Details are sketchy and many of the specifics of the decision or any appeal process that resulted in this determination may never become available to the public.  Matters regarding pension benefits are not the responsibility of a local School Board.  Pension determinations come under the purview of the State Employees Retirement System (SERS).

According to the SERS website link, Pennsylvania law does have provisions for forfeiture of pensions in cases of violation of certain laws:

Pension Forfeiture
A public office is indeed a public trust, and Pennsylvania has laws in place to penalize those who violate that trust by stripping them of their pension.  The Public Employee Pension Forfeiture Act 1978-140 (Act 140) applies to all SERS members who commit certain crimes in relation to their employment.  In addition, the Pennsylvania Constitution and Judicial Code contain pension forfeiture provisions applying to judicial members.  Those provisions can be triggered even if no crime has been committed.

Act 140
Act 140 requires forfeiture of all pension and retirement benefits by any SERS member who commits certain crimes that breach the member’s duty of faithful and honest public service. Also forfeited are any benefits for the member’s beneficiaries and survivor annuitants.

The only benefits Act 140 allows a SERS member to receive are his or her contributions paid into the pension fund, without interest. Even these contributions may be lost, however, because Act 140 requires they be used to pay fines and restitution associated with the criminal conviction.

Act 140 is triggered if a SERS member is convicted of or pleads guilty or no defense to any listed crime committed through the member’s public office or position or when public employment puts the member in a position to commit the crime.

Pennsylvania crimes covered by Act 140 are listed on this page and are found in 43 P.S. § 1312. All federal crimes substantially the same as these state crimes also are covered by Act 140.  Act 140 applies to all members of SERS, even those who became members before July 8, 1978 if they have been reelected, re-appointed, promoted or changed job classifications since then.

Enforcement of Act 140 is mandatory. Pennsylvania courts have held that neither SERS nor an employing agency has any discretion in its application. Nor does it matter if the crime is relatively minor compared to the value of pension benefits. If Act 140 is applicable, it must be applied.

The following words and phrases when used in this act shall have, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, the meanings given to them in this section:

“Crimes related to public office or public employment.”  Any of the criminal offenses as set forth in the following provisions of title 18 (crimes and offenses) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes or other enumerated statute when committed by a public official or public employee through his public office or position or when his public employment places him in a position to commit the crime:

Any of the criminal offenses set forth in Subchapter B of Chapter 31 (relating to definition of offenses) when the criminal offense is committed by a school employee as defined in 24 Pa. C.S. §8102 (relating to definitions) against a student.

• Section 3922 (relating to theft by deception) when the criminal culpability reaches the level of a misdemeanor of the first degree or higher.
• Section 3923 (relating to theft by extortion) when the criminal culpability reaches the level of a misdemeanor of the first degree or higher.
• Section 3926 (relating to theft of services) when the criminal culpability reaches the level of a misdemeanor of the first degree or higher.
• Section 3927 (relating to theft by failure to make required disposition of funds received), when the criminal culpability reaches the level of a misdemeanor of the first degree or higher.
• Section 4101 (relating to forgery)
• Section 4104 (relating to tampering with records or identification)
• Section 4113 (relating to misapplication of entrusted property and property of government or financial institutions) when the criminal culpability reaches the level of misdemeanor of the second degree.
• Section 4701 (relating to bribery in official and political matters)
• Section 4702 (relating to threats and other improper influence in official and political matters)
• Section 4902 (relating to perjury)
• Section 4903(a) (relating to false swearing)
• Section 4904 (relating to unsworn falsification to authorities)
• Section 4906 (relating to false reports to law enforcement authorities)
• Section 4909 (relating to witness or informant taking bribe)
• Section 4910 (relating to tampering with or fabricating physical evidence)
• Section 4911 (relating to tampering with public records or information)
• Section 4952 (relating to intimidation of witnesses or victims)
• Section 4953 (relating to retaliation against witness, victim or party)
• Section 5101 (relating to obstructing administration of law or other governmental function)
• Section 5301 (relating to official oppression)
• Section 5302 (relating to speculating or wagering on official action or information)
• Article III, act of March 4, 1971 (P.L. 6, No. 2), known as the “Tax Reform Code of 1971.”
• In addition to the foregoing specific crimes, the term also includes all criminal offenses as set forth in federal law substantially the same as the crimes enumerated herein.

I’m not a lawyer but the way I read http://law.onecle.com/pennsylvania/crimes-and-offenses/index.html, the violations under Section 31 Subsection B for school officials would seem to fall more under the area of intimidating or retaliating against witnesses and not with the criminal violation itself.

Subchapter B. Victim and Witness Intimidation
• § 4951.  Definitions.
  The following words and phrases when used in this subchapter shall have, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, the meanings given to them in this …
• § 4952.  Intimidation of witnesses or victims.
  (a) Offense defined.–A person commits an offense if, with the intent to or with the knowledge that his conduct will obstruct, impede, impair, prevent or …
• § 4953.  Retaliation against witness, victim or party.
  (a) Offense defined.–A person commits an offense if he harms another by any unlawful act or engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits …

§ 4953.1. Retaliation against prosecutor or judicial official.

• § 4954.  Protective orders.
  Any court with jurisdiction over any criminal matter may, after a hearing and in its discretion, upon substantial evidence, which may include hearsay or the …

§ 4954.1. Notice on protective order.

• § 4955.  Violation of orders.
  (a) Punishment.–Any person violating any order made pursuant to section 4954 (relating to protective orders) may be punished in any of the following ways: (1) …
• § 4956.  Pretrial release.
  (a) Conditions for pretrial release.–Any pretrial release of any defendant whether on bail or under any other form of recognizance shall be deemed, as a …
• § 4957.  Protection of employment of crime victims, family members of victims and witnesses.
  (a) General rule.–An employer shall not deprive an employee of his …

If it is true that only violations such as witness tampering are justifiable reasons for a teacher to lose pension benefits, and that crimes such as endangering the welfare of a child and corruption of minors don’t carry the same consequences, then the public may want to know why.

Many of the existing schools had major renovation and updating requirements, so a Facilities Master Plan was developed that called for about $150 million to be borrowed and spent over about twelve years so that all the existing buildings could be brought more up-to-date.

At the time, the economy was more or less humming along. The question of why we still needed every school building when enrollment was declining hung in the air — future hopes about all-day kindergarten becoming a mandate seemed to be a factor on which some people pinned their hopes to keep growing the District.

Money was borrowed and renovations are underway at Holland Elementary and Churchville Elementary. Somewhere along the line, though, the plan came a bit unglued. First, the third school on the list, Rolling Hills, got bumped in favor of Goodnoe Elementary which had seen an enrollment spike. Then as plans were going forward for Goodnoe and its $13,000,000 renovation, another question was thrown into the middle — whether Newtown Middle School should be bumped ahead of Goodnoe. Since a middle school would cost about twice as much as an elementary to renovate (because of size), such a decision could change the progress of the plan again.

And as the economy has slowed and Act 1 has become more daunting in raising revenues (not to mention the oncoming pension contribution spike in two years), the ability to proceed with the remainder of the plan is not as certain as when the idea was hatched.

At last Wednesday’s Facilities Committee meeting, the question of Newtown Middle vs. Goodnoe was discussed again. The Administration had been asked for a recommendation, and they came down on the side of staying the course and sticking with Goodnoe. But the conversations became quite complicated, as the discussion of renovating Newtown Middle opened up other considerations.

Part of the question was whether Richboro Middle School should be enlarged to bring it closer to the sizes of Holland Middle and Newtown Middle. But another discussion was whether the district even needed three middle schools.  There was talk that perhaps it would serve the district to have just two middle schools, each feeding the related high school, and allowing Richboro Middle (the smallest) to be closed.  That would involve enlarging at least Newtown Middle School to some extent.

Marilyn Scarpa, who had served as a public member on the Growth Committee, questioned how there could be talk about renovating Newtown Middle when it was possible a decision could cause it to be enlarged (meaning more renovations later on).  She also questioned the decisions that were progressing on any of the renovations since they didn’t take into account changes that could be made by shifting some of the student sending areas for some of the schools to achieve a better balance.  The growth at Goodnoe was being accommodated with permanent classrooms as opposed to considering whether some students or programs could go to one of the lesser-utilized schools.  She questioned whether it was wise for Council Rock to be spending any money on renovations without first looking at sending patterns etc.

Based on officials’ reactions to her concerns, there seemed to be a disconnect between the idea of proceeding with Newtown Middle and the possibility it might need to grow a bit if Richboro Middle were to close.

The Administration contended that there were no underutilized schools in the District (since modulars are still in use), and that they did not want to consider the option of redistricting at this point.

Well, why not? Does the District really have the right to take more taxpayer money and ignore attendance changes just so they can keep their buildings as they are now?  Keep population where it is and keep building more classrooms to meet them as opposed to figuring out if there could be a better use of space overall?

Do they really think there is money just rolling around to just keep building and renovating without casting an eye as to whether facilities could be utilized more efficiently?

I had already pointed out during public comment at meetings shortly after the Facilities Master Plan was passed that it still called for the same number of schools at the end of the plan as we currently have even though enrollment was projected to decline by 8% in the first five years and by 12% in ten years — that’s the results of a study they commissioned themselves, not by someone who had an interest in reducing the District.  I wanted to know why there wasn’t at least a statement that consideration to closing a school was a possibility if those enrollment numbers panned out.  The answer was to dismiss the question saying that stirring the pot of redistricting would be upsetting to the community.

The finances of the community are being stretched thin, especially as we get set to pay our ever-increasing tax bills — in a year when many workers and senior citizens saw no increase in their own revenue.  The District just keeps dipping further into our pockets.

If there is another way for the District to run more efficiently with where students go to school which would let them scale back renovations, don’t they owe it to taxpayers to do so?  Or are we just seen as easy pickings that the Board and Administration can keep raiding so no one has to be inconvenienced by a redistricting?

Good financial stewardship is part of the duties of the School Board.  They need to take a look at how the District really needs to look in the future and not simply renovate and increase the scale of buildings just so the current population can stay where they now attend.

People, the money’s not there to build castles anymore!

Mr. Hawkins, the convicted teacher, took the 5th Amendment and refused to answer questions about what other teachers had known about the affair, but when questioned in court he never denied that others knew.

The District Attorney’s office had been looking into evidence to see whether other teachers could also be brought up on charges for having had some role in allowing this conduct to continue.  Where that investigation stands is in the hands of the District Attorney who handled the case, Jennifer Schorn. The D.A.’s office number is 215-348-6344.

Not only must these teachers be returned to their jobs, they will receive credit for steps and other retroactive benefits. And likely they must be given their actual classroom jobs back (Barbara Cavanaugh was teaching at North, and Jill Tex at South).  So Council Rock students will be in their care once again — after serious concerns arose whether these teachers did anything to protect a student who was inappropriately pursued by one of their colleagues.

With more and more questions by the public as to whether teachers’ unions have students’ interests at heart or whether they exist solely to protect teachers at any cost, this development cannot improve the community’s faith in their teachers.

And it’s a shame if a black mark against caring teachers in the District comes about because of the actions of others.

There were some discussions about using Melsky money in some way to negate some of the tax hike, including a motion raised by Mr. Grupp to use the portion of the money going to capital projects to eliminate one year of the two-year bond issue that’s on track for June 17th — a bond issue that would create a fund over $8 million for two years worth of ad hoc capital projects.  But after all was said and done, the budget was passed as is. The  motion to use part of Melsky to replace the bond issue (and reduce financing costs by about $250,000 so taxes could be reduced that much) lost 5-4.

One area of continuing concern from my point of view is the amount this District feels is necessary for the fund balance.  This is a sort of rainy day fund, and while there is a need for a reasonable amount of funds, these are extra money being taken from taxpayers.  Board Policy 620 sets the target fund balance at 4% as I’ve pointed out.  The earlier versions of the budget showed the target at the end of the next school year as high as $9,944,376 or 4.96% — I had pointed out in comments here and at the Board, that this could be safely reduced by a full mill — leaving the fund at $8,766,346 or 4.37% , not scraping anywhere close to the 4%.

But the final budget came in with a fund balance even higher! The final budget passed shows a projected balance on June 30, 2011, of $10,321,731. That means for some reason the School District feels they need another almost $400,000 of taxpayer money kept than even they conceded months ago.  If they were going to be comfortable with $9.944 million, why did the final budget now call for $10.322 million?  That’s almost $400,000 more that’s being taken from taxpayers, at a time when some Board members kept saying they were looking for ways to minimize tax hikes for the public.

The Board’s own policy calls for the target to be 4%, but this budget ends with a figure that is more than 25% over that target.  There is no question that they could have reduced the tax increase, certainly by those approximately $400,000, as well as considering another mill so that the target would have ended up in the 4.4% range.  That could have made the tax hike about 1.5 mills instead of 2.72.

Why does this Board continue to think they have the need to take more money into this fund balance than their own policy and than what is really necessary?  Is it preferable for Government agencies to have more money than needed which can spend as opposed to letting taxpayers keep it for their own needs?

Next year’s proposed budget shows salaries of $106,761,918 and benefits of $38,369,660 for a total of $145,131,578. Based on a $200,394,318 budget, that’s 72%.  That’s a large difference.

Whether this was an error in calculation or was a figure intended to paint a rosier picture on the impact of salaries and benefits is unclear.

The salaries and benefits rise to $145,131,578 from $140,298, 907 this year and from $133,913,790 last year.  (2009-10 salaries were $104,105,176 and benefits $36,193,731; 2008-09 were $102,023,833 and $31,889,957 respectively.)

With expenditures such as transportation, energy costs, maintenance and such, there are a number of costs that are inevitable and can only be trimmed so far.  By stating that salaries and benefits make up just 55%, the article may imply that there are a lot of expenses (45% of the budget) which drive it that high and force taxes higher.  But the biggest chunk of the budget and the biggest driving force for its size is the amount spent on salaries and benefits.

Cuts in energy usage, better transportation utilization and similar savings will trim around the edges and hold things down a bit.  At a certain point though, you can only trim the edges so far.  The only way to maintain significant control over the rise in budgets and taxes is to get control over that largest chunk.

Now maybe that doesn’t strike some people as an unreasonable number, but it should be remembered that this is a year when senior citizens received no increase in their monthly Social Security payments.  And there are many other people who received no increase in wages, pensions etc.  So any tax increase should be viewed in relation to that.

I’ve mentioned in earlier posts that the District maintains a fund balance to provide a cushion for unexpected situations.  It is reasonable for one to be maintained, at an appropriate level.  But as I’ve been pointing out for years, every dollar the District holds that exceeds what is necessary and reasonable means a dollar they have taxed people too much.

The School Board has made its own official statement as to what is reasonable (Policy 620), and that is a fund balance of 4% of budget expenditures.  But the 3.40 mill increase results in a budget that would show an ending fund balance of 4.96%, well above what is needed.  In addition, it should be noted that over the past several years (and maybe longer), the actual fund balance at the end of each fiscal year exceeded the projected total, meaning even more was being kept from taxpayers than needed.

The 2009-10 budget called for the fund balance to be $7,396,284 at the end of the fiscal year.  But the 2010-11 proposed budget shows that the fund balance starting the new fiscal year will actually be sitting at $10,944,376. (The separate PSERS fund balance which was supposed to be at $4,439,699 is actually now projected to be at $5,794,045.)

What that means is the District collected almost $5 million more from taxpayers than their own projected fund balance targets. It’s about $3.55 million more in the general fund balance and $1.35 million more in the PSERS account.

So it is not unreasonable to expect that the final fund balance at the end of this year will exceed the projected $9,944,376 and be even higher than the higher-than-policy 4.96% now budgeted.

It’s time for this to stop. The School Board could immediately drop the proposed millage increase by a full mill and still be well in its safety zone for a reasonable fund balance.  Per the budget, a mill is valued at $1,178,030.  So if the tax hike were dropped by one mill, that would be the amount reduced in their projected final fund balance, meaning the projected final figure would drop from $9,944,376 down to $8,766,346.  Based on the expenditure level of the budget, that translates to a final fund balance of 4.37%.  Now that is still a reasonable savings reserve, still comfortably above the policy target, and based on recent trends, it would likely end the next fiscal year even higher than that.

This isn’t a drastic cut to the fund balance, and it isn’t getting it to razor-thin safety levels. It is reasonable.  And it’s high time for the School Board directors to be reasonable in what they keep as a fund balance and what they stop pulling out of taxpayers’ pockets.

I am not contending that the District should not keep a fund balance (a rainy-day account) — there are prudent reasons to maintain one, ranging from credit rating to unexpected financial situations etc. However, this District has consistently maintained more than is needed.

And it’s not simply me saying so. The Official Council Rock School Board Policy (No. 620) on this states that

The Board directs the Superintendent to maintain an unreserved, undesignated fund balance in the general fund with a target of four percent (4%) of the annual general fund budget.

In recent years, there have been numerous times where the fund balance budgeted amount was well over 4%. Now that might be fine if every time it went too high that meant they would lower taxes the following year and use that excess. But that’s not how they gamed the system. The policy also states that

any portion in excess of five percent (5%) must be reallocated…Excess funds shall first be applied to the Capital Reserve Fund for use in financing annual capital projects and future capital projects.

So this provides an incentive to the District to get more into the fund balance than is truly necessary as a fiscal safety net. After all, instead of having to return the excess money to taxpayers, they get to shift it so they can spend it elsewhere. With that kind of incentive, they can tax us more than necessary to keep the fund balance higher than it needs to be.

This method of transferring excess gives them the appearance that it never has gotten too high, since the excess is moved out of the public’s view.

So what do they have on tap for this year? The latest iteration of the budget that was discussed at last night’s Finance Committee meeting calls for property taxes to be hiked 4.19%.  It calls for a fund balance at the end of the next budget year of $9,944,376, with total expenditures projected at $201,396,076. That’s a fund balance target of 4.94%.

Going with a balance that close to 5% creates a likelihood that it could end up over that threshold and have money siphoned out into the Capital Reserve.  If the policy’s target of 4% were applied to the expenditure budget, the target balance would be $8,055,843.  So the target they have shown in the budget is $1,888,533 higher than their policy calls for.  That means the District wants to keep almost $1.9 million more of taxpayer money that their policy says is needed.

Now, even though the policy calls for a target of 4%, it also talks about not letting it fall below a 4% level (replenishing if that were to happen).  So I would not think aiming specifically for the exact 4% figure is required; however, it is clear that the District does not need to be aiming for as high as 4.94% either, since that is so close to the high end when they get to transfer that excess taxpayer money away.

The budget as of last night called for a property tax increase of 4.53 mills, or 4.19%.  The value of a mill is $1,178,030.  Given the fact that the target fund balance for next year is $1,888,533 higher than the 4% figure, the District could easily cut another mill out of the property tax hike for next year.  If you subtract a mill value out of that excess, the fund balance figure for next year would still end up $710,503 higher than the baseline 4%.

So instead of a target balance of $9,944,376 (4.94%), a more reasonable figure of $8,766,346 (4.35%) would be there.  That’s certainly enough wiggle room to stay above the 4% target in the Board’s policy.

And it would put over $1.1 million back into the hands of taxpayers, whose money this is.

It’s time for the School Board to stop taking more taxpayer money than needed to maintain a balance that is greater than needed. They should direct the Superintendent to immediately bring the projected 4.53 millage increase down to 3.53 mills (and continue to find other budget savings to drop the tax increase even lower). That would be fulfilling their fiscal agreement with taxpayers.

The Courier Times article mentioned only that several teachers as well as numerous former students had submitted letters to the court in support of Mr. Hawkins.  However, Laurie Mason’s on-line post contained names of teachers who had submitted letters.  Only one teacher was named in court, David Jacoby.  However, the on-line Intelligencer item states that letters were also submitted by Josephine Celano, Patricia Schmieg, Rodger Breidenbach and Donna Pianoforte.  The Intelligencer reference isn’t clear whether these were the only teachers who submitted such letters or whether there were more and the list simply included these individuals — however, in court, one reference was made to a former Council Rock teacher now in Oklahoma submitting a letter.

In addition to being teachers, most of these hold leadership positions within the District according to information on the District’s website. Josephine Celano is Department Coordinator for Mathematics at Council Rock High School North.  Dr. Patricia Schmieg holds that same Math Department Coordinator position at Council Rock South. David Jacoby is Department Chair/Coordinator for Social Studies at Council Rock South (currently away on military deployment). Donna Pianoforte is listed as the overall District Mathematics Coordinator.

Mr. Breidenbach is shown as having retired as a Math teacher from Council Rock effective June 15, 2007 — the correct spelling of his first name is unclear (the Intelligencer article posted a (cq) next to his name); one set of CRSD Board Meeting minutes (6/21/07) lists his resignation with the name Rodger and another (5/17/07) as Roger.

The submission of letters by teachers in support of Mr. Hawkins may be a cause for concern as the District struggles with trust issues raised by the entire Robert Hawkins matter, particularly since such letters reportedly came from people in leadership roles in the District.

Now the District must face the possibility that such teachers may be back in Council Rock next fall, once again in the position of being entrusted with children’s well-being.

During Mr. Hawkins’ trial on November 18th, after his guilty plea, he was asked specific questions about specific other teachers and whether they had known and assisted in covering up the affair.  The convicted teacher took the 5th Amendment and would not respond to any of those questions.  During his sentencing on March 10th, the prosecution indicated that the defense attorney had refused allocution, a process during which the details of the crime are specifically verbally admitted.  Presumably part of the allocution would have gone to the actions of other teachers during the cover-up of the affair.

Since teachers were let go by the District, people may have thought it’s all behind the District, but it is not quite that simple.  Some (if not all) of the impacted teachers and their Union have filed grievances and these matters appear to be heading for arbitration hearings. If the teachers and Union prevail, these individuals who apparently knew of Mr. Hawkins’ behavior but did not inform authorities to intercede on behalf of the victim, these individuals could be back working for the school district in September 2010.

These individuals who were deemed not to have protected a student of the District from Mr. Hawkins will be back in a position of caring for children in Council Rock schools.  Considering the trust that has been lost not just by the existence of the affair but by other teachers apparently standing by and letting it happen, it is hard to think that this trust could somehow be magically restored.

During the sentencing of Mr. Hawkins, Mark Klein spoke about the loss of trust and how the District had been impacted. He urged the judge to make the cooperation by Mr. Hawkins in arbitration hearings for these former colleagues a condition of the sentence.  The judge did impose conditions to make Mr. Hawkins available to give depositions and information for those hearings and said his cooperation would be considered if a motion were to be filed in the future. Based on the refusal by Mr. Hawkins to answer questions at all November 18th and the refusal by the defense attorney to have him undergo allocution, it is unclear if cooperation will be forthcoming.

It was noted toward the end of the sentencing that one of the arbitration hearings is occurring this coming Monday.  Others are presumably happening in the near future.

The public has a right to be concerned with the potential reinstatement of these teachers and the effort by the Union.  They also deserve to know how aggressively the District will work to ensure that anyone who knew of the affair and allowed it to go on will not get the chance to have Council Rock students entrusted to them again.

The sentencing hearing commenced at 10:59 a.m. today in the courtroom of Judge Clyde W. Waite.  Judge Waite began by ensuring that the delay in sentencing had not violated a 90-day rule, and was assured that this was not an issue, particularly since more than 22 of the 112 day interval had been due to a defense request.

Jennifer Schorn of the District Attorney’s office began by mentioning the detectives who were present, Wyant, Feo and McDonagh (spelling unsure, cannot verify at Northampton website), that Mark Klein was present as well as the victim’s parents whose names were withheld for the victim’s privacy.  She said the parents would enter impact statements as would the superintendent.

She also mentioned two victim impact letters as well as a third by a concerned citizen, a parent — the defense was objecting to the admission of the third, since it was apparently simply submitted by an anonymous person stating he/she was a parent of a female student in Council Rock.  Defense attorney Marc Neff contended it was inappropriate for any anonymous letter to be submitted. Judge Waite first challenged Mr. Neff’s assertion, asking whether this case impacted the general public which has an interest in entrusting kids to the school; but he then asked about allowing testimony from an unreliable source. Ms. Schorn mentioned that the court allows a variety of letters to support the defendant even though these had not technically been fully vetted and origin verified, so those aren’t really evidence.  So this letter would similarly just go to impact, and since it had a return address in Newtown it was submitted by a resident. However, Judge Wait sustained Mr. Neff’s objection, assuring the prosecution that the need to protect the public would be made clear nonetheless.

Mark Klein was then placed on the stand to read a victim impact statement regarding how this matter had affected the District and the community.  He discussed trust as an underlying message, and that this matter was inexcusable and violated that trust.  He said we were all impacted.  Mr. Klein said that in April 2009 they had begun an investigation and this had consumed many hours.  Their investigation also showed three other teachers who knew of the affair, and that the result was that four teachers resigned or were dismissed.

He said that this is an issue that remains volatile, most particularly at Council Rock South.

He expressed frustration that any member of the Council Rock staff has submitted letters of support for Mr. Hawkins, focusing on his abilities as a teacher and not as a predator.  He stated that they should be considered writing as individuals and not speaking for Council Rock School District.  He said he feels most teachers in the District do not share the support in those letters.

He then requested that as part of the conditions of sentencing that they require Mr. Hawkins to give truthful testimony in arbitration hearings regarding the knowledge by other teachers.  He asked that a condition be that a deposition be taken.

Mr. Klein went on, saying that every year there is communications directing teachers about appropriate behavior.  He asked the court to take into consideration the significant harm done to the girl and to the whole community.

The parents of the victim then stepped forward to read their victim impact statements, first by the father and then by the mother.  Both parents went on for some time and with great specificity and emotion. These were both very personal and heart-wrenching statements whose details do not need to be repeated here.  They laid out not just the past and present impacts on the student involved and family members but also Mr. Hawkins’ actions and conduct toward the family to try and ingratiate himself with them.

After the statements were read, Mr. Neff reviewed some information from the pre-sentence report. He said an extensive memo had been filed February 17th, including many letters that go to the character of the convict.  He disagreed with a characterization that students’ letters were because they were under his spell or that what he did wasn’t so bad. He claimed instead they were to communicate how Bob Hawkins had touched their lives, how he had been the first one at school in the morning and the last one to leave at night. He cited former students who wrote they had become teachers because of Mr. Hawkins.  Mr. Neff said it was important to understand he is a multidimensional human being, with great qualities to teach young humans.  He has lost that now.  Mr. Neff said this quality was shown by his inspiration of young people.

He said this inspiration was demonstrated to a student would take the time to write a two-page single-spaced letter, saying that was an admirable thing.  The fact that he would get kids to drive to Princeton on Saturdays to learn Math instead of sleeping in late should be considered.  He urged the court to consider the lives he touched, He said many people hold him in high esteem because of his accomplishments.  Mr. Neff said this should not be discounted because he did one thing wrong in his life.

Mr. Neff then discussed what was in the two psychologists’ reports.  Both reports said Mr. Hawkins had an emotional disconnect, that he was not a pedophile and he was on the low end as far as risk to reoffend.  He said Mr. Hawkins had been in therapy for over ten months, seeing Dr. William McClain since April 2009, learning to maintain boundaries.

Mr. Neff said he erred in that he blurred boundaries, that emotionally he and the victim were on the same level — that Mr. Hawkins was behaving as if this were the puppy love of an 18-year-old.  He quoted letters that began “oh, my love” saying these were not the musings of a 43-year-old.  Mr. Neff reiterated that was the level where he was functioning.

The defense attorney then moved on to discuss responsibility.  He stated the defendant had taken responsibility: first in waiving his pre-trial hearing because he didn’t want the victim to have to testify and suffer; second by standing and pleading guilty; and third, by appearing here to take his punishment.

Mr. Neff then discussed sentencing guidelines, saying figures of 3-12 months +/- 6 months.  He said that mitigated sentences are appropriate in cases where the defendant takes responsibility early.  Mr. Neff said that nobody was saying that what he did was not so bad; he crossed a boundary he wasn’t allowed to cross.  Then he asked the court to recognize the strides he had made in therapy and that he has done great things for the community. He asked the court to conduct that balancing test and see that Mr. Hawkins’ good qualities outweigh this incident.  Mr. Neff asked for the court to consider non-custodial punishment (no jail time).

Ms. Schorn then began her points.  She started by discussing restitution, saying the costs of the victim’s therapy thus far was $3,780 and would be about $540 each month going forward, for the duration of her education, another three and a half years.

Ms. Schorn said that teaching is a privilege and not everyone gets to do it. She said the select few are held to a higher standard, and the teachers who inspire kids are held to an even higher one.  She said we trust them to protect and care for these children no matter what age.  She said that everyone raved about him being inspiring and wrote letters to that.  Ms. Schorn mentioned a letter from teacher David Jacoby (note: he is Department Chair/Coordinator for Social Studies at CR South) saying the he would not be surprised that students developed crushes on Mr. Hawkins and that he (Hawkins) was good at rebuffing them. Ms. Schorn expressed concern because the letter had been written in December 2009 after Mr. Hawkins’ guilty plea.

She referred to another teacher’s letter bemoaning his lost livelihood.  Ms. Schorn said he had not lost his livelihood, he was working now and he had thrown his livelihood down the drain.

She cited another letter from an out-of-state teacher in Oklahoma with whom she said Hawkins had had a relationship who wrote she would be offended if her tax money went to incarcerate him.  Ms. Schorn asked about all the tax money residents could talk about as far as paying for the proper handling of their children.

As far as the various letters submitted by students in support of Mr. Hawkins, she said those would have been from kids who had seen his inspiring side, not the ones who were victimized.  She said the court should thus give them no weight.

Ms. Schorn then went on to discuss some letters by Mr. Hawkins claimed as never sent to other students.  She called it a bold-faced lie.  She said after he knew he was being investigated he used a best friend referenced by Mr. Neff to stay in contact.  She said that he used Facebook to send messages to students for their support, saying that the truth will have to take a backseat.  Ms. Schorn said this showed a sophisticated, calculated demeanor.  He said he uses those to pursue his own agenda.

She mentioned a letter Mr. Hawkins had written to another girl, a sophomore in the defendant’s class (a female name was used and since I’m not sure if that’s the girl’s actual first name I will omit it here).  He had composed word docs but said they would have to sit on his computer for three weeks until he saw her in person.  She said this was because with the investigation he knew he could not send them by e-mail.  So they had to sit on his computer while he was out-of-state.  Ms. Schorn contended he is doing the same thing with this sophomore that he did with the victim.

Ms. Schorn said that he had had a previous relationship which had started as soon as a student had graduated, which was not criminal. However as circumstantial evidence, the aforementioned sophomore student had responded to this in her impact statement.

The prosecutor then went on to discuss the standard range of sentencing which had been proffered by Mr. Neff as well as mitigated non-custodial sentencing. She said that this is not your standard corruption case, that this took place for a year, under the nose of the parents. As far as the Math and Science days he held at Princeton, the parents thought she was there for studies not for sexual encounters.

She said that one day the victim will grasp how she was used for his pleasure.  She said the sentence should be seen both as a deterrent and a punishment.

Robert Hawkins then spoke, reading a statement. He began saying that 14 years ago he had come to Council Rock as a proud new teacher. One year ago he had made choices that were wrong and reprehensible. Now he is ashamed and wonders how he was able to exhibit such poor judgment. He said he had let everyone down, made a terrible mistake and can only hope he will be able to rebuild trust.

He said he had suffered, had lost his job, trust and his teaching certificate. He has been a mess but said he deserves it.  he said he is mortified by his behavior and said the choices were all his.  He said he is speaking as a broken man and was pleading for forgiveness.

He then started a series of apologies. First to the family, saying not a day goes by that he does not feel the pain he caused, something they will carry for a long time. He said he meant no harm to their daughter. He was carrying a heavy heart and understood he violated their trust. But then he talked about where his heart was, saying he truly believed he had fallen in love, his feelings were out of control, that there was nothing ever evil or manipulative.  He said he let his emotions get in the way of his personal judgment. he said there were boundaries he should not have crossed and said he hoped they could get closure.

To the Council Rock School District and the community, he said he had let them down.

To his students, especially the ones in 2009 where they had a teacher disappear the last three months and finish with a substitute. He was saddened even a single student had been let down.  He was sorry for the impact on the victim those last three months and now.

To his colleagues and friends whom he had let down, he said he was scrambling to keep things together.

He apologized to the court, saying these actions were not representative of him, and that he wanted to work the rest of his life for the betterment of the world.

He said he is taking his therapy and again said he had remorse for the victim and the parents. he said he failed to live up to his code, that he was wrong and was terribly sorry.  That concluded his written statement.

Ms. Schorn then said she had wanted to ask Mr. Hawkins some questions, but that Mr. Neff had indicated that allocution would not be answered. (Note: Allocution is the process of admitting guilt in open court as a formal statement. Often it is used to describe offenses in detail in order to receive the other side of a plea bargain.)  During the trial November 18th, Ms. Schorn had asked Mr. Hawkins a number of questions about the knowledge of his actions by various other teachers, all of which were met with 5th Amendment claims. Since there had been references by Council Rock about wanting Mr. Hawkins’ truthful testimony at arbitration hearings, it is unclear if this attempt by the prosecution would have been intended to again try to elicit that kind of information.

Judge Waite then spoke. He began by saying that teachers occupy high positions, and they shape the future. He said that Mr. Hawkins had destroyed not just one student’s future but also destroyed the faith the community had in the school system. Judge Waite said that as far as the defense’s contention that his colleagues were shocked, that’s to assume they didn’t know about it — he said that doesn’t appear to be the case.

The judge said that Hawkins did know better. Judge Waite cited the fact that he manipulated the victim to do research on the age of consent to try and convince her it was not wrong, in effect making the victim a co-conspirator.  He said he did not want to be crude, but the manipulation and isolation is pretty much what a pimp does.  The judge said he did this not just with this child but with others as well.

Judge Waite said that the risks Mr. Hawkins took were increasing to the point where it was unclear where it would end. He said they wouldn’t end without the criminal justice system interceding, and there had to be consequences.

The judge said the psychologists say there was a low risk of recidivism, but he said that did not seem to match Mr. Hawkins’ behavior.  Judge Waite said it suggests high risk, at least as far as collateral issues. The judge said Mr. Hawkins doesn’t fully appreciate it was wrong as the law says, as the community sees it, and that he still seems to think of it as something that can be dismissed as poor judgment.

Judge Waite said the behavior needs to be stopped and incarceration is necessary. He said the position does not make him comfortable, that he believes Mr. Hawkins possessed talent that could have been put to better use.

He also told Mr. Hawkins that he also believes he has to make a decision on whether he will cooperate by providing information on the other teachers involved.

Judge Waite said he had considered Mr. Hawkins’ age, the information he had submitted about himself, the pre-sentencing report, and letters from his colleagues.  The judge said he believed the victim’s mother’s interpretation about those letters was valid.  He said he had to accept the psychologists’ report about recidivism but that he had to take into account Mr. Hawkins’ behavior during the investigation and afterward.

He said the facts had been admitted and confinement is necessary.  he indicated that there would be conditions which if met could be considered if a reconsideration was filed.

Judge Waite then pronounced the sentence to be not less than 11 1/2 months and then said 11 1/2 to 23 months at the Bucks County Correctional facility.  He spoke of cooperating with the School District with the cooperation of the DA’s office. Restitution of therapy costs of $3,780 was to be paid within 45 days as well as payments of $540 per month for the next 3 1/2 years to the family to reimburse documented costs.

Judge Waite said that compliance (presumptively with the School District’s deposition needs) would be taken into consideration in the event a motion were filed.

The judge said the sentence has four aims: retribution, reconciliation, protection of society and deterrence. he said there is support in this level to meet those.

Ms. Schorn mentioned a no-contact provision directly or indirectly with the victim or the family, which was accepted.

At 12:11, handcuffs were placed on Mr. Hawkins, but the end took a couple of minutes longer.  There was a sidebar with the attorneys and the judge which lasted about three minutes.  Afterward, it was stated that the solicitor for Council Rock had indicated there was an arbitration hearing on Monday (so the need for a deposition was soon).  The judge said there’s nothing more important than for the sentence to start immediately.  Mr. Neff spoke of a condition that Mr. Hawkins would be eligible for the County Reentry Plan pending what happens.  The judge assured that whatever programs are available would be considered. Ms. Schorn stated that the Commonwealth objects based on what she raised in the sidebar.

The judge finished by stating that Mr. Hawkins has ten days to file post-sentence motions, thirty days to appeal, the right to counsel at appeal. He said the sentence will be served immediately and that bail is revoked.

With that Mr. Hawkins was escorted out of the courtroom by the Sheriffs.