a letter to Riki Love Campbell but it was not identified as a reprimand.

Later, Paige was placed in a high school class co-taught by Riki Love Campbell. She obtained a pass from another teacher to go to the office to have her class changed. In the school hallway she met Denise Love who called Plaintiff a “slut.” Despite an immediate complaint, Denise Love was not reprimanded for her conduct.

Previously, Paige had been assigned to take classes during a winter break from Frank Love, a teacher at Burnet High School and Campbell’s father-in-law. Paige’s schedule was subsequently changed but only after the break had concluded and following Paige’s mother’s complaint.

As further alleged in the amended complaint, Paige had a great deal of difficulty in school due to student and teacher gossip, cold treatment by other teachers, hostile treatment by those teachers related to Campbell, and the apparent indifferent treatment by four male school administrators who questioned her unnecessarily and extensively in a prurient manner and then dismissed her trauma as untrue, inconsequential and not deserving of their time or attention.

The allegations in Paige’s Third Amended Complaint continue for several pages and do not paint a flattering picture of the Burnet Consolidated School District. They include, inter alia, Paige and her mother’s arrest for truancy (Paige had been ill), the wrongful publication of a private letter Paige had written to her then fiancée, a smear campaign brought by Riki Love Campbell against Paige to discredit her, etc. Such conduct against an under-aged victim of a sexual assault is disgraceful.

Whether the matter will ever come to trial is an open question. However, any significant development in the case will be posted  on the Llano County Public Policy Forum web site.

©2007 Harvey H. Klee