Sins of The Father…

With the #metoo movement born out of sexual harassment and sexual assault charges made against a slew of well-known media heavyweights, the California legislature passed Assembly Bill 218, known as the California Child Victims Act. This bill significantly extended the statute of limitations for filing civil lawsuits related to childhood sexual assault, allowing individuals to bring claims up to 40 years of age, or five years after discovery of the injury, whichever is later. Additionally, AB 218 allows for treble damages (triple the amount of actual damages) if the victim can prove a cover-up of sexual assault. 

In March 2023 by Montecito Union School District Superintendent Anthony Ranii sent a letter to MUS staff and families informing them that an accusation was made that a district employee had sexually abused three individuals from 1972 to 1976. The accusers in the formal complaint, named as John Doe one, two and three, allege that the school knew and failed to prevent the abuse. 

This week Superintendent Ranii sent out a follow-up letter updating the community on the status of this complaint. In his letter, Ranii says that the district denies these allegations and has joined with other school districts and public agencies in seeking a legislative fix to “the dire situations facing a number of districts who have been impacted by large jury verdicts.”

I sat down to talk with Superintendent Ranii to ask him about the allegations and the reasons why the district is taking such a hardline position on such a highly explosive and sensitive case. 

Gwyn Lurie [GL]. Can you give me some context on the letter you just sent out including why you’re sending it out now, two years after you first informed the MUS community of the allegations by an employee from 1972-1976?

Superintendent Anthony Ranii [AR]. The District was accused that an employee in 1972 to 1976 had sexually abused three individuals and that the school knew and failed to prevent the abuse. We deny that. We had let folks know way back in March 2023 that this had happened… but it’s been a long time since we formally updated everybody in writing. Why now? It’s because a lot has happened since then. We wanted to let people know that this is a real risk to our school district, and part of that is because we cannot find any proof of liability insurance. So when you hear about modern cases of public agencies, almost always they’re insured. In the case of these decades-old cases, especially here at Montecito Union, in this case, we have not been able to find an insurance policy.

Now we can show board minutes that say we hired an insurance agent, but we can’t find the policy itself, probably because the company is out of business now. We used an insurance archeologist to try to find insurance and we have not been able to do so. We also have been trying really hard to find avenues for remediation, including with the judicial and the legislature. In terms of working through the courts, we argued that notice would’ve needed to be given contemporaneously in 1972 to1976 so that we would be sure that if we reached a settlement, it wasn’t a gift of public funds.

We were denied that by the judge. We put a writ to the appeals court. The appeals court denied that, but one of the members of the appeals court said that there was an important legal argument that should be heard by the California Supreme Court. So, we submitted to the California Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court refused to hear that case. In fact, there are cases across the state that are asking the Supreme Court to look at that as well. But we’ve not been able to find a judicial remedy for this. We’ve also been working with the legislature because the legislature created this temporary lifting of the statute of limitations. We all have a lot of empathy for victims or alleged victims of sexual abuse. But I don’t think the legislature fully thought through some of the ramifications to public agencies because in our case, from 1972 to 1976, the alleged perpetrator is long dead, and the only evidence is the evidence of the three plaintiffs. So, we wanted to let everybody know that this is going on, that we’re fighting it, and we also wanted everyone to know that this is going to have ramifications for our district and the ramifications may be significant.

GL. Who in the legislature have you been talking to?

AR. I met with our attorney and Senator Monique Limón. She was very thoughtful and asked good questions. She was interested and agreed that there were some issues. So, we found her to be interested in this case and in the AB 218 ramifications. We’ve also spoken to Assembly Member Gregg Hart’s staff. And again, they were really responsive, they were thoughtful. 

GL. Significant changes. So, when you say Senator Limón and Assembly Member Hart’s staff were thoughtful, did they agree with you?

AR. My impression is that they agreed that there were some pretty intense ramifications for public agencies and they wanted to look into what could be done. 

GL. What are some of the avenues for remediation that you see?

AR. So, we’ve gone through a few rounds of mediation and we’re going to continue to work on that up until we find a negotiated agreement or it’s a court case and the court case is scheduled for this summer. So right now, the two likely scenarios are either an agreement through mediation or we go to court.

GL. You’ve settled one of the cases, but two are still active?

AR. That’s correct.

GL. Do you think this law never should have been, or should it have been in a different form?

AR. I personally think that it was a sensible idea that the legislature wanted to allow folks to go back for several decades in order to look at things from the past because we know a lot more today about sexual abuse. I think the legislature was on the right track. I think that they made mistakes on the nuances. There’s not a lot of ways that we can even mount a successful defense from 1972 to 1976, although we’re mounting an aggressive defense, to be clear. It’s hard to find witnesses. It’s also hard to deal with a case where the alleged perpetrator is long dead. And I don’t think the legislature thought through what would happen if a public agency didn’t have insurance. And so I think that the legislation, while well-intentioned, made some significant errors. And that’s why the Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team, FCMAT, has given a list of ways that the legislature can look at some of these cases. I know that there have been bills proposed to make some changes; for instance, changing the evidentiary standard for these civil cases. So rather than just a preponderance of evidence, some kind of higher standard or limiting the amount of damages that could be given, especially in the case of a public agency that’s uninsured. There are some common-sense kinds of things that would balance the rights of alleged victims as well as public institutions. Look, nobody that works here now worked here in 1972.

GL. I understand why this puts the district in a bad position. On the other hand, as a survivor of something similar when I was in junior high school, 40-something years ago, I didn’t tell anyone, and I don’t even know that that guy’s alive. I doubt he is. So it is a tricky thing and I just wonder how you speak to something like that.

AR. I’m devastated that that happened to you. I’m sorry.

GL. Thank you. And it’s not unique to me. This was and continues to be such a prevalent issue.

AR. Yeah, and to me, damages are for at least two reasons. Number one, to make sure that people who have been proven to have been truly victimized can have some money to get back on their feet, to pay for therapy, to be made whole, to the degree that money can do that. And let’s be fair, money can never do that completely, but it can help with therapies and different things. That’s one purpose. And the other purpose is to sort of force a reckoning with the institution, to force the institution to take this seriously. But that second part just doesn’t make any sense when an organization has completely turned over. I don’t know what happened in 1972 to 1976. I wasn’t here. I don’t know if it did or didn’t happen. Ultimately that wouldn’t be up to me, that’d be up to a jury. But what I do know is what happened in 1972 to 1976 doesn’t have anything to do with the current staff, the current policies, the current procedures, and certainly our standards for care in Montecito Union School are extremely high. 

GL. You said to me today, and in your statement to the community, that the district denies the allegations.

AR. Yeah.

GL. How can you deny allegations or affirm allegations that you weren’t a part of?

AR. That would have to come out in court. I mean, I can’t really go into the facts of the case. I’m not going to be able to try the case in the public eye. But if this goes to trial, we are going to mount a vigorous defense because we deny these allegations. But unfortunately, until we get to court, that’s all I can say.

GL. The one thing you didn’t cover in your communication to the community is a real understanding that this is an ongoing problem. That it’s not like what existed in 1972 doesn’t still happen. It does. And the law was at least in part intended to put institutions on notice that these things continue to happen. Was that a conscious choice — to not say anything about your awareness that you’re denying these allegations isn’t because you don’t think this is any longer a problem?

AR. That’s a fair point. In the original communication, we talked a little bit more empathetically to the horror of having to deal with this issue at all, because we are very much aware that there’s real abuse, there’s real abuse in churches, there’s real abuse in schools. Organizations must take steps to prevent this from ever happening again. And it’s a fair point. Maybe we should have made that clearer in the communication. But it’s certainly a heartfelt belief that we do understand that. In this case, we have not yet found our system of support and protection to be lacking. In fact, we found it to be laudatory. And that’s why we understand the legislature’s intent. But I do think it got some details wrong because there’s a difference between forcing a reckoning and a conversation, and doing something that’s going to have an outsized negative impact on what is a public institution. Remember our charge is to serve the kids that are here today. So, I don’t think when the legislators wrote this law, they were intending for resources to be taken away from the students of today in order to harken to allegations that happened in 1972. 

But we at Montecito Union School do understand that sexual abuse is a real thing, that sexual abuse has happened in schools, and that every school leader needs to put policies and procedures and protections in place for our kids. And it is important, and I’m glad you brought that up, and I do want to make that clear. So I agree with that. 

GL. You said that notice was never given back in the time. Doesn’t saying that fly in the face of the reason the law existed to begin with, which takes into account that traumatic events like this can be suppressed and also that the political and social environment at the time weren’t necessarily conducive to reporting such things?

AR. Yeah, it’s a fair point. To me, there is a difference between suing a private entity and a private person and a public agency because public agencies have different responsibilities that private agencies don’t. A public agency is required by law to make sure that money that is given is only given for the public good. And so the legal point that we’re making is how can we not even just be sure, but how can you even have an inkling that we are not taking public funds and gifting them for private purposes if we didn’t have any ability to preserve documents, to interview potential witnesses? In our view of the law, that was a requirement that was missed. And so while that might not be present for a private individual or private company, we think that’s an important protection to make sure that the public dollars stay for public purposes.

GL. Can you explain what safeguards are in place today if a child experiences anything that feels wrong? 

AR. So, there’s required yearly training every year for every staff member. And that has to do not with just reporting out when you suspect child abuse of any kind but also preventing abuse. This includes training about what is grooming. Grooming wasn’t even a word in 1972, but it’s something that’s not only a word, but we all need to understand what grooming means, how to look for it, and how to stop it. We talk a lot about not creating private spaces in schools. So, we’re always balancing different kinds of safety. For example, our windows have shades so that we can create safety if there’s some kind of event on campus, protecting from an outsider. But we want to be able to see into those rooms so that the students are protected. Not because we think that there’s anything untoward going on with our staff members, but because we want to set up systems that create a safe environment for everyone. We also want to make sure that every child has multiple safe people at school. In some ways, that’s the most important thing. For example, every month the instructional assistants meet with our assistant principal, and one of their common exercises is they put all the names of all the kids up on the wall, and we all check all the kids that we personally know, that we personally have a good working relationship with. And if there are kids that don’t have a lot of check marks, we’re reaching out to those kids. Kids are encouraged to talk to their teachers, talk to any trusted adult. We even have lessons about bodily autonomy that we provide for the kids in an age-appropriate way so that they know, hey, they can make choices about their body.

You’ll even see it with teachers now. It used to be that a teacher would run up and give a kid a hug, and now it’s much more common to say, “Do you want a hug, a high five, a fist bump? Or do you want a handshake, or do you want none of these?” So from an early age, we’re telling kids they’re in charge of their body, and if you don’t want to do a high five, you don’t have to. You’re not forced to because that’s a touch. And we treat our parents as partners in this as well. And if they have any questions or concerns, then we would want to remediate those and take those very seriously. So I think there’s a lot of policies, rules, and procedures in place to protect kids and to take seriously any allegation. And there are procedures in place to make sure that those would be investigated with care and with speed and with diligence.

GL. So if you are a student or a parent, and you feel something inappropriate has happened, what’s the course of action?

AR. You can report it to any school adult, and it doesn’t have to be – it can be confidential. It could be named, and we get those reports, not for sexual abuse, but we get unnamed reports that say, “Hey, I heard that so-and-so and such and such were in an altercation. Can you check it out?” And we don’t demand to hear the name. We say, “Yeah, we’ll check it out.”

GL. Is there anything else you want the public to know that you feel is important to communicate? 

AR. I want people to know that I understand that even a discussion of sexual abuse is difficult and it brings up personal memories, it brings up concerns. It’s hard to talk about. In this case, while we want to make sure that – in this case my primary responsibility is to the students of Montecito Union School, and we want to make sure that our resources can be allocated to serve those students well, because that’s the charge that I have from the public. And so, I want the public to know that we’re working hard to conduct ourselves the way we always do with kindness, respect, and integrity, and with a focus on our core mission, which is to serve our students well. Certainly, the district and I don’t relish having this conversation with the public, but the public needs to know that this is happening, that there is a risk to Montecito Union School that didn’t exist a little bit ago. And that the nuances of AB 218, which were well-intentioned, and which were brought about with thinking about victims and potential victims, got some significant things wrong. And it’s going to have ramifications not just for our school district, but for public agencies across the state of California, unless it’s fixed. And I think that people could both want to protect public education and protect public agencies while at the same time caring deeply about the rights of those who allege abuse has happened.

GL. Thank you.  

Read Superintendent Anthony Ranii’s recent letter here.