When Safeguarding Fails

October 2024Modification of Findings

The findings were presented to Cecily. Following her response in that meeting, internal documentation shows that the original findings were subsequently revised by administration.

Comparison of the initial report and the version* later provided to her indicates that:

• One previously documented finding was removed
• Report language was revised and generalized by administrative staff
• Supporting detail, including identified high-risk behaviors, was not included in the final version provided to the subject
• The document itself was reduced in length to approximately 1.5 pages

This sequence reflects a departure from the original documentation, with revisions occurring after Cecily’s response rather than remaining anchored to the initially recorded concerns.

At a structural level, the changes include:

• A 25% reduction in formal findings (1 of 4 removed)
• Removal of the high-risk behaviors section
• Reduced specificity in the description of behaviors
• A shift in tone toward affirmation in the final communication
• Omission of the underlying evidence layer present in the original report

This is not a matter of stylistic revision. It reflects a structural alteration of the record, affecting the scope of documented findings, the apparent severity of those findings, and the visibility of supporting evidence in the final document.

October 21, 2024Denial and Re-framing of Concerns

Cecily later formally denied the concerns and responded* to the allegations in a way that re-framed both the reported behaviors and the motivations of those raising them.

In her response, she characterized the concerns as:

• Misinterpretations of her intentions and relationships with students
• The result of interpersonal dynamics, including jealousy or misunderstanding
• A distortion of what she viewed as appropriate care and connection with students

She did not acknowledge the reported patterns of boundary concerns outlined in the Child Safety Team’s documentation, including physical contact, communication patterns, or relational dynamics.

This response marked a shift in the situation, in which:

• The focus moved from documented behaviors to differing interpretations of those behaviors
• Concerns raised by students and staff were positioned as subjective rather than evidence-based
• The situation began to be framed as a matter of perspective rather than safeguarding risk

At this stage, the process transitioned into one of competing narratives, rather than a unified safeguarding response based on reported and documented concerns.

November 2024Leadership Response to External Reporting

During the Child Safety response process, I was directly informed* by Sunna (CST lead) regarding interactions between school leadership and Cecily’s sending organization.

According to her account at the time:

• When she initially contacted CRU to report Cecily, Director Hans Fung responded with significant anger — described as “angrier than I’ve ever seen him” — and stated: “This is exactly why we shouldn’t have joined CSPN.”
• Based on that initial communication, Sunna understood that CRU was prepared to take immediate action, which may have included a temporary removal from role (e.g., a leave of absence), pending further review
• In a subsequent communication with CRU, the situation was described by school administration in a way that appeared to minimize the severity of the concerns
• That same participant noted that there was not agreement among members of the administration regarding how serious the situation was

These events occurred prior to a third call* with CRU in early December.

November 11–13, 2024Additional Reports

Additional student reports were received*. These included concerns that Cecily shared personal sexual history in co-educational classes of minors.

These reports expanded the scope of concern.

November 15, 2024Leadership Meeting

The Child Safety Team met with Hans Fung to discuss the situation in light of additional reports that had recently emerged.

According to meeting accounts*, the discussion included Hans’:

• Hesitation or resistance regarding immediate protective action
• Concerns about the potential impact of decisive action on the school community
• Suggestions that student identities could be disclosed in the process, particularly through sharing details of the reports with Cecily
• Suggestions that students follow a Matthew 18 model, going directly to the individual with whom they had concerns

Additional concerns raised during the discussion included:

• Uncertainty about the level of evidence required before taking action
• Concern about the potential consequences of acting prematurely
• Consideration of how action might affect staff dynamics and school stability
• A stated need to give Cecily additional time and grace to change

Hans also stated that he was already in a difficult position with the board due to financial issues, indicating that he was under heightened scrutiny and pressure at the time.

These perspectives were challenged during the meeting, particularly in relation to the inappropriateness of involving students directly (power differential), the risks of disclosing identifying details, the risks of delaying protective action, and the importance of maintaining student safety as the primary consideration.

This meeting reflects a moment in which leadership-level pressures — including existing concerns with the board — were present alongside and potentially influencing how the situation was being approached.

November 15, 2024Post-Leadership Meeting

Following the meeting, Hans approached Joe in the auditorium, where students and staff were present but not within earshot of their interaction.

Without prompting, Hans stood very close to him, took hold of his left arm, and applied pressure to the point of pain. He then gripped the lapel of his jacket with his other hand, tightened his grip, and lifted him slightly by the jacket while pushing him back and forth.

During this interaction, he was smiling and made comments about Joe’s appearance, stating: “You look terrible. You need to get some sleep.”

He then released him, stepped away, and said: “I can’t even talk to you. You have no compassion.”*

December 2, 2024Coordinated Administrative Plan for Role Changes

In early December, Sunna communicated* to members of the CST that she, Hans, and Ian (high school principal and CST member) had developed a coordinated plan for addressing Cecily’s situation.

According to this account, the plan involved each administrator taking on a separate role:

• Ian would speak with Cecily and present the changes to her roles as the result of administrative misjudgment, including taking responsibility for placing her in positions of leadership too quickly
• Hans would engage Cecily with the goal of encouraging her to resign
• Sunna’s role would include offering financial support for counseling

Sunna expressed discomfort with this plan, noting that it would involve presenting the changes in a way that did not reflect the underlying concerns and would require communicating information that she believed was not fully accurate.

She also indicated that, in her understanding, the plan was motivated in part by concern over how Cecily might respond if the situation were handled differently.

This reflects a moment in which:

• Administrative leadership coordinated a unified approach to managing the situation
• Communication to the staff member was structured in a way that did not fully align with the underlying concerns
• Consideration of potential institutional or interpersonal consequences influenced the approach taken

December 4, 2024Board-Initiated Investigation into Staff Concerns

A formal investigation was initiated by the school’s board into allegations concerning staff treatment by the Director*.

The complainant was informed that the investigation would be completed within a two-week time frame.

No communication was provided to the broader school community at the outset of the investigation. Likewise, no formal update, summary of findings, or acknowledgment of the process was shared with the community upon its conclusion.

The absence of communication — both at the beginning and end of a board-led investigation into staff-related concerns — represents a notable aspect of how the process was handled.