A judge in Loudoun County, Virginia, ruled Tuesday that the school board does not have to release an independent review of how the school system handled two sexual assaults by a high school student last year.
The advocacy group Fight for Schools filed a petition in court last month to force the school system to release the review to the public. The group had argued that, since Superintendent Scott Ziegler in November heralded the probe as an independent investigation and intended it to soothe public anxiety over the incidents, it should be made public.
Last year, a teenager sexually assaulted two fellow high school students, one at聽Stone Bridge聽and another at聽Broad Run, leading Loudoun County Public Schools to commission the independent review. The 15-year-old was convicted of both assaults聽and is on supervised probation in a locked juvenile treatment facility until his 18th birthday.
Judge James Plowman said the firm was hired by the school board to conduct the investigation and offer legal advice for possible lawsuits against the school system. 鈥淚t鈥檚 clearly attorney-client privilege material,鈥� Plowman added.
William Porter, a principal with the law firm Blankingship & Keith, which conducted the review, said he identified himself as representing the Loudoun County School Board in every interview he did. He said hardbound copies of the report were handed to board members during a closed meeting, and collected after they were read.
The attorney for Fight for Schools said the firm was both doing investigation of the facts and providing legal advice in between the first and second assaults in schools.
Plowman said the suggestion of impropriety was 鈥渁 leap,鈥� and not substantiated.
The plaintiffs added that since the report was produced with public money and intended to defuse tensions, it should be released.
Lawyers for the school board said that 鈥渢he public wants to know,” but that attorney-client privilege is “sacrosanct,鈥� adding that 鈥渋ndependent does not mean public.”
鈥淲e all acknowledge this is a sensitive issue,鈥� Plowman said. 鈥淭he public has an interest in finding out, and there鈥檚 been a lot of, what we鈥檒l call public outcry. But this is clearly attorney-client privilege material.鈥�
In an out-of-the-ordinary exchange, Plowman offered to review the report in camera 鈥� privately 鈥� 鈥渋f it would help in moving forward.鈥� While the lawyer for the school system was initially amenable to the judge reviewing the report, she said it wasn鈥檛 necessary, and the evidence presented in court should be enough. Despite the plaintiff鈥檚 argument that the judge reading the report 鈥渨ould go a long way鈥� toward soothing community mistrust, Plowman said 鈥淚 will not compel it,鈥� saying his ruling should be based on evidence presented in court.
The judge added, “I鈥檓 sensitive that the public wants answers. Unfortunately, this is not the vehicle where the report will be turned over to the public.”
草莓传媒鈥檚 Kyle Cooper contributed to this report.
