$1 million bail for Markham MS administrator

Did they or did they not drop the ball? That is the question paramount  in many peoples minds, as the Los Angeles Unified School District  (LAUSD) grapples with the prospect that an assistant principal at  Markham Middle School–who pleaded innocent during his arraignment  in  court yesterday to charges that he conducted lewd acts on a childwas  shifted from one inner city school to another.
Although his lawyer  asked for a reduction of the $1 million bail, the request was denied by  the commissioner who cited flight risk and the fact that Steven Thomas  Rooney abused a position of trust. The LAUSD educator will be back in  court April 7 for a preliminary hearing. If he is convicted in the case,  he faces up to 34 years in state prison.
Rooney, who was reportedly  on medical leave from Markham Middle School, was arrested by the Los  Angeles Police Department (LAPD) on March 4 and two days later charged  by the district attorneys office with three counts of forcible lewd  acts upon a child under age 14 and two counts of a lewd act upon a  child.
The incidents reportedly happened between January 1 and March  1, on and off campus, to a 13-year-old limited English-speaking girl,  according to the District Attorneys charges.
What makes the  situation even more unpalatable and has thrown the LAUSD into the middle  of a firestorm, is that Rooney had previously been investigated and  arrested by the LAPD.
According to published reports, the seven-year  district employee was arrested in early 2007 for allegedly pulling a gun  on the stepfather of one of his Foshay Learning Center (K-12) students.  During the subsequent investigation, police suspected the relationship  between Rooney and the then 17 year old was much more than a  teacher-student relationship.
In the same published report, LAPD  reportedly obtained a search warrant, and found photos of the Foshay  student and a pair of her tennis shoes in Rooneys house. The student  allegedly admitted she had also been involved in a year-long sexual  relationship with the educator. But, because the girl refused to  cooperate (she was by then age 18), police did not file charges.
While  the investigation was in progress, Rooney, who had become a vice  principal at Fremont High School by this time, was removed from the  school and put in a position that had no contact with students.
However,  after the LAPD did not press charges, and supposedly informed the  district of the decision, Rooney was moved to Markham as assistant  principal.
What is at issue is (1) whether the school district was  notified; (2) did the District conduct its own investigation, (3) did  the District fail its responsibility to protect children by sending  Rooney to another school (Markham); and (4) were administrators at  Markham informed about the allegations and investigation?
According  to stated district policy, decisions by law enforcement not to proceed  with an action must NOT influence the Districts handling of the matter.  This is because the District has a heightened responsibility for the  safety of its students, irrespective of law enforcement or prosecutorial  reasons for dropping a case, and because law enforcement agencies may  decline to prosecute a case for many reasons not reflecting the merits  of the case.
Additionally district policy reads if the employee is  transferred to another site, the local District Superintendent or  Unit/Division Head or his/her designee MUST advise the receiving site  administrator and other supervisory personnel of the reason(s) for the  transfer in accordance with the applicable collective bargaining  agreement. (sic)
Mike OSullivan, president of the Associated  Administrators of Los Angeles, the union which represents most  administrative personnel including assistant principals, said that their  collective bargaining agreement does not address the issue of whether  campus administrators should be notified, if a placement they are  receiving has been investigated for sexual misconduct involving a  student.
What the contract provision says, is that in the event that  an employee is being transferred, the employee has the right to know  why they are being transferred. . . this is the crux of the entire  matter, continued OSullivan. I have gone on record saying this in the  past, that if in fact the (mini) school district that was responsible  for Mr. Rooneys assignment had been aware of anything untoward  regarding an inappropriate relationship with a student, it would be a  complete shock if they would have reassigned him in any way.
. . .  my sources are telling me that what was transmitted was the basic facts  that no charges were filed with reference to the gun case. That is the  end of it, he said.
OSullivan pointed out that the dilemma is  simply this: what if the second case turns out to  fall apart. It is a  matter of balancing protection of students with the rights of employees  and the American jurisprudence tenet that everyone is innocent until  proven guilty.