Probe into Shelton bus aide’s arrest delayed by virus
SHELTON — The coronavirus pandemic has delayed an investigation into what, if any, communication missteps took place following the March 12 arrest of a school bus monitor while preschoolers were being driven home from school.
Board of Education members have called for clarification on the protocols: Why weren’t parents — or the board itself — notified a monitor had been taken off the bus and found with marijuana in her possession? Why did some board members learn of the arrest through the local newspaper? And why is one of the alleged people involved in the missteps the primary investigator on behalf of the district?
But after some back and forth during last week’s Board of Education meeting, the
discussion was tabled — in part because the investigation wasn’t finished and in part because members didn’t want to discuss personnel issues in public.
The next school board meeting is set for June 24.
According to a police report of the arrest, officers were sent to investigate a complaint that marijuana had been smelled in the preschool bus that had just departed.
The bus was halted on its route and the responding police officer’s report stated he stepped inside the bus and smelled marijuana. After speaking to the driver and the monitor, Linda Frances Cummings, police said, Cummings pulled a metal container with six marijuana cigarettes from her backpack.
The children were placed on another bus and transported away, according to police, and Cummings was taken into custody. The 49-year-old Seymour resident was charged with possessing less than half an ounce of cannabis and six counts of risk of injury to a child.
Those charges are still pending. Her next court date is June 22 in Derby.
News of the arrest became public nearly a week later, after a preschool parent contacted the Shelton Herald, saying she was outraged she was not told immediately about the incident, which occurred while her son and other 3- and 4-year-old students with special needs were being driven home from school.
“These kids are the most vulnerable in the school, which only escalates my outrage,” said the mother, who asked not to be named to protect the identity of her child. She said she learned of the arrest through a letter from the State’s Attorney office received March 20. The letter asked for pertinent information about the case, she said.
The day of the actual arrest, the parent said, she received an email saying the bus would be late because of “technical” issues. Her son arrived about half an hour behind schedule.
The parent said she thought nothing of the statement since the email specifically said “technical” issues, which she thought to mean bus maintenance.
Shelton Student Transportation Services runs all the school busing on behalf of the city, which owns the contract for school busing. Bus aides are employees of the bus company, not the Board of Education.
Shelton Student Transportation Services head Ken Nappi said at the time that Cummings was “immediately terminated” after the company learned of the arrest.
Nappi said the bus company alerted the Board of Education. Since the students’ safety was never in jeopardy, Nappi said, the specifics of the incident were not announced, simply that a technical issue slowed student drop-off.
In March, interim Superintendent of Schools Beth Smith did not address the mother’s complaint directly, but told the Shelton Herald, “Parents were notified that day that there was an incident, the bus would arrive home late and that all children were safe,” she said.
During the May 27 videoconference school board meeting, Smith told the board she was investigating how the incident was handled — investigations into school personnel and protocols are standard administrative procedure, she said — and would provide the board with her findings. She said the coronavirus pandemic has slowed the process of bringing in employees for interviews.
Board member Mandy Kilmartin asked about the arrest and who was, and was not, contacted.
“I have the answers to these questions as to who was called and who did what,” Smith said. “I have not yet, due to COVID, been able to investigate the matter.”
Smith added, “There very well may have been flaws in the process of what an employee should have done that may lead to something that may come before the board.”
Board member Diana Meyer, who along with Patti Moonan abstained from the vote to table the discussion, said she wanted more than an answer to who was contacted when.
“My concern is that Dr. Smith was part of the chain of communication and for the person who is part of the investigation to investigate this is, I think, a conflict of interest,” Meyer said.
Meyer said she would prefer the Board of Education take point on the investigation.
“I would rather the board call all parties involved and discuss what exactly happened,” Meyer said. “I would caution Dr. Smith or any other board employee not to take an investigation into their own hands.”
Smith said it was the job of the administration, not the board, to investigate school employees.
“But you’re involved,” responded Meyer. “I am involved, you’re correct, and the board can question me once I have given the board my findings,” said Smith, adding that she was willing to reveal her involvement during the meeting if approved by corporation counsel.
Attorney Fred Stanek then recommended the item be tabled until Smith’s investigation is complete.