Share This Page

Close reporting loopholes

| Sunday, Oct. 14, 2012, 8:56 p.m.

Close reporting loopholes

With Jerry Sandusky finally sentenced, we are reminded of the horrific actions of Penn State officials, who for years allegedly colluded to hide his crimes. The Pennsylvania Legislature must take steps to ensure this can't happen again by passing Senate Bill 1381, also known as the SESAME (Stop Educator Sexual Abuse, Misconduct and Exploitation) Act, which would close abuse-reporting loopholes that endanger schoolchildren.

Sponsored by Sen. Anthony Williams, D-Philadelphia, the SESAME Act would immediately end “passing the trash,” an all-too-common practice plaguing our education system and deliberately putting children in danger. District officials “pass the trash” by negotiating with educators who are sexual abusers, allowing them to resign with a clean record so they can move to a new school setting without attention, legal enforcement, scandal and cost. A typical offender will pass through three different schools before being stopped and can leave dozens of victims in his/her wake.

It's time to end the conspiracy of silence and enact laws that mandate the disclosure of abuse to all school districts. To that end, the Pennsylvania Legislature must pass the SESAME Act.

Terri Miller

Las Vegas, Nev.

The writer is president of the advocacy group S.E.S.A.M.E. Inc. (sesamenet.org).

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.