Stamford High let teacher resign after incidents with female students Male instructor reprimanded for multiple incidents with students kept pay and left with good recommendation

STAMFORD -- It began in May 2011, when a Stamford High School ninth-grader reported that her teacher touched her breast as she sat behind his desk during class.

Then-Principal Donna Valentine investigated and concluded that the touching was not intentional. The teacher apologized and Valentine took no disciplinary action.

Ten months later, the teacher was cited in another incident, The Advocate has learned from a disciplinary letter obtained by the paper.

According to the March 26, 2012, letter written by the school district's former human resources director, the teacher was reprimanded that month, when he was discovered in his locked, darkened classroom with a female student. When his supervisor knocked on the door, the teacher refused to open it, according to the letter.

The teacher was suspended for two days without pay, Superintendent Winifred Hamilton said in an emailed response to questions about the incident.

Eight months after that, in November 2012, the father of another Stamford High student went to Valentine with inappropriate text messages sent to his daughter by the same teacher.

The teacher was never seen at Stamford High again.

But he wasn't fired.

The Advocate has learned that, in January 2013, the school system struck a deal with the teacher, placing him on administrative leave, with pay and benefits, from November 2012 to June 2013, when he resigned.

He formally separated from the school system in August 2013, complete with a letter of recommendation written by Valentine, included in the agreement.

The teacher, who is not being identified because he was not charged with wrongdoing, now works at a school in another state.

It's how school boards typically handle such matters, Hamilton said in an email sent through a spokeswoman for the schools.

Given that Valentine reported the ninth-grade girl came to agree that the teacher may have touched her accidentally, given that "there is no indication that there was any improper interaction" in the locked classroom, and given that the text messages were evidence of bad judgment and not wrongdoing, the district decided a settlement was in order.

"Such agreements are not uncommon in school districts throughout the state, as a way to resolve employment situations," Hamilton said in the email. "Because it is a personnel issue we are not at liberty to discuss any more specifics of this matter. The attached agreement can speak for itself."

The agreement, signed by Hamilton, the teacher, and former teachers' union president Lora Rossomando, states that the teacher was to be paid for the entire 2012-13 school year at his annualized salary of about $80,000, even though he taught for only two months of that year.

He would continue to receive all benefits, including health insurance and tuition reimbursements, through Aug. 31, 2013, according to the agreement.

In it, the two parties -- the teacher and Rossomando on one side and Hamilton, former human resources director Fay Ruotolo and her assistant Susan Paley, then-assistant superintendent Louise Spolowitz, Valentine, and the nine members of the Board of Education on the other side -- agreed that they would "not at any time make any disparaging comments" about each other.

The members of the school board were Geoff Alswanger, Lorraine Olson, Julia Wade, John Leydon, Jackie Heftman, Gary Klein, Richard Lyons, Jerry Pia and Polly Rauh.

The agreement stipulates that inquiries from the teacher's prospective employers about his time at Stamford High were to be handled by Valentine or the human resources director, who were to say that the teacher "resigned in good standing."

The agreement also states that any comments Valentine or the director would make about the teacher had to be "consistent with the attached reference letter," which the teacher needed to obtain another job in his field.

Included is an acknowledgement by the school board that the agreement "does not constitute an admission by (the teacher) that he engaged in any improper conduct, or violated any of the policies, rules or regulations of the board, or comported himself in any manner inconsistent with that of satisfactorily fulfilling his prescribed duties and responsibilities."

But that is not what Ruotolo, then serving as interim human resources director, wrote in her March 2012 letter, which cited the teacher for "very poor judgment" after the locked-classroom incident.

"You have had prior warnings about allowing students to have certain freedoms that can lead to accusations of improper behavior," wrote Ruotolo, listing examples, including that the teacher allowed students to gather in his room during lunch and store personal items there, that he gave students rides, "friended" them on Facebook, allowed them to sit at his desk and sent them out for food.

"I strongly caution you that you must change course in order to avoid jeopardy to your career as a teacher," Ruotolo wrote. "Further instances of this sort will result in more serious disciplinary action including loss of pay and possible termination of employment."

In a March 23, 2012, response to Ruotolo, the teacher wrote that "there was never any type of malicious intent" in his behavior but he could, "upon reflection, understand how certain situations could have been viewed as crossing a line." He vowed to do his best "to make sure this issue does not come up again."

Eight months later, the parent showed up in Valentine's office with his daughter's cellphone, asking about the teacher who'd "creeped her out" with texts that were "a little scummy," as The Advocate has reported.

Then the teacher disappeared.

Asked why he was removed after the texting incident, and not the previous touching or locked-classroom incidents, Hamilton did not answer the question directly.

Instead, she said by email that the teacher was suspended because the locked-classroom incident violated an "administrative directive" that fell within a school district policy of "progressive discipline."

As for the teacher's departure following the texting incident, Hamilton would only state that the records show that the teacher's official resignation was in June 2013.

There is one more aspect to the case.

Shortly after the ninth-grader reported that the teacher touched her in May 2011, the four assistant principals at Stamford High asked for a meeting with then-Superintendent Joshua Starr.

They were concerned about how Valentine had handled that and other incidents, according to a report by a private investigator the school board hired to review their concerns.

The assistant principals said the girl was credible and obtained statements from other girls who reported that the teacher had called them "cute" and "sexy" and "freaks."

According to the private investigator, the assistant principals were upset that Valentine interviewed the girl without a parent present, talked to her and the teacher together, declined the teacher's offer to resign, and did not notify police or the state Department of Children and Families.

Valentine told the private investigator that she got permission to talk to the girl from her father, who did not speak English, and that the girl was more upset that the teacher laughed after the incident. The teacher admitted to having called a student "cute," Valentine told the investigator.

Starr transferred three of the assistant principals out of Stamford High. The school board's investigator found that Valentine acted properly.

Valentine was removed from Stamford High last year in connection with a case in which a female teacher was convicted of having sex with a student.

angela.carella@scni.com; 203-964-2296; stamfordadvocate.com/news