It isn’t over yet, and it promises to carry on for weeks, if not months, to come.
The Warwick City Council says taxpayers, as they paid nearly $30,000 to attorney Vincent Ragosta, should be able …
This item is available in full to subscribers.
We have recently launched a new and improved website. To continue reading, you will need to either log into your subscriber account, or purchase a new subscription.
If you are a current print subscriber, you can set up a free website account by clicking here.
Otherwise, click here to view your options for subscribing.
Please log in to continue |
|
It isn’t over yet, and it promises to carry on for weeks, if not months, to come.
The Warwick City Council says taxpayers, as they paid nearly $30,000 to attorney Vincent Ragosta, should be able to read his report of how the school administration responded to parental complaints that a Gorton Junior High School teacher inappropriately touched their daughters. The council passed a resolution signed by the mayor subpoenaing the School Committee to release the report.
That, it was believed, would end the standoff between the council and schools that has escalated to passage of a vote of no confidence in three school administrations, two of whom are now retired from the district. The council has also subpoenaed to have the school committee and certain administrators come before the council.
But, no, the issue of the Ragosta report continues.
This week, committee legal counsel Andrew Henneous filed a motion in Superior Court to quash the subpoena on grounds that the report “is privileged and confidential and subject to the attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine.”
The committee argues that the report “is the very embodiment of the communications between the attorney, Attorney Ragosta, and the client, the WSC, regarding the issue at hand.” It goes on to say communication were made in confidence during the executive session of school committee meetings and “thus was not open to the public and the WSC has repeatedly maintained and guarded their confidentiality.”
The committee also maintains the Ragosta report provided information of “yet another alleged incident of misconduct” by the teacher, Mario Atoyan, and discloses that the committee “has instructed its counsel to undertake a separate investigation of this incident,” which is ongoing.
The motion claims release of the report “would certainly have a chilling effect on said investigation.”
In its subpoena, the council argues the safety and welfare of children attending Warwick schools “are of particular concern.” It says the investigation by Ragosta is completed, a report has been made, and that its release would provide information on whether school administrators properly dealt with the situation.
“Release of the Ragosta Report to the public is necessary to restore confidence of the citizens of the City that the School Committee and the School Department Administrators are properly addressing issues relative to the safety and welfare of children attending the City’s public schools.”
An earlier effort to have the report released under the Access to Public Records Act (APRA) – the Warwick Beacon filed a request with the Attorney General in June – was contested by the committee and remains unresolved.
Now it is the court that will decide if the report is made public.
“Let the judicial process take its course,” interim superintendent William Holland said when asked about the motion to quash the subpoena. He said he has “no regrets” that the committee is seeking to protect the two girls involved and their families.
“If it’s released it’s released,” he said.
Ragosta was retained by the committee following the arrest of Atoyan on March 23 at his home in North Kingstown and charged with first- and second-degree sexual assault of a 15-year-old girl. The girl is not a Warwick student, and the alleged incident took place in June 2014.
The immediate response of some school administrators was that Atoyan is respected and that basically he had a clean record as a teacher. After a mother questioned that, saying Atoyan had drawn a penis on her daughter’s arm and the incident had been reported to school authorities, the school committee retained Ragosta to investigate how the administration handled the incident.
As part of his work, Ragosta interviewed two parents and four administrators in addition to looking through an investigation done by Warwick police. The police investigation ended when the parent elected not to press charges.
Holland said it took him five and a half hours to read the transcripts of Ragosta’s interviews. Ragosta gave the committee a verbal report, which was also transcribed. There is a six- or seven-page summary of that verbal report.
The city subpoena is not clear on what is to be made public – the summary, the transcripts, or both. It rather calls on the committee to produce “the so-called Report.”
4 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
JohnStark
"The committee also maintains the Ragosta report provided information of “yet another alleged incident of misconduct” by the teacher, Mario Atoyan, and discloses that the committee “has instructed its counsel to undertake a separate investigation of this incident,” which is ongoing.
You thought it couldn't get more bizarre. And yet again, you were wrong.
Thursday, October 8, 2015 Report this
Reality
Why isn't the city council calling for an investigation into the actions of the TollGate teacher arrested in the last few weeks? Is it because the teacher's last name is the same as Vella-Wilkinson's big facebook supporter? What a double standard by Vella , Travis, Usler and company.
Thursday, October 8, 2015 Report this
leahh295
Reality, No double standard here at all. The council women had Atoyan investigated because there was alleged inappropriate activity in school. I can assure you, if the Tollgate teacher had inappropriate interactions with students, we would be paying for another investigation if school official didn't properly investigate.
Monday, October 12, 2015 Report this
JohnStark
If I understand the school committee's position now, it is this: Taxpayers who paid for the Ragosta report can not have access to it, in part, because the teacher may have committed another act of misconduct which the SC also needs to investigate. Making the former report public would compromise the new investigation. Is that about right? All the while, a teaching slot is being kept open for the subject of both investigations, the demeanor exposed in both of which appears to be egregious, yet beyond the ability of the taxpayer to know about it, and how it was handled administratively. I am unaware of a more glaring example of a complete abdication of responsibility.
Tuesday, October 13, 2015 Report this