Superintendent Student Safety & Well-Being Committee

That is a difficult question, especially when we look back through a lens informed by what we know today. From the District’s perspective, the 2023 investigation into Gary “Chris” Twombley was appropriate and thorough. The District reported the allegations to Child Protective Services immediately and worked collaboratively with law enforcement. We hired an outside investigator to ensure independence, and that investigation found that Mr. Twombley violated our professional boundaries and sexual harassment policies. 

As soon as the District learned of the allegations, Mr. Twombly was placed on administrative leave to ensure that he had no further contact with students while the investigation proceeded. From that point forward, the District’s priority was the safety and well-being of the former student who came forward. Her request was clear, that Mr. Twombly never return to an MISD classroom. 

After the investigation concluded with a finding that Mr. Twombley violated both the Districts Professional Boundaries and Sexual Harassment Policies, the District began the separation process. Mr. Twombley was represented throughout. We determined that a settlement agreement was the most certain way to ensure that he would never return to the classroom. Pursuing a lengthy litigation process would have carried the risk, no matter how small, that he could be reinstated, and it also could have retraumatized the former student who came forward. Both were unacceptable outcomes for us.

That same investigation also examined whether other employees had failed to report concerns about Mr. Twombley. It did not find evidence of a dereliction of reporting duty. 

In 2016, the District received an anonymous tip alleging that Mr. Twombley had sent inappropriate text messages. At that time, District administrators and staff were unable to identify a specific student or confirm the details of the report. The information was immediately shared with the Mercer Island Police Department, fulfilling the District’s mandatory reporting requirement. Police interviewed Mr. Twombley, who denied the allegation. The phone number used by the caller was later determined to be a public line that could not be traced. While the District and law enforcement were unable to move forward without additional information, I truly wish we had been able to obtain more from that tip so that stronger action could have been taken at that time.

With respect to the Curtis Johnston matter, there is an active District investigation following a recent article in InvestigateWest, in which a former student shared that she had a sexual relationship with Mr. Johnston during her senior year of high school. As with the Twombley matter, the District has notified both law enforcement and Child Protective Services and has hired an outside investigator and law firm to conduct a full review.

Because there is an active investigation now, the District will not comment further or speculate about what might have been done differently. Some of the facts currently under review may relate to the 2011 investigation, and it is important that both the District and law enforcement have the opportunity to assess the information thoroughly and objectively.

This is an important and understandable question. Since 2011 and 2016, the District has grown and changed in significant ways. The District has added expertise, strengthened procedures, and expanded training so that current practices reflect what has been learned as an organization and as a community.

The District’s focus is not on assigning individual blame, but on building a stronger and more accountable system. The leaders responsible for this work today were not the ones overseeing the earlier investigations, yet the District fully recognizes its responsibility to learn from the past. This includes examining concerns carefully, reflecting honestly, making improvements where needed, and continuing to strengthen practices across the District.

Accountability today means being transparent, acting when concerns arise, and ensuring that every report is addressed with care, urgency, and follow-through. Our work now is about creating a culture where student safety and trust are at the center of every decision we make.

As the current investigation progresses, the findings may identify areas where practices or procedures can be strengthened. It would not be appropriate to speculate about those outcomes in advance. The District is committed to following the facts, applying policies consistently, and taking appropriate action once the review is complete.

Transparency is important to us, and we understand that our community wants to know what happened and how the District is responding. The District has previously provided investigative reports in response to public records requests, including those made by the author of the recent InvestigateWest article. When reports are shared, they are redacted consistent with state law to protect privacy and ensure fairness to everyone involved.

We have not published investigative reports as a matter of course. These reports often contain sensitive information about students, staff, and witnesses, and even with redactions, individuals can sometimes be identified. Releasing a report prematurely may interfere with ongoing investigations, conflict with employee rights, or discourage people from coming forward in the future.

There are times when we must hold reports back to protect the integrity of an active investigation or to meet legal and contractual obligations. Our commitment is to follow the law, to be as transparent as we can, and to communicate openly about the actions we are taking to protect students and strengthen trust within our community.

Given recent events and the community’s questions, the District is reviewing how it communicates about investigations and when it may be appropriate to share more information once those investigations are complete.

This question gets to the heart of the work the District is doing now. No system is perfect, but the District has taken concrete steps to strengthen how investigations are handled and to ensure that student safety is always at the center of the process. Though our systems today are more robust than they were in 2011 or even 2016, there is still room to grow. Consistent with our commitment to learn and grow, we will use the recommendations from the Student Safety and Well-Being committee as well as any insights gained through our external investigations to improve even more.

When concerns are raised today, we act quickly. Employees are placed on leave right away if needed to protect students or the educational environment while the facts are reviewed. We use independent investigators when appropriate to ensure the process is objective and handled timely. Law enforcement or Child Protective Services are notified as appropriate, a step our staff are trained on annually. 

The District now tracks reports through a centralized system, which helps ensure that information is not lost, siloed, or falls through the cracks. Staff and administrators receive annual training on professional boundaries and mandatory reporting. Since 2016, we have added staff with existing expertise and dedicated resources to ongoing training so as to ensure investigations are handled carefully.

As we all know, no system is perfect. However, the District has made tangible improvements designed to ensure investigations today are thorough, timely, and focused on protecting students and supporting those who come forward.

Each situation is unique and often carries a variety of complex factors to balance. That said, our decisions are grounded in one guiding principle: the safety and well-being of students.

• Immediate Safety Risk - If there is any potential risk to students, we act quickly and communicate as needed, often in coordination with law enforcement or CPS.
• Student Privacy and Identifiability - We weigh whether sharing information could enable people to identify the student(s) involved, even indirectly. Protecting their privacy is often key to protecting their safety and/or well-being.
  • In the two recent matters involving former students, both individuals who came forward are now adults and no longer students. Their preferences are also a consideration
• Wishes of the Person who came Forward - The District takes these wishes seriously. Disregarding them could discourage future students from reporting concerns, and that could make schools less safe. 
• Investigation Stage - We typically would not release information that could compromise an active investigation or influence witnesses.
• Accuracy and Fairness - We only share information that we feel is accurate and provide updates when the facts are established.
• Relevance to the broader community - Many of the matters we handle day to day involve issues that affect only those directly involved. In those situations, it would not be appropriate or necessary to communicate publicly. When a matter has broader implications for school safety, trust, or policy, we consider informing the community more broadly. 

Balancing public transparency with care is not always simple. When it is possible to protect privacy and share information responsibly, the District communicates openly with the community. 

There is not a single formula that determines when we communicate publicly about misconduct, But, as noted earlier, student safety and well being come first. 

If there is potential risk to students, we act quickly  and communicate as needed. In some cases, we have to coordinate with law enforcement and/or CPS.

The District also considers whether a situation has broader implications for the school community. Many matters affect only those directly involved. In those cases, public communication would not be appropriate. When an issue has the potential to affect community trust or raises wider safety concerns, the District considers sharing information more broadly. 

At the same time, we are careful not to release details that could compromise an investigation or identify a student. Our goal is to share what we can, when we can, while protecting those directly involved and impacted.

We understand how frustrating it can be for families to hear information from the news before hearing it from the school system. Every situation is different, and the District’s first responsibility is always to protect the student or students involved.

In the Twombley matter, we were made aware by the journalists several days in advance of the story going to publication which gave the District an opportunity to prepare communication for the community.

In the Johnston matter, the circumstances were different. Because that former student came forward publicly through a journalist first, the District did not know of the allegations and so did not have an opportunity to communicate directly with the community in advance of the article. We learned of the former student’s allegations against Mr. Johnston when the community did. 

In an interview with the Superintendent several weeks before the story ran, the reporter indicated that another former student had spoken with her, but she declined to share identifying information. The day before the article was published, the questions posed to the District were focused on training, committees, and investigative processes, and did not identify Mr. Johnston or any specific allegations related to him.

Once the District became aware of the new allegation through the article, an investigation was opened immediately.

When deciding whether to inform the community, the District looks carefully at several factors:

• Does the situation pose any ongoing risk to students? If yes, we act quickly and inform families.
• Could sharing details make it possible to identify the student who came forward or compromise that student’s wishes?
• Is an investigation actively underway in a way that public communication could interfere with witness statements, due process, or law enforcement involvement?
• Does the matter have broader implications for school safety and trust, or is it focused on those directly involved?
• Has the person who came forward expressed concerns about public disclosure or asked that we limit communication? Respecting that person’s voice is essential.

Again, we are called to balance competing interests and it is often challenging. The District wants families to be informed, but we also have to protect privacy and maintain an environment where people feel safe reporting concerns. 

The situations were very different, which led to different communication decisions.

Mr. Willecke was placed on paid administrative leave while the District investigates whether he may have failed to report information about Mr. Johnston’s alleged sexual relationship with a now former student. His presence at school became disruptive because students and community members were actively discussing what he may have known, and this was beginning to affect the learning environment. To protect students and allow the review to move forward, he was placed on leave.

It’s important to be clear that there are no allegations suggesting Mr. Willecke engaged in misconduct with a student. His leave relates only to whether he met his obligation to report possible misconduct by another staff member.

The situation with Mr. Twombley was entirely different. The former student in that matter did not want to share her experience publicly and there was no disruption to the school environment. That investigation concluded that Mr. Twombley engaged in misconduct, but found no evidence that staff were aware of his conduct or failed to report concerns.

In both cases, our focus has been on protecting students, maintaining trust, and handling each situation with care and attention to the specific circumstances of those most impacted.

Mr. Twombley received a Teacher of the Year award in 2004. He also received two Washington Journalism Education Association (WJEA) Awards in 2019. These 2019 awards were selected and presented by WJEA, an organization that is devoted to scholastic journalism and the support of journalism teachers and advisers in the state of Washington. 

The two WJEA awards were presented after the District received the 2016 anonymous tip that he may have sent inappropriate texts to a student but before the District learned of the inappropriate conduct reported by the former student who came forward in 2023. 

In 2016, District leaders notified law enforcement immediately. The report could not be verified because the tip did not identify a student and the phone number used by the caller could not be traced. With no identified student and no evidence to confirm the tip, there was nothing in Mr. Twombley’s record that would have prevented him from receiving the awards from WJEA in 2019.

Unfortunately, Mr. Twombley was seen as and then recognized for being a caring and talented teacher, before it was learned that he used that trust to conceal his inappropriate behavior. 

This situation is devastating but we must use it to strengthen our commitment to run to ground the concerns we receive.

Through its investigation, the District found that Mr. Twombley violated our professional boundaries and sexual harassment policies. At that point, we had two options. 

• Option 1: The District could engage in the legal process to terminate his employment. Pursuing this legal process likely would have likely taken months and cost the District significantly more in legal fees. That process also carried the risk that Mr. Twombely could be reinstated and returned to the classroom. Further, it risked causing further harm to the former student who had come forward. 
• Option 2: The District could reach a separation agreement that ensured he would never return to the classroom.

We chose Option 2 because it provided the most certain and safest outcome for students in that it ensured Mr. Twombley would not return to the classroom, and it likely cost less than pursuing a full termination process. The decision was not a reward. It was a way to ensure he could not come back and to close the matter in a clear and responsible manner.

The term “cover up” has been used many times when referring to the District’s decision to not proactively share its finding that Mr. Twombley had violated it professional boundaries and sexual harassment policies. While the feelings behind that statement are understandable, that is not what occurred. This was not a coverup and the District did not avoid action. 

In the Twombley matter, the District’s focus was on protecting and supporting the former student who came forward and honoring her request for privacy. The District notified law enforcement and CPS, conducted an independent investigation, and took decisive action to make sure Mr. Twombley would never return to the classroom.

In the Johnston matter, the District first became aware of the new allegation through a recent news story, because the former student chose to share her experience publicly with a reporter rather than through the District. As soon as the District learned of the allegation, an investigation was opened and both law enforcement and Child Protective Services were notified.

In both situations, the District acted based on the information available at the time and followed the processes required by law and policy. The District recognizes the need to strengthen trust, and remains committed to learning from the past and improving the systems that protect students.

Superintendent Rundle has consistently worked to be honest with the community, even in circumstances where the full story could not be shared because of student privacy, legal limits, or the stage of an investigation. The District recognizes that people may disagree with some decisions, and that comes from a place of deep care for students and schools.

When difficult situations arise, he must balance many responsibilities, including the safety and privacy of students, the legal boundaries on what can be disclosed, and the overall stability of the school community. His guiding priority has always been the well-being of students.

He reflects on every decision and considers what could be improved, but at each point in time he acted with the information available and with the intent to protect and support students. That commitment remains at the center of his work and the work of the District.

Under WAC 181-86-110, school districts must report to the Office of Professional Practice (OPP) when there is reason to believe that a certificated educator is not of good moral character, is not personally fit, or has committed an act of unprofessional conduct. This includes situations where the District has reliable information that an educator may have engaged in sexual misconduct or committed other serious acts related to student safety or professional ethics. These reports allow OPP to review the matter independently and determine whether action should be taken on the educator’s certificate.

The District has followed these requirements and has made the necessary reports during Dr. Rundle’s tenure as Superintendent. A report was submitted to OPP after the District’s 2023 investigation found that Mr. Twombley violated professional boundaries and sexual harassment policies. Further, the District has filed reports with OPP as recently as November 2025 regarding other staff members based on recently received allegations and based on what has been identified in files that predate Dr. Rundle’s superintendency. 

The District takes these reporting obligations seriously and remains committed to ensuring that concerns are reviewed both locally and by the appropriate state agencies, including law enforcement, Child Protective Services, and OPP.

Eric Ayrault was neither terminated nor fired. He separated from the District through a settlement agreement (“Agreement”), which was believed to be in the best interest of both parties. Under that Agreement, Mr. Ayrault accessed his own, personally-accrued leave through his resignation date (January 2019) and the District provided financial consideration equal to approximately six months of 2019/20 COBRA premiums.

In April 2018, a few female students reported that some of Mr. Ayrault’s comments toward or about them made them uncomfortable. Upon receipt of these concerns, Mr. Ayrault was placed on administrative leave to allow the District time to investigate the concerns. Notably, these allegations followed a 2017 written reprimand stemming from violations of the District’s professional boundaries and sexual harassment policies. Following those incidents, Mr. Ayrault was required to complete additional training provided by an outside entity. 

It is important to note that there was never an allegation, accusation, or finding that Mr. Ayrault had a sexual relationship with a student. The concerns raised and addressed focused on professionalism, or lack thereof, and the creation of a harassing environment through inappropriate comments and behavior directed at students, more often female students. The District responded promptly, took the students’ reports seriously, and made decisions that prioritized their wellbeing.

Since the publication of the Twombley matter, the District received a report of concerns about Mr. Ayrault’s professionalism. This prompted the District to conduct a review of files related to Mr. Ayrault. The District noted that no report had been made to the Office of Professional Practice (OPP) in 2017 or 2018. For that reason, Superintendent Rundle filed a report with OPP for their review. 

Further, the Agreement expressly states that although the District terminated its then-ongoing investigation and issued no discipline based on that investigation, the District retained the right to investigate any claims that were not previously known to the District. This provision is reflected in the Agreement and will guide the District’s actions should new information be brought forward that was not previously addressed.

When allegations that a staff member has engaged in sexual misconduct with a student arise, several agencies and organizations may be involved. Each has a different role, and understanding those roles can assist in clarifying how concerns are addressed and how students are protected. 

District: The District is responsible for responding immediately when it becomes aware of concerns that a staff member has engaged in sexual misconduct with a student. This includes ensuring student safety, separating the accused staff member from students if needed, making the required reports to law enforcement and/or child protective services. The District also takes employment actions, such as placing a staff member on leave, changing assignments, and initiating and investigatory processes which could ultimately lead to discipline. The District’s first responsibility is and remains to protect students. What the District ultimately investigates is whether a District policy or employment investigation has been violated. Because some policy violations are also violations of the law, this can be confusing for some. It is important to understand that the District is not responsible for criminal investigations and it has different standards it applies to its investigatory processes. To the extent there is a criminal investigation, the District cooperates with law enforcement. 

Law Enforcement (MIPD): Law enforcement handles possible criminal conduct. If the District becomes aware of an allegation that may involve criminal behavior, the District makes a report to the appropriate authorities and cooperates fully with any subsequent law-enforcement investigation. The police have the authority and responsibility to conduct interviews, gather evidence and determine whether criminal charges are appropriate. The prosecutor determines whether to pursue legal proceedings. The District does not dictate the manner or scope of Law Enforcement’s work. 

OSPI’s Office of Professional Practice (OPP): OPP is responsible for reviewing concerns related to an educator’s certification in Washington State. Under WAC 181-86-110, the District reports when it possesses sufficient reliable information to believe that a certificated employee is not of good moral character or personally fit to teach in light of an act of unprofessional conduct. OPP reviews these cases separately from the District but utilizing material OPP requested from the District. OPP, not the District, decides whether to take action against an individual’s teaching certificate. This protects students statewide, not just within one district. 

The Union (MIEA): The union represents the employee and ensures that employment actions follow the collective bargaining agreement and state labor laws. The union does not prevent the District from investigating or reporting concerns, nor does it stop the District from making safety-based decisions. Its role is to make sure the employee receives due process during employment steps like leave, investigation, or discipline.

Each entity has a different responsibility, but the goal across all of them is the same: to ensure that concerns are taken seriously, students are protected, and any substantiated misconduct is addressed appropriately and in accordance with the law.

Whenever a staff member has reason to believe that a student may have been abused or neglected, they are required to report it immediately under state law and District Policy 3421. Such reports are made right away, unusually by phone, directly to CPS or law enforcement. 

After the initial report is made by a staff member, CPS or law enforcement decides whether and investigation will occur. MIPD handles most of the investigations that follow District reports to CPS. The District’s role at that point is to support the student, ensure safety in the school environment and make sure that reporting procedures are followed.

If we suspect harm, we report it. We act quickly and work closely with the proper authorities to keep students safe.

Police - We notify MIPD when we believe a crime may have been committed. When a staff member is unsure, they may consult with our school resource officer (SRO) or other members of law enforcement to determine whether a report is needed. That said, uncertainty never prevents a report from being made and staff are encouraged to err on the side of caution and report concerns if the health and safety of a student is implicated. 

Child Protective Services - Our educators are mandatory reporters. This means when a staff member believes a students has been the victim of child abuse, neglect, or exploitation, they have a duty to make a report. The District does not investigate these cases. CPS decides whether to investigate the report, and those investigations are often carried out in coordination with MIPD. 

CPS and law enforcement investigations focus on whether a crime or child abuse/neglect has occurred under state law. Their role is to determine whether there is sufficient evidence for criminal charges or some other action through CPS. These agencies have authority and investigative tools that the District does not.

The District’s investigation is separate. Our responsibility is to determine whether an employee violated District policy, professional standards, or their reporting obligations. However, we are bound by various laws, including privacy laws, protecting both students and employees.

There are times when CPS or law enforcement may close a case without finding criminal wrongdoing. Even in those situations, the District may still determine that an employee’s conduct violated District policy, employment expectations, or professional standards. There are also situations where the District might delay its own investigation so that it does not interfere with CPS or police work.

The outcomes of a District investigation can include corrective action, required training, formal discipline, or separation of employment. Regardless of the outcome, our focus remains on student safety, supporting those affected, and improving our systems and practices where needed. 

In addition to any District action, the District may also report employee misconduct to the Office of Professional Practice (OPP). OPP  conducts its own review and determines what, if any, action is necessary regarding a staff member’s license to teach in the state of Washington.

It is fair to say that the systems we had years ago looked very different from what we have in place today. Past investigations cannot be characterized as being deliberately mishandled, but there were times when the outcomes may not meet our present-day expectations. Staff at the time were working with the information, training, tools and structures that existed then.

The District has learned a lot in the last 20 years. Our processes today are stronger. Staff receive more frequent and focused training, and investigations follow clearer procedures. For serious matters, we now often engage outside investigators or legal counsel to provide additional independence and dedicated attention.

Record keeping has also improved. Advancements in technology has made it easier to create and maintain information in a centralized location that can be readily accessed and reviewed as needed. Several updates were made as recently as fall 2025 to support continuity during leadership changes at both the school and District levels.

The District has also expanded how students, families, and staff can share concerns. There are now more reporting pathways, and staff are trained to listen, follow up, and provide support throughout the process.

Our focus is on continual improvement, transparency where possible, and doing everything we can to protect and support our students.

The District takes its responsibility to monitor and address concerns seriously. We have systems in place to identify and review student concerns, including possible staff misconduct. Those systems work best when students, families, staff, and community members share concerns with us. While there are many valid reasons why someone may be reticent to share their experiences with the District, please know that it is the willingness of our students, staff and families to speak up that helps the District identify issues and respond both quickly and appropriately.

A report can come in many forms: it could be an anonymous tip through our Say Something Reporting App, a student disclosing their concerns to a trusted adult at school, or an email from a concerned parent. What is important to know is that a report does not need to be perfect or complete. We want to know when there are concerns so we can address them. 

What helps most when we receive a report are any specific details you can provide, such as names, dates or approximate dates, a brief description of the concern, and where it may have taken place. Even if you do not have all the information, we encourage you to reach out and share what you know. Every report is reviewed, and we work to verify the information to the extent possible.

Once a tip or concern is received, it is shared with an administrator who reviews the information and determines the appropriate next steps. That may include opening a District investigation, consulting with law enforcement or CPS, or communicating with families or staff when needed to support safety.

We continue to strengthen our internal systems, and partnership with our community is an important part of that work. When people bring concerns forward, it reinforces our shared commitment to creating a school environment that is safe, accountable, and caring for every student. As Superintendent Rundle recently shared, we are all on duty when it comes to keeping students safe, and we are grateful for your willingness to be part of that responsibility.

When the District receives a complaint or a concerning tip, school and District administrators begin by reviewing the information to understand what is being reported and what response may be needed. This initial review focuses on understanding the nature of the concern and determining appropriate next steps. In some cases, this review includes consultation with District leadership, including the Superintendent.

Some matters can be addressed through an internal review using established procedures and trained administrators. In other situations, especially when the concerns are serious, complex, or involve student safety, the District may engage an outside law firm or investigator. That decision is informed by the nature of the allegation, the need for independence, and whether outside expertise would help ensure a careful, objective, and timely review.

Concerns involving potential sexual misconduct or inappropriate staff student relationships are typically referred to an outside investigator or legal counsel. The District’s goal in each situation is to select the approach that best supports student safety, fairness, and accountability, while following all legal and policy requirements.

For significant matters, the District may work through the Washington State Risk Management Pool (WSRMP), which can assign outside legal counsel or investigators. In other situations, the District conducts reviews internally using trained administrators and established procedures.

In both cases, investigations are carried out professionally and with care. When outside professionals are engaged, it may be to provide additional independence, specialized expertise, or the ability to dedicate focused time to a complex review. In a small district, internal staff are often balancing investigations with daily operational responsibilities, and outside support can help ensure timely attention to serious matters. Funding for these reviews is handled through the District or, when applicable, through WSRMP.

Yes. The District engaged an outside investigator to review the allegations involving Mr. Johnston. While the investigator is retained by the District, they operate independently from District staff and are responsible for conducting an objective review based on available information.

The District’s role is to support the process. We ensure the investigator has access to relevant records and information needed to conduct the review. The District does not direct the investigator’s findings or conclusions.

As with any investigation, the scope and outcome depend on the information available and the ability to gather firsthand accounts. The District remains committed to cooperating fully and carrying out its responsibilities in a manner that protects students and reflects District values.

The District has engaged an outside investigator to lead the reviews related to Mr. Johnston and Mr. Willecke. The investigator is responsible for conducting interviews, reviewing records, and reaching conclusions independently.

District staff support the process by coordinating logistics and ensuring access to relevant information. The District does not influence the investigator’s findings or conclusions.

The District’s role is to ensure the process moves forward consistent with legal requirements and District obligations, and to take appropriate action once the investigative work is complete.

Yes. Investigations often include interviews with faculty, staff, and, when appropriate, students. The outside investigator determines who to interview and in what order based on the information needed to understand the situation.

The District supports the process by ensuring the investigator has access to the people and records necessary to complete a thorough review. Care is taken throughout the process to be respectful of those involved and to provide appropriate support to participants.

The District’s investigation into Mr. Twombley has concluded. The investigation found that he violated District policy, and, as previously shared, he has since separated from the District.

At this time, the investigation is closed. If new and credible information comes forward, the District would review it and determine appropriate next steps consistent with law and District policy.

Mr. Ayrault no longer works for the District. If new, specific, and credible information were to come forward involving him or any other current or former employee, the District would review that information and determine appropriate next steps consistent with law and District policy.

The area once referred to as the “Man Cave” was an informal nickname used years ago for a small hallway of offices that, at one time, housed only male staff and did not have exterior windows. At some point, a sign using that nickname was placed near the corridor entrance. Around 2013, staff assignments were changed so the space was no longer occupied exclusively by men, and the sign was removed.

Since that time, the area has been reconfigured, visibility has increased, and broader building security measures have been strengthened. The District believes these changes addressed the concerns associated with that space. The District will continue to listen to community feedback and remain attentive to how building layouts, supervision, and culture can support student safety across the District.

The District has engaged an outside investigator to review the Johnston matter, and the earlier Twombley investigation also involved an external investigator and legal review. While investigations must be funded by the District or its risk pool, the District seeks to use the most independent and objective process available by engaging neutral professionals who work separately from District staff and decision-making.

The District supports these reviews by ensuring investigators have access to available records and information. As with any investigation, the ability to move forward can depend on the availability and participation of individuals with direct knowledge of the events. When participation is limited, that can affect the scope of the review and the conclusions that can be reached.

The District does not direct the investigator’s findings or conclusions and remains committed to cooperating in good faith with the process. At the same time, the District must be mindful of privacy requirements and other legal considerations that can affect how investigations proceed and what information can be shared publicly.

Because the former student in the Johnston matter has already shared her experience publicly, the District understands the community’s interest in transparency. However, the District does not automatically release investigative reports. These reports often contain sensitive information, and even with redactions, individuals may be identifiable. The District is also required to comply with state privacy laws and other legal obligations.

As with prior matters, the District will respond to public records requests and share information consistent with its obligations under the Public Records Act and other applicable laws.

The District has already taken meaningful steps to improve how information related to staff conduct and investigations is tracked and organized. Current record keeping practices are more centralized, consistent, and reliable than in the past, which helps ensure that important information is preserved and accessible for appropriate review over time.

In earlier years, District systems were more limited, and much of this work depended on individual administrators managing records at their sites. The District believes concerns were addressed and actions were taken when issues arose, but documentation practices were not always as uniform or centralized as they are today. In some cases, information was not formally recorded in a way that allowed it to follow the organization over time.

The District continues to strengthen its approach by consolidating records where appropriate, incorporating archived materials when available, and refining current documentation practices. Not all low level or routine issues are recorded in a centralized database, but matters that implicate student safety, professional boundaries, or serious misconduct are tracked carefully. The goal is to maintain records that support accountability, protect students, and reflect the care and professionalism that guide the District’s work.

When a teacher resigns during or after an investigation, the District’s responsibility does not automatically end. In many cases, the District completes the investigation so the facts are documented and there is a clear record of what occurred. If District policy or professional standards were violated, that finding is addressed consistent with law and District practice.

In some situations, an investigation may be paused or concluded when an employee resigns and the alleged conduct does not involve criminal behavior or an ongoing risk to students that would require reporting to Child Protective Services or law enforcement. These decisions are made carefully, based on the specific facts, and only when student safety is not compromised.

It is also important to understand that when an employee resigns during an investigation, or when concerns arise after an employee has already left the District, the District’s ability to require participation from that former employee may be limited. In those cases, the range of employment actions available to the District can also be more limited.

If the conduct raises concerns about an educator’s fitness to hold a teaching certificate, the District reports the matter to the Office of Professional Practice, which conducts its own review and determines whether action is warranted.

Even when an employee leaves, the District remains focused on student safety, accountability, and learning from the situation to strengthen practices going forward. 

Our Professional Staff/Student Boundaries Policy (5253) sets clear expectations for how staff and volunteers interact with students. One-on-one interactions may occur as part of legitimate educational activities, but they must always serve an appropriate purpose and take place in settings that protect both the student and the employee.

Staff are expected to keep all interactions focused on educational or school-related matters, to use approved District communication channels, and to avoid conduct that could reasonably be viewed as crossing personal or professional boundaries. If a staff member has concerns about their own conduct, or observes concerning behavior involving another adult, they are required to report those concerns promptly to a supervisor or administrator.

These expectations are reinforced through required annual training for all staff. The training is designed to help employees understand professional boundaries, recognize warning signs, and respond appropriately to concerns involving student safety.

In practice, this means that one-on-one meetings should occur in appropriate, visible, and professional settings whenever possible. All staff interactions with students should reflect respect, professionalism, and a shared responsibility for maintaining a safe and supportive learning environment.