<p>And here’s the rest of the article:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[L</a>. Merion spying case figure: I did not snoop on kids | Philadelphia Inquirer | 02/24/2010](<a href=“http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/85207407.html]L”>http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/85207407.html)</p>
<p>
Whether or not they ‘disciplined’ him or not is irrelevant. The issue in question is the district answering to charges of conducting an illegal covert surveillance operation. </p>
<p>
Irrelevant. Whether they did it once or 100 times they still did it and that’s all that matters. </p>
<p>
I agree some have rushed to judgment on Mr. Perbix’s character; however, comments made about his own comments made in public are spot on. He’s clearly very passionate about his work; however, it also appears that that passion may have clouded his judgement in regards to what’s right and wrong. Regardless of motive, illegal bugging and spying is still illegal bugging and spying. </p>
<p>
Nobody expects or claims that he’s a tech expert but he, and the board, are in charge. The buck has to stop somewhere. </p>
<p>
Of course there are people on both sides of the issue, but that’s irrelevant to the case. If someone’s rights were violated but they don’t care their rights were still violated.</p>
<p>Also, as others have called you out on, you’ve consistently questioned the motives of the family. The motives of the family are irrelevant. With the facts that have come out it’s clear their claims are far from frivolous.</p>
<p>Also, secret internal documents just released by the courts paint a rather un-flattering picture of the district administration. </p>
<p>In their own internal documents on district matters they come right out with an attitude that says: we know what we’re doing is illegal, but the only way someone could stop us is if they sue us… and it’s unlikely someone would put up the effort to do so, so let’s just move ahead with our plans. </p>
<p>We’ll, the Plaintiffs in this case clearly understood how the district behaves and clearly knew that if they wanted to defend their rights they’re going to have to play hardball.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am sorry that my interest in preserving my 4th amendment rights is seen as sanctimonious witch-hunting.</p>
<p>Maybe I can refer you back to a famous quote by Justice Brandeis:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Let’s back up a step: the father went to the school, met personally with the AP and instead of retreating from the webcam policy, the AP ratified its use. (At least so alleges the plaintiffs, and this is supported by LMSD’s PR releases to date.)</p>
<p>How is this a “gotcha” lawsuit? Should the family have instead – after personally meeting with the AP to object – given LMSD enough advance notice of suit so LMSD could clean its records of all evidence and create cover stories?</p>
<p>The AP denied two things but didn’t deny that she had brought up the issue of the photographs of him in his home. She got around privacy issues by using global terms (I have never …), instead of referring to the particular student. She could have also stated that she has never brought up disciplinary actions based on webcam photos of students in their homes. I’m not surprised that she didn’t take any questions.</p>
<p>
Right. This is a nicely spun statement, whether her hands were shaking or not. The allegation is that she showed the student a photo that was taken by the laptop webcam, and that she suggested that it showed him doing something unlawful. She doesn’t deny that. I think it’s always more enlightening to observe what people in this kind of situation don’t say than what they actually do say.</p>
<p>The AP’s statement was clearly carefully crafted to avoid actually addressing the allegations made. She never denies being in possession of a photograph of the student in his home nor did she deny using that photograph to confront the student. </p>
<p>That fits with the district’s own careful choice of words when it said she was trying to “be supportive” and then goes on to say it never disciplined anyone. </p>
<p>The charges made against the officials are not that they disciplined the student but that they had a photograph of him that was obtained covertly in a manner that violates the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution. </p>
<p>From the PR/Legal standpoint she essentially pulled the old trick of ‘go out there and deny that you did something you were never accused of doing.’ </p>
<p>That said, I can understand she is clearly under a lot of stress–but that doesn’t change the case.</p>
<p>Interesting contrast to the kid doing his interview. He didn’t have a prepared statement - at least in the video of him that I watched - he just answered questions from the interviewer. Same with his sister. I think that they interviewed the mother too but I didn’t see that video segment.</p>
<p>Who has more to hide?</p>
<p>I think she is well represented: create a public image as a sympathetic figure and leave the question hanging: exactly who did authorize this spycamming (making it clear that it wasn’t her). She and her attorney get that LMSD is not her friend.</p>
<p>The catch the knife game within LMSD has just gone public …</p>
<p>Was “her attorney” different than the school’s attorney? (sorry haven’t had time to check that out)</p>
<p>If so, it will be very interesting to see how many other district officials start “lawyering up”</p>
<p>At this point Matsko is not allowed to say more than this, which is why she couldn’t take questions. At any rate, nothing new revealed here. I don’t think there is any real question at this point as to whether a photo (or photos) were taken or that the AP discussed them in some way with the student. The secondary issue (the primary one, the existence of the tracking device, is undisputed) is whether there was some kind of mastermind plan to “catch” this student in the act of doing something illegal. The question is also (goes to plaintiff’s damage claims) whether or not the information was ever used as a basis for discipline. Matsko is giving denials on all those counts.</p>
<p>Rocket, he’s a different attorney, and I give him high marks so far.</p>
<p>BTW, with grand jury subpoenas in play and an admin that will CYA, they all SHOULD lawyer up.</p>
<p>What a nightmare.</p>
<p>To be a working stiff making $x a year and have to shell out about $500 an hour for a lawyer - a good way to go bankrupt fast.</p>
<p>Dadinator, I do have sympathy for that, it is a tough spot. </p>
<p>The best course here is for LMSD to respond with a quick and clean report on ALL the facts, and stop the meters asap.</p>
<p>I had thought from McGinley’s first statement that they were doing so, but then that turned out to be a farce. If they continue to try to defend the webcam practice … god, what a waste!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s exactly what CAN’T happen now. They can’t issue any kind of report without the plaintiff’s attorney’s agreement, and he has NO incentive to stop any meters running. He needs to get paid, and he needs to get his payment approved by the court, which means that he has to do a whole bunch of work before settling.</p>
<p>In any event, there’s no way to do a report that’s both thorough and quick, and maybe no way to do it at all while there are active criminal investigations ongoing. None of the key players should be willing to talk to an investigator as long as they are potential criminal defendants.</p>
<p>The best LMSD can hope for at this point is that the US Attorney and the local D.A. investigate quickly and either decide not to charge or bring only limited charges that can be settled quickly. The plaintiff won’t be able to prevent the prosecutors from communicating the results of their investigations to the public. Nothing substantive is going to happen with the civil case while the criminal investigation is pending. Of course, if the prosecutors decide to bring serious charges against the district and top administrators, that will be a disaster for the district.</p>
<p>I was the original plaintiff in what became a class action lawsuit against a health insurer, and I don’t usually think of myself as scum of the earth. Like the Robbins family, I attempted to resolve my problem (basically, the insurer cutting special deals with providers that resulted in patients being charged 30 or 40% of the actual cost of a hospitalization or procedure rather than the lower percentage specified in the contract) directly with the insurer. It was only after they blew me off that I got mad and followed up with an attorney, and from there it did become a class action which the insurer settled before trial, in part because I had all of the documentation and one of my doctors provided the accounting that the insurance company had given them, which was totally different than the one they gave me. </p>
<p>There are lots of frivolous lawsuits out there, but I don’t assume that just because someone is lead plaintiff in a class action lawsuit that they’re somehow jerks. “Blame the victim” isn’t appropriate here. The Robbins family brought something to the public attention that needed to be brought out in public. They have my thanks.</p>
<p>JMS, you are overstating the gag order: it is 6 hours advance notice, to allow the plaintiff attorney a chance to object to “spin” statements, it does not shutdown communication, unless LMSD WANTS it to. It does shutdown open-ended community Q&As and that is unfortunate.</p>
<p>The plaintiff’s attorney can’t spin his meter unless LMSD plays into a pigheaded defense allowing him to do so.</p>
<p>Agree the criminal investigation adds complexity. But there is no reason LMSD cannot fire anyone who refuses to cooperate citing 5th amendment rights – the 5th protects against criminal prosecution, not against giving any information to your employer as part of your job. As an example, Ms. Matsko was clear in her statement that she would fully cooperate with all investigations.</p>
<p>I just caught the video of Ms. Matsko’s press conference and somewhat change my view: she comes of as peremptory and arrogant to me, the stereotype of the arrogant petty official – “how dare anyone accuse me”. I don’t think it humanized her, curious for others’ reactions.</p>
<p>Dadinator: “To be a working stiff making $x a year and have to shell out about $500 an hour for a lawyer - a good way to go bankrupt fast.”</p>
<p>Not likely. In our state (and, I’d guess, pretty much in most states) administrators get malpractice insurance through the state administrators organization. Many teacher have it too.</p>
<p>
</p>
<ol>
<li> True if you are a private employer. Not so sure it’s true if you are a public employer, but I’ll take your word for it if you know that it’s true. (I did know the answer to this once upon a time, but it has been awhile since I took a Con Law exam.)</li>
</ol>
<p>However, talking to an investigator for your employer for purposes of issuing a public report is unlikely to be privileged in any way. So cooperating in the internal investigation is basically tantamount to waiving your 5th Amendment rights. I would sure be hesitant to counsel anyone to do that. Maybe if there were an agreement with the two prosecutors and the plaintiff’s attorney . . . good luck with that!</p>
<ol>
<li> But that assumes you think it’s a good idea to fire longtime administrators who have been doing a good job of, um, education, which is presumably what you actually care about. I suspect the majority of parents in the LM school district would stick webcams in their bathrooms if they thought it would meaningfully improve their children’s educational outcomes. (With full disclosure, of course, and the right to opt out.) If people are happy with the quality of education at LM and Harriton – and based on what I know they sure as heck ought to be – then it is not obvious that everyone should be fired because of this issue.</li>
</ol>
<p>JMS, I don’t know specifically in the case of a public employer, but I can’t see a reason the rule would be any different: LMSD is not acting for the prosecution, it is acting to protect its interests as an employer. </p>
<p>Private companies give very senior execs this Hobson’s choice all the time (sometimes they just fire em fast to disassociate) – there is no shortage of quality admins out there compared to the enterprise risk to the employer of stonewalling and hurting itself.</p>
<p>If an employee is instructed to cooperate with an investigation, and if that employee refuses, then yes obvious to me that that employee should be fired.</p>