Loose Ends Linger Throughout Concord School District Leung Report

CONCORD, NH — The release of a confidential report investigating sexual misconduct allegations against a Concord School District teacher arrested on rape charges in Massachusetts last year should have helped parents concerned about the safety of their children move forward from the incident — with the school board rebuilding trust with the community. However, many parents and school board members, too, are concerned about what they read and believe a reexamination may be in order.

It has been a little more than three weeks since SAU released the 115-page redacted report, with addendums, on how and why Primo "Howie" Leung was allowed to continue to teach at Concord High School for months after being accused of inappropriate behavior with a student. Reaction to the report has been one of shock and an almost silent fury in the community.

The case began in December 2018 after students accused Leung of hugging and kissing a female student on East Side Drive near Interstate 393 while inside a car. From there, an internal investigation was conducted by Steve Rothenberg, an assistant principal at the high school. Both Leung and the student denied the activity repeatedly. Leung was put on performance improvement plan and allowed to continue to teach — while also continuing the alleged misconduct.

After learning about the state's new conduct and ethics code for educators, then-school superintendent Terri Forsten brought the investigatory materials the school had gathered to the New Hampshire Department of Education, which led to Leung being investigated by the department as well as Concord police, who received the information from state education investigators. A few weeks later, Leung was arrested, accused of raping an underage Concord student who was helping him at a summer camp in Massachusetts years before.

The arrest of Leung sent the board, district, and community reeling, and the board hired Djuna Perkins, a Massachusetts attorney, to investigate the matter in July 2019.

While the charge of the investigation by Perkins was limited to investigating Leung's alleged misconduct and how and why a middle school student, Ana Goble, was suspended after raising concerns about Leung's behavior years before, she uncovered other issues. For whatever reason, Perkins did not expand on some of those issues and the board, despite having the report for 10 months, has not requested follow-up or more investigatory work by Perkins or anyone else concerning many unanswered questions.

After the investigation was completed, board of education members viewed it in late September 2019. They were not given copies of the report and were not allow to keep their notes, according to members. After two days of reading and re-reading the investigation, Forsten, who had been with the district for about five years, and Tom Sica, the principal of Concord High School and a staffer for 17 years, were terminated.

The district also implemented changes to its policies based on Perkins' recommendations including new reporting mechanisms, safety measures, professional standards, and the hiring of an accountability officer. During a period of about five weeks, the board, its attorneys, and Forsten and Sica, ironed out separation agreements to keep from litigating each other in court.

Between the firing of Forsten and Sica and ironing out their separation agreements, Perkins interviewed Ed Kaplan, the school's long-time attorney. Later, the district severed ties with Kaplan. Sica also recently surrendered his education certificate with the state.

It is unknown if there are other investigations by the state's education department because it does not comment on open investigations but after a year of prodding by the public, the New Hampshire Attorney General's Office has received a copy of the report and is reportedly investigating it.

The district initially refused to release the report, hiding behind the personnel protection provision of the state's right-to-know law as well as prior case law that has since been overturned by the state supreme court. It was sued in Merrimack County Superior Court by Dellie Champagne, a Concord parent, the Concord Monitor, and ACLU-NH. After its attempt to have the lawsuit thrown out failed, the district was ordered to release the report and did so with extensive redactions.

Champagne said she was "thrilled" the state attorney general's office had the report and hoped it would "press charges against those in the report who broke the law and did not protect our children — that has always been my hope and was the primary reason I signed on to the lawsuit."

Goble's mother, Kate Frey, said, overall, the report "accomplished the goal of providing a picture of what led to the leadership and systemic failures that harmed kids" within the district.

"The Rundlett incident with our daughter is a clear example of a missed opportunity to protect students," she said. "If Tom Sica and other staff had listened to Ana and investigated her concerns instead of retaliating against her, the outcome of this entire incident would be very different. The events at the high school further demonstrated the district’s glaring lack of training on investigating sexual misconduct allegations, which endangered even more students."

Another parent, William Quinn, who is also an attorney, called the report "bad" and added, "the abuse of the kids, and the abuse of discretion by teachers and administrators, was far more egregious and blatant than I had anticipated."

But even after the report was released, many unresolved questions remain.

Lingering Questions Unanswered

Perkins' report is, understandably, heavily redacted due to the nature of the investigation — student privacy and safety issues as well as legal concerns, federal laws, state confidentiality compliance, professional issues with educators, and attorney-client privilege kept many from seeing a lot of specific information. The redactions make it a difficult follow even for those who know and understand a lot about the case. However, anyone eyeing the report for any length of time can read through some of the redactions as to what went on — and it is gruesome.

In many regards, Perkins' investigation appeared to be a foregone conclusion of a desired and expected outcome: Sica missed many red flags and Forsten was derelict in her duty to make top level administrative decisions to protect students and they would both be removed. And that was the perception of many from early press accounts published before Perkins was hired. But throughout the report, many issues remain including those involving staffers who are still employed for the district as well as others who may not have been completely honest (or thorough) during interviews, possibly due to fear of retribution. The occurrences, incidents, and other issues in the report were seemingly left dangling, offering questionable activity, maleficence, and worry, frankly, to hang over the school district, board of education, and community, floating in the air disturbingly or with testimony remaining on Perkins' cutting room floor.

Quinn openly wondered about the standard applied to decide what would be redacted and how. He cited evidentiary emails between Leung and his victims which were redacted in full and raised concerns "the administration editorialized their redactions."

Quinn added, "The contents of that email are evidence of the fact that Leung was clearly having inappropriate communications with his students, and the administration was aware of that fact in December. It appears to me that the administration does not want the public to know just how offensive these communications were — so as to avoid the public questioning the district’s inaction."

Barbara Higgins, an at-large school board member, said the board was split on the redactions with some thinking it was over-redacted and others thinking it was not redacted enough.

"You can't unread some of those words," she said, still stinging from the experience but lending credence to Quinn's comment.

The investigator readily admitted "witnesses reported potential missteps by the district in handling other serious matters related to student and staff safety" but she "did not fully investigate these claims because they were beyond the scope of the investigation." Perkins did include some of them in the report which is a bit bewildering that those incidents would be included but items directly connected with the charge of the investigation were either omitted, not viewed, or not expanded upon.

Jennifer Patterson, the president of the Concord board of education who also serves at-large, said the report "does not answer every question the community may have" but "it served the purposes the board needed it to service," specifically, to understand what happened and prevent future incidents, too.

"The board will need to continue to evaluate how effective these measures have been, and to keep listening to all of the voices in the community — students, staff, parents, and other community members — about what things we can do better," she said. "It will be a long process, and we're still only at the beginning."

Higgins agreed.

"In looking at this whole situation, what I know about the report that I'm not able to share (and) what the public read in the redacted report, in my mind, we aren't done," she said. "As a board member, I don't feel comfortable pawning it off on administration because that 'is how it has been done.' This is unprecedented in terms of how public it is and the extreme nature of Mr. Leung's actions … both the redacted report and the report itself raised more questions than answers."

Jim Richards, a district school board member, said the release of the report benefitted the community and showed members had "taken action" in the past year "with a lot of help from Concord community advocacy and action groups in making changes in the district administration, implementing teacher and staff training, hiring a Title IX compliance and rewriting policies in order to begin to address the recommendations outlined in the report." He, too, however, still had "many questions regarding the disciplinary process that punished a student (Goble) that should not have been punished and what changes have been made in this process to prevent this in the future."

Frey, however, said one issue that continues to belabor the district is it had yet "to take responsibility for the egregious harm caused" by some of its employees.

"What is the district’s plan to communicate directly with families and community members regarding these leadership and systematic failures and what steps have been taken to address them?," she asked. "How does the administration plan to further investigate the numerous concerns raised in the report?"

Attorney Kaplan's Redactions

To start, a nine and half page overview of interview highlights with Kaplan delivered by Perkins to Stephen Bennett, an attorney working with the board as a go-between, on Oct. 16, 2019, was released to the public completely redacted under an "attorney-client privilege" exemption.

It is a mystery why it would be released at all if there was no information to be shared with the public and the press.

It is partially understandable that Kaplan's interview would be redacted considering his role as one of the district's attorneys, for a very long time, as well as what he knows, legal protections, and other issues. At the same time, he holds the key to many unresolved concerns with the Leung report and appeared to have played at least a small role, due to his employment as the district's counsel, in allowing Leung to stay in the classroom, when reading between the lines of the report.

The taxpayers of the city of Concord, longing for answers about this case, have paid Kaplan and his firm, Sulloway and Hollis, hundreds of thousands dollars across many years so he should be allowed to speak about what he knows, within legal parameters. The fact that even some words like "said" or "and" or parts of the interview which did not need to be redacted were not be released to the public is suspect, mystifying, and worthy of further litigation — unless, of course, there are other legal issues with all involved the public does not know about.

A No-Go Staffer … And Others

There is also the issue of the single staff member who declined to be interviewed.

Why did they refuse? No reason is given. Everyone has a reason for not doing something. But when it comes to accusations of girls being raped by a teacher? Now that a lot of the information is already out, would they be willing to be interviewed?

Were there other staffers who might know something, and should come forward but did not, be willing talk to move the investigation and district forward?

There is also the issue of seven staffers "who worked closely with Leung throughout the year" at Rundlett Middle School that Perkins said raised "cause for concern" due to certain conduct. They, she said, "claimed no knowledge of any boundary violations by Leung during the 2014-2015 school year despite multiple reports from students, staff, and even parents who saw Leung's favoritism" of one of the students. They also may have been dissuaded from acting due to their friendship with Leung. Will that happen again?

And the fact that many other educators seemed oblivious to a teacher accused of grooming across many years, in two schools, as well as being accused of having sexual activity with girls inside the dark nooks and crannies of the high school, without being noticed, by anyone, is pretty staggering. How is that possible? Yes, it is a big school but there are 1,600 students in that building and who knows how many staffers. Yes, the investigation reveals Leung was often with many girls, with student clubs, at lunches, and other functions. Classroom doors were closed and shades drawn; there were accusations of abnormality. Teachers noticed those things but nothing more earlier? Did they fear, at the time they were interviewed, what might happen if they spoke up?

The fear of retribution factor was a legitimate concern considering the "long history" the district has of "both teachers and students suffering at the hands of administrators that don't want to do the right thing," Higgins said. While not getting into specifics, she said there were a number of moments in the report where it appeared educators were not sharing everything they knew and even when they did, there was rampant inaction by administrators — something Perkins highlighted repeatedly in her investigation. Having been the victim of a teacher-student sexual assault in the early 1980s, when Higgins was 15 and her teacher was 33, she worked to have the teacher fired in 1990s after she was an educator with SAU 8.

"To see that this is occurring, all these years later, is heart wrenching to me," she said. "And, quite frankly, makes me pretty angry. Who suffers? The victims."

At the time of the investigation, Sica was on leave but working throughout the summer, behind the scenes, keeping things on track for the 2019-2020 school year, and teachers knew this. They expected him to return and maybe he did, too. Forsten was also still working for the district. Some educators and witnesses, watching what was going on, may have feared for their futures if they spoke against two administrators who might retaliate against them. Should they be re-interviewed to see if they have more to say now that two people are gone and a lot is out in the open?

Perkins said "most staff members" appeared with union or association representation. Did any of those representatives play a role in influencing what was said? Why would they need union representation if they were not accused of anything and were given designation protection by the investigator?

Higgins said it was clear that the actions of some staff members who continue to work in the district warrant "severe action" by the board, the education department, or law enforcement, action that has yet to be taken.

"We are teachers in charge of other people's children," she said. "There should be, you know, limits with what you're allowed to get away with. There are a lot of people in power, I think, who worry about the wrong things … bad people get good people to stop doing good things. All that does is increase the power of the bad people."

Frey agreed with Perkins' cause for concern statement and added educators' relationships "overly influenced" due to their friendship with Leung put their primary role, working very closely with students, in jeopardy.

"What will be the consequences for these individuals who let their bias taint their judgement?," Frey said.

Kathleen Murphy, the interim superintendent for the district, said before leaving, Franklyn Bass, the previous interim superintendent, did investigate some issues with other employees in the district. She trusted his work and "his decision making skills, as a leader, and I assume he finished what he had to do," she said.

The Halverson Case And How Many More?

In Perkins' investigation timeline, she noted first that Leung was "observed behaving too casually with students; counseled by assistant principal" between 2006 and 2014 — but this timeline was not explored as much as it could have been.

Truna Halverson, a parent of a Rundlett Middle School student when Leung was a teacher there, made a credible allegation in 2011 that he was attempting to groom her daughter with a free digital camera that was acquired by the school through a grant program. Many of the cameras, after they were acquired, went missing. After Leung was arrested, Halverson contacted Concord police about the case and was interviewed but she was never interviewed by Perkins. No one involved in the digital camera grant at Rundlett, it would appear, were interviewed since this would have led to Halverson's complaint.

Were there other girls who were given digital cameras by Leung during his time at Rundlett? Did he make inappropriate requests of them with the cameras as he is accused of doing with other students? Is there anyone else who was not contacted that might have information about what went on between 2006 and 2014? Leung was considered an "up and coming star" educator for the district, after immersing himself into nearly everything in student and school life at both the middle school and high school, but maybe the events of the last 18 months has jogged some memories.

Perkins said there were potentially two other students who may know more and she handed off their information to Concord police. Investigators with the department have said in the past that they believe there are more victims, too. Should those students be interviewed? Are they willing to come forward now that they know that they are not alone, too?

Perkins stated she did access Leung's personnel file for 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2010, and found "no record of discipline or verbal counseling of any kind." While Perkins does delve into 2013, 2014, and 2015, there is no mention of Leung's personnel file explorations for 2009, 2011, and 2012. Did he not have a personnel file for those years? If he did not, why?

Six months after Halverson raised concerns, Leung was named a distinguished educator by then-superintendent Chris Rath and was pictured by Patch receiving the award from Donna Palley, the assistant superintendent for the district for many years despite not being certified for the job for seven of those years, a fireable offense in its own right. Earlier this year, some school board members voted against approving the staffing of the front office team due to certification issues and have privately stated administrators should receive an up or down vote by board members as individuals not as a team. As an aside, who at SAU 8 is in charge of checking credentials? How could they drop the ball on this? Are they still employed?

But back to Leung: How could an accusation of grooming against a teacher go missing from a personnel file like that? Were there other allegations that were never put into his file?

If Perkins did not interview Halverson, she probably did not know about the allegation, and was not able to raise the allegation from 2011 with Sica or Rath. It does not appear as if Rath or Sica mentioned anything about the Halverson accusation during their interviews with Perkins since there is no information about the case in the report. It makes one wonder what else is missing from the earlier years.

Higgins said, during a prior incident concerning grading issues with two students who were football players when she was teaching at the high school, Sica appeared to be an administrator who was "wishy-washy" and "did what he was told" by people above him — but would also "do the right thing," in the end.

Later in the beginning of the report, Perkins explored staffer comments and stated there were a number of boundary issues, a lax classroom, and decorum that led to the situation with Goble raising concerns, being accused of gossiping about Leung's cozy relations with girls, and then suspended, and later, targeted.

'If Your Daughter Got This Letter, Wouldn't That Concern You?'

Palley, who continued for months to be identified as the district's assistant superintendent even after it was revealed that she could not be because she did not hold the certification, also had a strange exchange about evidence with Forsten that was mentioned but appeared to not be properly explored by Perkins.

The district's IT director performed an extensive data search of Leung's email and Google drive, and even caught him deleting files not long after the December 2018 incident, a huge red flag that warranted action. The IT director texted Forsten to give her a heads up about a letter between Leung and one of his victims that might be of concern.

After reading it, Forsten found it "odd," including language in the letter that appeared to suggest something nefarious was going on. The former superintendent showed the letter to Palley and asked, "If your daughter got this letter, wouldn't that concern you?" It is unknown what Palley's response was because it was not included in the report. Was she shocked? Did she offer sympathy or worry for the student or say to Forsten, 'This is not good — we should get him out of the classroom now!' or anything else? We do not know and there is nothing there to indicate there was any reaction from Palley. Forsten, Perkins wrote, "couldn't wrap her head around" the letter.

The letter is one of the main pieces of evidence which concerned Forsten enough more than a month later to go to the education department and led state officials to call Concord police.

Forsten told Perkins she consulted with Palley about the investigation but not the district's Title IX coordinator or director of student services, Bob Belmont.

It is truly a wonder why there is nearly nothing from Palley in Perkins' report. It gives the appearance she offered no commentary about advice she may have given to Forsten or anything between the two of them or the case even after having served as the assistant superintendent for nearly eight of the years Leung was a teacher.

Higgins suggested Leung's distinguished educator status as well as the overwhelming amount of involvement at Rundlett and the circles he traveled in the city like poker games with connected people could have shielded him from critique. She also said it was "her experience" with Forsten, especially when she was first hired, that she was "overwhelmed" by the job, out of her element, and "did whatever Donna Palley told her to do."

Quinn said while it took time to gather all the digital evidence of Leung, it did not take that long — and should have warranted immediate action afterward.

"That would mean that individuals in the administration had in their possession the written communications between Leung and students which were clearly inappropriate and it still took until the end of March before any action was taken," he said. "That to me is a serious problem."

Hence the importance of expanded information about this entire situation.

Checking Other Staff Emails

While Perkins was thorough in noting she had checked the correspondence of Leung and Sica, Leung and students, the district and Leung, and Leung and other staff and administrators, it does not indicate whether she had searched all district emails for communications about Leung that other staffers or students may have made privately in their emails.

This may be just a mention oversight in the hundreds of pages of documents the investigator eyed. But information on the district's servers and emails, made by others, may have led to more conclusions in the investigation. It could also back up claims made by staffers of what they did and did not say to others in the district.

Concord NH Patch's award-winning SAU 8 investigative coverage

• Acting Concord School Superintendent Not Credentialed With NH DOE
• Update: Credentialing Of Concord's Acting Super Could Take Months
• Second Concord School Employee Found Not To Be Credentialed
• Concord School District To Conduct Full Staff Credentialing Audit
• Former Rundlett Assistant Principal Not Credentialed For 12 Years

Removal Of 'Grooming' From Reprimand Letter?

Another puzzling piece of missing information is what appears to be the removal of the word and accusation of "grooming" in a letter to Leung as a part of his performance improvement plan.

In a draft letter from about mid-January 2019, Sica referred to Leung's behavior with one student as grooming and added his "repeated boundary violations compromised student safety," according to Perkins. These conclusions were made based on the district's internal investigation performed by Rothenberg who "determined that there was a preponderance of evidence that the incident in the car had occurred and that Leung had engaged in other suspicious activity" with students at the high school. Some of that information was also included in the internal investigation.

Perkins said Sica, Rothenberg, and the school counselor, presumed to be Kaplan, "spoke about" the situation. Forsten was on leave at the time and did not participate in the meeting. Perkins said Sica believed her presence "would have made a difference in the school counsel's understanding of the evidence they had uncovered." Sica then forwarded the internal investigation and his letter to Forsten. A few days later, Forsten and Sica met to discuss the letter and investigation. A week later, Forsten sent Leung "another letter" informing him he was to stay away from students, not to recruit students for clubs, and that he was being reported to the state education department.

The word grooming, however, appeared to be removed from the letter and Forsten did not consult with Sica before writing the new letter, according to documents obtained by Patch last year.

What role did Kaplan and/or Forsten have in what appears to be a watering down of Leung's reprimand letter? Why was this done? If the allegations were serious enough to open a state education investigation and hand off to the police department, why were they not serious enough to include in a reprimand letter?

Mention Of A Coach Suspension

Around the same time Sica, Forsten, and Kaplan, it would appear, were advising and/or working on letters, Sica reminded Forsten the district had given a five-day suspension to a coach who verbally abused a student.

Perkins said Forsten believed the coach case was "stronger" due to an admission and she did not have "all the pieces of the puzzle" in the Leung case which "would have made a difference."

This interaction appeared to give the impression Sica was recommending suspension and Forsten was rejecting the idea but it was not developed as much as it should have been. While it does not clear Sica of any of the several red flags he missed, the mention but not developed statement appears to show that he realized in late January Leung needed to be removed from the classroom but may have not been listened to by Forsten — with others influencing her actions.

The Union's 'Vehemence'

One of the other glaring problems with the redactions in the report addresses the Concord Education Association response to Leung's performance improvement plan that was reported by Patch as part of a three-part series more than a year ago but was not fully developed in Perkins' investigation or was redacted so the public and the press are not privy to specifics she raised.

Toward the end of the report, Perkins said the district "can certainly consider arguments made by the union, if they are reasonable, but the vehemence of the union's response to the allegations is wholly irrelevant and does not alleviate the District's responsibility to independently gather and weigh evidence and impose sanctions that consider the safety of all students."

While the CEA is not the rough and tumble Teamsters and have always appeared to have concern for both staff and students, the public needs to be assured that the détente between the district and the union does not overshadow or allow a potentially dangerous person to stay in a classroom.

This should be clarified and remedied immediately in order to ensure the safety of students.

Murphy said she did not think the union would be an issue.

"It's called working together," she said. "It's communicating. Are there decisions that are made that, perhaps, everyone isn't in love with? Of course there are. But that's the job of somebody who is asked to this job, as a leader. You have to make decisions and you have to expect that everyone isn't in love with those decisions."

No Charges In Concord

While this is not a district or investigation issue, it is a Concord police issue, Perkins accused Leung of sexual activity with at least one middle school student as early as February 2015 based on emails, meaning those incidents could potentially be felonies, due to the age of the student.

The position of the Concord Police Department appears to have been that it was not charging Leung in order to not jeopardize the case against him in Massachusetts and there may only be misdemeanor charges against him.

While the attorney general's office is involved, there appears to be enough evidence discovered by Perkins to reinvestigate this part of the case.

Concord NH Patch's exclusive 3-part series of the Leung case:

• How A Distinguished Concord Teacher Became A Student Rape Suspect
• Students Saw Concord Teacher Kiss, Hug Another Student: Docs
• Should The Concord School District Have Responded Faster To Case?

The Future

Regardless of the future of more investigation or examination, both community and board members are hoping for more information and improvement from the city's school system.

Murphy, who was the only superintendent who wanted to come and work for SAU 8, said she could not go back and change the past. But she could work toward improvements in the future.

"I can't fix what happened a year and half, two years ago," she said. "But what I can do is make sure the right systems are in place, to be able to correct, for whatever reasons, people's reluctance to report (and) people's not being aware."

Murphy likened the reporting by educators to be similar to preparation for a school shooting or other incident: It was not just about watching over students in a cafeteria while you are on lunch duty; it is about checking the doors, looking out the window, "constantly doing these scans … we taught them to do that." Being prepared and trained to be aware of things that are unusual will be key with Murphy saying she would need to ensure that was completed.

Higgins said the current board is in a better place than previous boards and she had faith members would do the right thing to resolve the Leung case properly as well as protect children in the future.

"I'm done being quiet," Higgins said. "It doesn't serve me right. It's not so much as a place of anger to me as it is justice."

Goble agreed and wanted to know why the district had not yet proactively reached out to students or staff "who were corollary damage to Leung’s actions and the inaction of some staff/administrators." She added, "Is there a plan for some sort of outreach/restorative justice approach to the many people who were harmed by the missteps of the CSD?"

Richards hoped, too, for more communication about improvements in the district.

"I have asked what ongoing training is planned and the feedback on what has been completed and how this training will be expanded at all levels," Richards said. "I want to hear regular updates on the reporting channels we have established for students and staff and is it effective. As I have said before, this must be an ongoing process. We cannot stop asking questions and working continuously to improve school safety."

Patterson said Murphy had read the report and took her obligations "very seriously" to issue "follow-up action" when appropriate that falls within the superintendent's role.

"But clearly our work on this is far from over," she said.

Neither Forsten nor Sica have responded to repeated attempts to be interviewed about the Leung case. Kaplan refused to comment about the case in an email to Patch. Other school board members and officials chose not to respond to emails requesting comment.

Got a news tip? Send it to tony.schinella@patch.com. View videos on Tony Schinella's YouTube channel.