IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CRIMINAL DIVISION
IN RE: THE 2014
ALLEGHENY COUNTY
INVESTIGATING GRAND JURY

Cnm1nal Div1s1on
A0-14-203-CR

REPORT NO 1
TO THE HONORABLE JILL E. RANGOS, SUPERVISING JUDGE:

We, the members of the 2014 Allegheny County Investigating Grand Jury,
based upon facts received in the course of an investigation authorized by the
Investigating Grand Jury Act. recommend administrative and leg1slat1ve act1on m
the public interest. So finding, with not fewer than twelve concurring. we do
hereby adopt this Report for subm1sS1on to the Supervis1ng Judge.

Forepers6n. The 2014
Allegheny County lnvest1gatmg
Grand Jury

2--J-/;~1_·~---- 2016

Dated: _ _

 I.

Summary
The report contained herein represents the culmination of an extensive

nine month inqu1ry by this Investigative Body into the actions, and lack of act1on.
taken by admintstrators of Plum Senior High School and by the School Resource

Officer assigned to that school. In making this 1nquiry, we have been guided by
one overriding concern- the importance of the protection of children. To that end.
this Grand Jury has uncovered systematic failures to protect students on the part
of Plum Senior High School staff and school resource officer, leaving those
students vulnerable to abuse by the very persons who are duty bound to protect
them. We attribute these failures in large part to an academic culture that
encouraged the protection of friends and colleagues over students, insularity.
avoidance of personal responsibility in favor of shifting the onus onto others
w1thout follow up, and turning a blind eye to obvious signs of teacher misconduct.
During the course of conducting this investigation. the Grand Jury also
d1scovered evidence of the sexual assault of a prior student by her former
substitute teacher at Plum Semor H1gh Schoof Th1s Grand Jury issued a
Presentment recommending the arrest and prosecution of that former substitute
teacher

Trial is currently pending

tn

the Allegheny County Court of Common

Pleas.
Wh1le we are tempted to affix crimtnal liability on other 1nd1v1duals who
were clearly derelict in their statutory duties to protect the children m their care
from physical and sexual abuse, we find ourselves effectively precluded from
doing so based on the language of the relevant statutory prov1sions. the

 involvement of the Plum Sentor Htgh School Resource Officer, and the lack of
documentation mainta1ned by both admm1strat1on and the School Resource
Officer. Furthermore. the conduct of administrators and the School Resource
Officer within the school occurred over a span of years during which Child
Protective Serv1ces Laws, especially duties and responsibilities affixed to
particular individuals therein, and the Pennsylvania Crimes Code. particularly
with respect to Institutional Sexual Assault, were undergoing significant change.
While certain actions and behaviors would be cnminal by current standards. we
are compelled to find under these circumstances that cnminal prosecution under
the then existing statutes would likely not be successful
While the inab1llty to issue a Presentment alleging crimmal liab1hty on the
part of culpable parties weighs heavily on this Grand Jury. it is our hope that the
report set forth below will serve as a catalyst for change in the attitude of school
administrators. the practices of school districts, and in amendments to legislation
towards the goal of offering greater protection to our Commonwealth's students

II. Introduction
The matter brought before the 2014 Allegheny County lnvesttgating Grand
Jury was an investigatton into the course of conduct of members of the Plum
Sentor Htgh School admtn1strat1on and Plurn Borough poltce officer ass1gned to
work at Plum Senior Htgh School (the school) following the arrests of Jason
Cooper and Joseph Rugg1en. teachers at Plum Senior Htgh School The focus of
thts inqUiry was whether members of the admintstration and/or staff and/or other
indtviduals asstgned to work at Plum Sentor Htgh School had a reasonable cause

 to suspect that Joseph Ruggieri, an English teacher at Plum Semor High School.
had been involved in multiple sexual relationships with female students at the
school over the last several years and, if so, why no informatron about such
activities had ever been reported to law enforcement. Childline 1 or Children.
Youth and Family Services (CYF). The crux of this investigation focused on
whether the Plum School Orstrict administration ignored warning signs and
allowed a chtld predator to continue hrs employment in the htgh school where he
had continued

A.

d~rect

mteractron with high school students

Arrests of jason Cooper and joseph Ruggieri

On January 29, 2015, Plum High School Resource Officer Mark Kost
reported that he attended a meeting with Plum High School Princ1pal Ryan
Kociela regarding an "internal investigation that [Kociela) had conducted
concerning an alleged incident of inappropriate behavior'' between high school
sc1ence teacher Jason Cooper and a juvenile Plum High School Student,
heretnafter referred to as Vict1m 1. Officer Kost reported that Pnncipal Koc1e1a
had conducted 1nterv1ews of three teachers, including Cooper. and five students.
mcluding the alleged v1ctim.
At the time that this matter was reported to Detectives of Plum Police
Department for mvestigation 1nto a sexual assault. Principal Kociela was in
possess1on of paper copies of correspondence between teacher Cooper and

'ClllluLine is Hn organizatwnal unit uf tht:> DepRrtn11•nt of Publw WPlfare whteh
teleph(Jne :-~y:-ott•m fnr rr·r:Ptvtn~ n•pnrts 11f
"'"Pt·ctcd chLld abww, rt•fcrrin~ report8 fur mvcstlgatwn to I'OUntv ··hddn·n and

•.lJJ•:rates a ::.!·l-hour a day Stat.•~w1de toll free

:. "ut h agt•ncles. and lllUii\Lllnlllg the l'eport;, tn the appropnate t'll·::

 Victim 1 via the social networking s1te Twitter. The correspondence was in no
way sexual in nature. Koc1ela had also learned of rumors through other students
that Cooper and Victim 1 had been having contact outs1de of school After
interviewing several students. including Victim 1 and Jason Cooper, Principal
Kociela felt it necessary to mvolve the Plum Police Department. He did so by
asking School Resource Officer Kost to f1le a formal pol1ce complaint. and
therefore, Involving Plum Borough Police Detectives.
Officer Kost wrote a police report regarding Information received from
Principal Ryan Kociela. Kost reported that on January 23. 2015. Kociela
interviewed Jason Cooper regarding his contact with Victim 1 This police report
consists of an apparent transcript of the entire discussion between Cooper and
Koc1ela 1n a question and answer format. Cooper acknowledged having had
contact with Victim 1 via Twitter but denied having any physical contact with
Vict1m 1 outside of school.
On February 10, 2015. Plum Pollee Detective Mark Focareta and Officer
Kost Interviewed Victim 1 and learned from her of a relat1onsh1p that had been
ongoing between Victim 1 and Jason Cooper since at least December. 2014
V1ct1m 1 reported to Plum Police that she communicated w1th Jason Cooper v1a
cellular telephone and on the social networking s1te Tw1tter. She reported that
she had sexual Intercourse w1th Jason Cooper 1n January. 201 5 As of the date
of her 1nterview with Plum Police. the sexual relat1onsh1p between V1ctrm

1

and

Jason Cooper was still ongoing
Durmg thts intervtew. V1ctim 1 wris asked by Detective Focr1reta 1f she

 knew of any other students that were engaged in sexual relationships wtth Jason
Cooper or any other teachers at Plum Senter Htgh School. Victim 1 reported that
it was common knowledge in school that English teacher Joseph Ruggieri was
rumored to be in a sexual relationship with another twelfth grade student,
hereinafter, Vict1m 2. Victim 1 also provided the names of two other former
female students with whom Ruggieri was rumored to have previously been
sexually mvolved.
Cooper was arrested by Plum Police on February 11, 2015, and was
charged with Institutional Sexual Assault, Corruption of Minors and Furnishing
Alcohol to a Minor.
Immediately upon learning of the allegation regarding Ruggteri, Detecttve
Focareta interviewed student Victim 2 Victim 2 reported that she was, in fact,
involved in a sexual relationship with Ruggteri which had begun in the fall in 2014
when she was 17 years old. Victim 2 reported to Detective Focareta that she
had engaged tn sexual intercourse with Ruggieri at hts residence on more than
one occaston before Christmas, 2014 Vtcttm 2 also provided the name of
another student who was rumored to have previously been involved 1n a sexual
relationship with Ruggteri, a class of 2013 student heretnafter referred to as
'Vict1m 3 •
Ruggten was arrested by Plum Police on February 17, 2015, and was
charged wtth lnstttutional Sexual Assault and Corruptton of Mmors

Prior Allegations of Sexual Contact between Teacher
foseph Ruggieri and his Students.
B.

-

·'

 On February 2, 2015. Detective Focareta met w1th Principal Kociela for the
first time regarding the allegations about Cooper. Kociela turned over paper
copies of "tweets," or correspondence on Twitter, that he had obtained from
students during his interviews regarding allegations of improper behavior of
Cooper. Principal Kociela appeared to be cooperative with Plum Police
regarding the investigation into the allegations of Jason Cooper, but at no time on
February 2. 2015 did Principal Kociela mention knowledge of any suspected
similar activities involving English teacher Joseph Rugg1eri.
On February 10, 2015, when Plum Police Detect1ve Focareta and Officer
Kost spoke with Victim 1 at the Plum Police Department, they learned of V1ct1m 2
and her relationship w1th Ruggreri Detective Focareta, along with Officer Kost,
also spoke to a friend of Victim 1 at Plum High School. Victim 1's friend reported
to Plum Police that Ruggieri had been rumored to have been in sexual
relationships with Victim 2 and multiple other students. Thrs student identified
Victrm 2 and Victim 3, by name At no time did Officer Kost reveal to Detective
Focareta that he had ever heard any previous informatron regarding V1ctim 3 or
Ruggieri.
Later in the day, on February 10. 2015, after rece1ving 1nformat1on about
V1ctrm 2's alleged sexual relatronsh1p with Rugg1err. Detective Focareta asked
Principal Kociela about h1s knowledge of this inforrnatron. After being explicitly
asked about statements regarding Ruggien's sexual relatronsh1ps wrth students.
Kociela reported that "rumors" had surfaced t1me and again for years regardmg
Ruggien

Kocrela prov1ded the names of four students and three teachers w1th

 whom Ruggieri had allegedly been involved in sexual relationships. Principal
Kociela reported to Detective F ocareta that he did not have anything concrete to
substantiate the allegations involving Ruggteri. At this ttme, Principal Kociela did
not reveal to Detective Focareta that the school had ever initiated any internal
mvestigation into the "allegations" concerning Ruggien nor did he report that any
administrative action had ever been taken against Ruggieri.
Allegheny County District Attorney (ACDA} Detectives later learned from
guidance counselor Kerry Plesco that as part of the school's internal investtgation
into Cooper, Princtpal Kociela and guidance counselor Plesco had interviewed a
Plum student, hereinafter Witness 1 Witness 1 reported to Plesco on January
23, 2015, information concerning Cooper's relationship with Victim 1 and
Ruggieri's involvement with Victim 2. and three other former students, heretnafter
Victims 3. 4 and 5. According to guidance counselor Plesco. Principal Kociela
informed Plesco that he was turning all of Witness 1's tnformatton over to the
authorities. In fact, it was not until January 28th that Plum Police. through Offtcer
Kost, received a complaint regarding Jason Cooper and only Jason Cooper
Prtncipal Koctela did not offer any information regarding Ruggien until after he.
Kociela, was explicttly questioned about Ruggieri by Detective Focareta on
February 10,2015 Even on February 10, 2015, Pnnctpat Koctela sttll only
offered Focareta knowledge of "rumors" that he qualified as unsubstantiated
By February 12. 2015. Detecttve Focareta had conducted interviews of
three staff members and three students on school property In the course of
Focareta's tnvestigation he had learned of allegattons of Victtm 2's relattonshtp

 with Ruggieri that had been circulating since at least October, 2014. Detective
Focareta also learned of "talk" regarding Ruggieri's involvement with Victim 3
On February 12, 2015 Detective Focareta spoke again with Principal
Kociela about Ruggieri. Principal Kociela was specifically questioned about the
allegations of Victim 2 that had begun to surface m October, 2014.

Kociela

responded by reporting that he had received numerous reports from staff and
students regarding an ongoing relationship between Ruggieri and Victim 2. As a
result of these allegations he had met with Ruggieri on October 14, 2014, and
again on November 13, 2014. According to Princ1pal Kociela, on November 13,
2014, Kociela had instructed Ruggieri to have no further contact with Victim 2even in passing between classes. Principal Kociela informed Detect1ve Focareta
that he and Assistant Principal Shannon Cromb1e interviewed a student.
hereinafter Witness 2. about these allegations 1n January, 2015. Princ1pal
Kociela had minimal documentation for some of these Interviews and completely
failed to document others. Despite the apparent need for administrative act1on.
Pnncipal Koc1ela did not not1fy e1ther Childline or CYF for further investigation
Kociela also reported to Detective Focareta that he had heard "rumors" of
Rugg1eri and Vict1m 3, a class of 2013 graduate. Koc1ela stated that he and
Supenntendent Glasspool (Plum school supenntendent 2012 - present) had
spoken with Rugg1en and the parents of V1ct1m 3 regarding these allegations
On February 17.2015. Detective Focareta conducted a fourth 1nterv1ew of
Pnnc1pal Kociela that Included Superintendent Tim Glasspool Koc1ela reported
that he had heard of "rumors· of Rugg1en and V1cl1rn 3 "years ago'' and that

 Ruggien, Victim 3, and her parents were all interviewed at that time. Kociela did
not report that any administrative action was taken against Ruggieri. and the
matter was never reported to poltce.
Dr. Glasspool reported to Detective Focareta that on December 13, 2011,
he attended a meeting with Principal Kociela and Joseph Ruggieri to discuss a
reported relationship with suspected Victim 3. Dr Glasspool told Focareta that
Kociela called the meeting as a result of a complaint that had been made to
Principal Kociela; however. Kociela would not reveal the tdentity of the
complainant to Superintendent Glasspool.
Detective Focareta interviewed former student, Victim 3. She revealed
that she had been interviewed by Principal Kociela when she was a student
Victim 3 admitted to Detective Focareta that she had been involved rna personal
relationship with Joseph Ruggieri and had been 1n touch with him even after hts
recent arrest. When questioned about whether her relationship with Ruggien had
ever become sexual, Victim 3 replied "even rf I did. I'd take that to the grave.··
Victim 3 stated to Detective Focareta that "It's been lrke three years so why do
you even care? I mean I didn't have sex. but if I d1d. 1t's been like three years.
Why not Ire?"

C.

The Duty of Child Protection Examined by the Grand Jury

School employees have long held a duty of care to therr students. That
duty has been. in part. codified

1n

the Cnmes Code as a mandatory reqUirement

to make report of suspected ch1ld abuse where a teacher or school employee
has reasonable cause to suspect that a chtld 1s a vtctlm of ch1ld abuse (L3

 Pa.C.S.A § 6311). Following the arrests of Cooper and Ruggieri and the
numerous interviews already conducted by Plum Borough Police Detective
Focareta and the Allegheny County District Attorney's Detectives, it was
determined that the investigative resources of the Allegheny County Investigating
Grand Jury were needed to 1nquire 1nto the alleged criminal conduct of members

of the administration and/or staff and/or the school resource officer assigned to
work at Plum Senior High School.
1

Joint Task Force on Child Protection

The importance of enforcing the protection of the children of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is underscored by the comprehensive work of
the Task Force on Ch1ld Protection formed by the Joint State Government
Commission of the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In
December, 2011 the Pennsylvania General Assembly established a Task Force
on Child Protect1on. This Task Force was formed. in part. as a response to
sexual abuse scandals at Penn State and Within the Ph1ladelph1a Archdiocese.
The Task Force's findings and recommendations, as published in its report of
November. 2012, have provided an invaluable bas1s for the Pennsylvania
Legrslature to make much needed changes to the law as 1t relates to the
protectron of our Commonwealth's children. However. the laws and procedures
necessary to protect our students are matters worthy of constant rev1ew
As such, 1t was the goal of th1s Investigating Grand Jury to rev1ew the
actrons of those mvolved at Plum Senior H1gh School. not JUSt to 1nvesttgate any
cnm1nal wrongdo1ngs by employees, but also to evaluate how such a gross

 failure to act can be prevented in the future by th1s, and other, school districts.
This Investigative Grand Jury conducted such a review with an understanding of
the accomplishments made by the Task Force on Child Protection and the need
for constant examination of how we are protecting our Commonwealth's children.
2.

Recognition of investigation and recommendations made by the
Dauphin County Investigating Grand Jury

In 2013, the Dauphin County Investigating Grand Jury inquired into a
matter regarding the victimization of a high school student at Susquehanna
Township High School by an assistant principal. The two had maintained a
sexual relationship while he held a position as an assistant pnncipal and she was
a 16 year old student. Administrators at the school were made aware of rumors.
The ass1stant superintendent of the school district conducted interviews of
numerous students concerning the rumors of the inappropriate relationship, but
not whether or not a child was being victimized. One of the interviews was that
of the v1ctim of the sexual assault. As a result of the premature interview
conducted by a school administrator, the victtm deleted Incriminating evidence of
the sexual relationship from her cellular telephone. All of the parties rntervrewed
denied direct knowledge of the affair. but rather knew of only "rumors." The
assistant supenntendent's focus of her investigatron was to ··get the bottom of
who started a rumor" not to rnqwre mto the potentral victrmizatron of a teenager
It was not untrl months had passed and new information was received that pollee

were finally made aware of the allegatrons against the assistant vice pnnc1pa1
The Dauphm County lnvestrgatrng Grand Jury made the determ,natron

l I

 that school distnct administrators not only lacked the trammg and resources
needed to conduct a meanmgful investigation, but that their preliminary
investigation caused irreparable harm to a future police investigation.
On January 30, 2014, the Dauphin County Investigating Grand Jury made
the sage recommendation that every school district in Dauphin County inst1tule a
policy of immediately reporting any Indication of abuse by a school employee.
even where the basis of the report 1s nothing more than mere rumor. They
further recommended that school employees should refrain from any type of
internal investigation as such investigation can negatively impact future
investigations by law enforcement and that these recommendations be adopted
by the legislature as new legislation.
The problems that plagued Susquehanna Township School distnct were
repeated in even more egregious fashion in Plum Township School District. It is
the concern of the Allegheny County Investigating Grand Jury that these same
problems, unfortunately. may plague other school distncts across the
Commonwealth This Investigative Body finds tt disheartemng that the sound
recommendations made by the Dauphin County Investigating Grand Jury were
made nearly a year before the offenses of Joseph Ruggten came to light. As
such. 1t is clear that a thorough and comprehensive rev1ew into the actions of
Plum School D1stnct administrators was warranted, not only to 1nquire tnto
potential criminal actions of those involved. but also to make further
recommendations for the protection of the Commonwealth's students

l~

 3.

Scope of Grand Jury Investigation

Thrs Grand Jury heard testimony from 30 witnesses, reviewed over 7,500
pages of documents retrieved by search warrant and subpoena and over 55
gigabytes of electronic evidence. The massive undertaking of this investigatron
was necessary and worthy of the resources of this Investigative Grand Jury to
root out possible criminal actions by administrators and employees at Plum
Senior High School and to investigate the potential of systematic weaknesses at
this school district that put students at danger of physical and sexual abuse.

Ill.

Relevant Statutory Provisions

A.

Institutional Sexual Assault

Section 3124.2 of Title 18, Institutional Sexual Assault, reads in pertinent
part:

(a.2) Schools.-(1) Except as provided in sections 3121 {relating to rape). 3122.1
(relating to statutory sexual assault), 3123 (relating to involuntary
deviate sexual intercourse), 3124.1 (relating to sexual assault) and
3125 (relating to aggravated rndecent assault), a person who IS a
volunteer or an employee of a school or any other person who has
direct contact with a student at a school commits a felony of the
third degree when he engages rn sexual intercourse, deviate sexual
intercourse or tndecent contact with a student of the school.
(2) As used in this subsection, the followtng terms shall have the
meanings given to them in this paragraph.
(ii) "Employee."
(A) Includes
(I) A teacher. a supervisor, a supervtsing pnncipal. a
principal. an assistant principal, a vice pnncipal. a
director of vocational educatron, a dental hygrenrst, a
v1srt1ng teacher, a home and school visitor, a school
counselor. a child nutntion program specialist, a
school libranan. a school secretary the selection of
whom is on the basis of merit as determined by
eligtbrltty lists, a school nurse, a substrtute teacher. a
Janrtor, a cafetena worker. a bus driver. a teacher atde

..

1. J

 and any other employee who has direct contact with
school students.
(iii) "School." A public or private school, intermediate unit or area
vocational-technical school.

This statute became effective February 21. 2012 and criminalizes sexual contact
between a teacher and a student. Before February 21, 2012, sexual contact
between a teacher and a student was simply regulated by the then-existing
crimes which regulate sexual contact between any other individuals. Prior to
February 21, 2012 the Commonwealth's Crimes Code did not recognize the
inherent power that teachers hold over students and thetr broad access to
students for the purposes of engaging in groom1ng behavtor over the course of
academic years. The age of consent m Pennsylvanta is 16 years old and,
consequently, the confines of the law before February 21, 2012 allowed for a
consensual relationship to exist between a 17 or 18 year old high school student
and a teacher or school employee before the passage of§ 3124 2.

B.

Child Protective Services Law 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6301-6319
1

Background

School employees hold a duty of care to their students. One of those
spec1fic duttes is to make a report to the Ch1ldline registry where there exists
reason to suspect that a ch1ld ts the victim of abuse Thts duty has undergone
both analysts and change tn recent years
The Child Protective Servtces Law, hereinafter referred to as CPSL. 1s
contained tn chapter 63 of Title 23 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes
The CPSL ts a senes of Pennsylvania Statutes which were enacted to
1I

 "encourage more complete report1ng of suspected child abuse ... to 1nvolve law
enforcement agencies in responding to ch1ld abuse, and to establish in each
county protective services for the purpose of investigating the reports swiftly and
competently, providing protection for children from further abuse ... "2
The Pennsylvania General Assembly charged the Task Force on Child
Protection with the duty of reviewing the laws and procedures relating to the
report of child abuse and the protection of children. The Task Force was further
instructed to issue a report and make recommendations regard1ng improving the
reporting of child abuse and the response to child abuse In November, 2012,
the Task Force published a thorough and comprehensive report outlining
recommended changes to current legislation

3

The legislature responded to

these recommendations by making sweepmg changes to the then existing
legislation. Following is a summary of some of the pertinent changes to the
CPSL that have been made by the legislature since the Task Force's report.
2.

The Child Protective Services law Prior to December 31. 2014

Prior to December 31, 2014. Section 6303 of the CPSL defined "Child
Abuse," 1n pertinent part, as follows:
The term "child abuse'' shall mean any of the follow1ng:
(111) Any recent act, fa1lure to act or series of such acts or failures to
act by a perpetrator whtch creates an imm1nent risk of serious
physical inJury to or sexual abuse or sexual exploitation of a ch1ld
under 18 years of age.
Sexual abuse or exploitation was defined,

10

relevant part. as:

23 Pa C SA § 6302
Jo1nt State Govemment Comm1sS10n Child Protect1on 1n Pennsylvania Proposed
Recommendations. Report of the Task Force on Ch•td Protect1on November 2012
l

J

 (1) The employment, use, persuasion, inducement. enticement or
coercion of a child to engage in or assist another individual to
engage tn sexually explicit conduct.

(3) Any of the following offenses committed against a child:
(i) Rape.
(li) Sexual assault.
(iii) Involuntary deviate sexual intercourse.
(iv) Aggravated indecent assault.
(v) Molestation.
(vi) Incest.
(vii) Indecent exposure.
(viii) Prostitution.
(ix) Sexual abuse.
(x) Sexual exploitation.
Noticeably absent from the list in subsection (3) listed above is Institutional
Sexual Assault. Until the amendments, made effective December 31,
2014, the new criminal offense of Institutional Sexual Assault for offenses
against students, 18 Pa.C S.A. § 3124.2, was not explicitly included in the
list of offenses constituting sexual abuse or exploitation.
3. The Child Protective Services Law Effective December 31, 2014
The term "child abuse" was amended effective December 31, 2014 to g1ve
a broader definition and now reads. 1n pertinent part. as follows.

The term "child abuse" shall mean 1ntent1onally, knowingly or
recklessly doing any of the following •
(4) causmg sexual abuse or exploitation of a ch1ld through any act
or failure to act.
Sexual Abuse or Exploitation ts defined, tn relevant part. as 4
( 1) The employment. use, persuasion, inducement. enticement or
coercion of a child to engage tn or ass1st another tndividual to

 engage in sexually explicit conduct, which 1ncludes, but is not
limited to. the following:
(i) Looking at the sexual or other intimate parts of a child or another
individual for the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire in
any individual.
(ii} Participating 1n sexually explicit conversation either in person. by
telephone, by computer or by a computer-aided device for the
purpose of sexual stimulation or gratification of any individual.
(iii) Actual or simulated sexual activity or nudity for the purpose of
sexual stimulation or gratification of any individual.
(2) Any of the following offenses committed agamst a child:
(ii) Statutory sexual assault as defined in 18 Pa.C.S. § 3122.1
(relating to statutory sexual assault}.
(v) Institutional sexual assault as defined in 18 Pa.C.S. § 3124.2
(relating to institutional sexual assault).
(xii) Unlawful contact wtth a minor as defined in 18 Pa.C.S. § 6318
(relating to unlawful contact w1th minor).
4. Persons required to report suspected child abuse
Some of the most comprehensive and far reaching changes were made to
Section 6311 of Title 23, Persons Required to Report Suspected Child Abuse.
This section outlines the requirement of certain professionals to report suspected
child abuse. Prior to December 31. 2014, the statute stated, in relevant part:
(a) General rule.--A person who, in the course of employment,
occupation or practice of a profession, comes into contact with
children shall report or cause a report to be made in accordance
with section 6313 (relating to reporting procedure) when the person
has reasonable cause to suspect, on the basis of medical.
professional or other training and experience, that a child under the
care, supervision, guidance or tratning of that person or of an
agency, institution. organization or other entity w1th which that
person is affiliated is a victim of ch1ld abuse. including child abuse
by an individual who is not a perpetrator.
(b) Enumeration of persons required to report.--Persons
required to report under subsection (a) include ... school
administrator, school teacher. school nurse, soc1al services worker.
day-care center worker or any other child-care or foster-care
worker. peace officer or law enforcement official.
(c) Staff members of institutions, etc.--Whenever a person is
required to report under subsection (b) in the capacity as a member
17

 of the staff of a medrcal or other public or private rnstitution, school,
facility or agency, that person shall immediately notify the person in
charge of the institution, school, facrllty or agency or the designated
agent of the person in charge. Upon notification. the person in
charge or the designated agent, if any, shall assume the
responsibility and have the legal obligation to report or cause a
report to be made in accordance with section 6313. This chapter
does not require more than one report from any such institution,
school, facility or agency.
Persons required to report are stated explicitly as: "school administrator, school
teacher, school nurse, social services worker, day-care center worker or any
other child-care or foster-care worker ... peace officer or law enforcement official ··
These individuals are often times commonly referred to as "mandated reporters ...
The statute as it read prior to December 31, 2014 required that a
mandated reporter only make report to a supervisor or designated 1nd1vidual
within the institution. The burden then fell on the designated agent or person 1n
charge of the institution to make a Child line report. Recognizing the obvtous
flaws in that requirement, the legislature amended the statute to read, tn pertinent
part, as follows 5

(a) Mandated reporters.-- The following adults shall make a report
of suspected child abuse, subject to subsection (b). tf the person
has reasonable cause to suspect that a chtld is a victim of child
abuse:
(4) A school employee.
(5) An employee of a chrld-care servtce who has dtrect contact w1th
chtldren 1n the course of employment
{7) An individual paid or unpatd, who, on the basis of the
individual's role as an 1ntegral part of a regularly scheduled
program. activity or servtce, 1s a person responstble for the chrld's
welfare or has direct contact wtth children.
(9) A peace officer or taw enforcement official.

" It IS worth not1ng that the Legislature has aga1n amended 2 3 Pa C S A § 631 1 effect•ve July 1
2015 to make the provts1ons more el!pans•ve Those amendments are not pert1nent to the

•nvest1gat1on and recommendation or th1s Grand Jury

 ( 12) An individual supervised or managed by a person listed under
paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), ( lO), (11), who has
direct contact with chtldren in the course of employment
( 14) An attorney affiliated with an agency, institution, organization
or other entity, including a school or regularly established religious
organization that is responsible for the care, supervision, guidance
or control of children.
(b) Basis to report.-(1) A mandated reporter enumerated in subsection (a) shall make a
report of suspected child abuse in accordance with section 6313
(relating to reporting procedure), if the mandated reporter has
reasonable cause to suspect that a child is a victim of child abuse
under any of the following circumstances:
(i) The mandated reporter comes into contact with the child
in the course of employment. occupation and practice of a
profession or through a regularly scheduled program, activity
or service.
(1i) The mandated reporter is directly responsible for the
care, supervision, guidance or training of the child. or is
affiliated with an agency, institution. organization, school,
regularly established church or religious organization or
other entity that is directly responsible for the care.
supervision, guidance or training of the child.
(iii) A person makes a specific disclosure to the
mandated reporter that an identifiable child is the victim
of child abuse.
(iv) An individual14 years of age or older makes a specific
disclosure to the mandated reporter that the individual has
commttted child abuse.
(2) Nothing in this section shall require a child to come before
the mandated reporter in order for the mandated reporter to
make a report of suspected child abuse.
(3) Nothing in this section shall require the mandated reporter
to identify the person responsible for the child abuse to make
a report of suspected child abuse.
(c) Staff members of institutions, etc.-Whenever a person 1s
required to report under subsection (b) 1n the capacity as a member
of the staff of a medical or other public or pnvate institution, school.
factlity or agency, that person shall report immediately in
accordance with section 6313 and shall immediately thereafter
not1fy the person 1n charge of the institution, school. fac1l1ty or
agency or the designated agent of the person in charge. Upon
notification. the person in charge or the designated agent, 1f any,
shall facilitate the cooperat1on of the inst1tut1on. school, fac1hty or
l :)

 agency with the invest1gation of the report Any intimidation.
retaliation or obstruction in the investigation of the report is subject
to the provisions of 18 Pa.C.S. § 4958 (relating to intimidation.
retaliation or obstruction in child abuse cases). This chapter does
not requ1re more than one report from any such 1nstitut1on, school,
facility or agency.
The enumerated list of mandated reporters was expanded to include
individuals such as coaches and attorneys representing schools and churches
Reports of suspected ch1ld abuse by a mandated reporter must be made
by telephone or written report submitted electronically immediately pursuant to
Section 6313 of the CPSL. Oral reports made via the telephone hotline must be
followed up with a written report within 48 hours. A mandated reporter is no
longer relieved of liability by simply making report to the1r superv1sor or
designated individual in the institution.
5. Penalties for noncompliance
The legislature has also mcreased the penalties for the failure of a
mandated reporter to make a report of suspected child abuse. Before December
31. 2014, a mandated reporter committed a m1sdemeanor of the th1rd degree for

Willfully failing to report A misdemeanor of the third degree is punishable by a
max1mum sentence of one year of imprisonment and a $2,500 fine.

6

Amendments to the Section 6319 of the CPSL 1ncreased the penalties by
mak1ng the failure to report a case of suspected chtld abuse a mtsdemeanor of
the second degree. A misdemeanor of the second degree

IS

punishable by a

maximum sentence of two years of tmprisonment and a fine of $5.000

'' 18 Pa.C SA§ 1104, 18 Pa C SA§ 1101
1
18PaCSA §1104 18PaCSA §1101

1

The

 statute also allows for the prosecutton of a felony of the third degree where the
mandated reporter (i) willfully fatls to report. (ii) the act of child abuse constitutes
a felony of the first degree or higher; and (tii) the reporter has "direct knowledge"
of the nature of the abuse.'' 8 A felony of the third degree is punishable by a
maximum sentence of seven years imprisonment and a $15,000 fine. 9
Section 6319 (a)(4} also includes a good faith exception where law
enforcement ts contacted in lieu of making a report to Childline stating:
A report of suspected child abuse to law enforcement or the
appropriate county agency by a mandated reporter, made in lieu of
a report to the department, shall not constitute an offense under
this subsection, provided that the report was made in a good faith
effort to comply with the requirements of this chapter.

IV. Widespread Knowledge of Inappropriate Conduct of Joseph Ruggieri
with Students Prior to his Arrest
It is evident to this Grand Jury that, at the very least, rumors of Joseph
Ruggieri's inappropriate and possibly criminal conduct in his interaction with
female students were widespread amongst students. teachers and administrators
at the Plum Senior High School. lntttal rnvesttgatron by Allegheny County Dtslnct
Attorney's Detectives revealed the names of several students wtth whom
Ruggieri had been rumored to have an inappropriate relattonship.

A.

Victim 3

The name of Vtcttm 3 was the most frequently mentioned of all the
students wtth whom Ruggieri was suspected to have been tnvolved. Fonner
Plum Senior High School student Joseph fommarello testtfied before thts Grand
tl23PaCSA §6319
'l~PaCSA ~ 1104

IMl':tCS .• \ ~ 1101

:21

 Jury. He graduated in 2011 from Plum Senior High School and testified that he
and Victim 3 were friends as they lived in the same neighborhood. In the
summer of 2012, he spoke to Victim 3 regarding her relationship w1th RuggierL
He testified that Victim 3 brought up the matter because she was concerned over
the appropriateness of the contact. Tommarello surmised that she likely came to
him because, at that time, he was a member of the Plum School District board as
well as a friend and a neighbor. Victim 3 admitted to Tommarello that she had
been involved in a personal relationship with Joseph Ruggieri and she showed
him some of their personal email exchanges on her cellular telephone. While
she never indicated directly whether this relationship was of a sexual nature. he
had specific recollection of the word "love" being used during the discussion
Tommarello asked if she would consent to h1m taking this information to
Superintendent Glasspool, and she agreed.
Tommarello testified that following this conversation in 2012, he had a
meeting with Superintendent Glasspool in Glasspool's office. Tommarello
reported to Dr. Glasspool what he had learned from Victim 3. Glasspool
responded by stat1ng that this report would not be the first to prompt him to have
a conversation with Ruggieri about an inappropnate relat1onship with a student
Glasspool stated that he would 'look mto 1t" and probably speak to V1ctim 3
personally. Tommarello never followed up w1th e1ther Dr Glasspool or Vict1m 3
to verify that any investigation occurred.
Victim 3 acknowledged to this Grand Jury that she did, on at least one
occasion, show Joseph Tommarello an ematl that she received from Joseph

 Ruggieri. She testified that she was angry at Ruggien for some reason (although
she could not recollect why) and wanted for him to get in trouble. She knew that
T ommarello was on the school board and believed that he had the power to
make that happen. She testtfied that. at the time. she believed that it was illegal
for teachers to contact students about matters unrelated to school.
Kerry Pfesco has been a guidance counselor at Plum Senior High School
for 15 years. During her tenure, she had Victim 3 as a student advisee. Ms.
Pfesco testified before this Grand Jury that in the fall of Victim 3's junior year.
Plesco heard rumors of a relationship between Ruggieri and Victim 3. At the
ttme, Plesco believed that there were simply some "boundary issues." She
reported these rumors to Princtpal Kociela. He responded by saying that he
wanted something factual, but alluded that he would speak to Ruggieri

Kerry

Plesco testified that she notified Principal Kociela about rumors of Ruggieri
approximately 10 times during Victim 3's junior year of high school. She has no
recollection of ever speaking with Officer Kost about the matter
Scott Kolar. a former Plum Senter High School Air Force ROTC
Instructor. testtfied before this Grand Jury that he heard rumors from students 1n
either December. 2011 or January, 2012 of Joseph Ruggteri and Victim 3 having
had contact outs1de of school He Immediately reported this mformation to
Principal Kociela. Kolar testified that Koc1ela responded by telling Kolar that next
time he received such Information he could just ''shp an anonymous note under
the door " Kolar did not rece1ve any follow up information followtng his report of
Ruggieri

At some potnt in V1ctlm 3's sentor year. Kolar was asstgned to teach

 her in class. At the time that she started h1s class, Kolar was instructed by a
colleague to let administration know 1f Ruggieri ever came by his classroom while
Victim 3 was present.
Principal Kociela confirmed in his testimony to th1s Grand Jury that tn
December, 2011, Kolar shared with him rumors going around amongst students
that Ruggieri was involved in a sexual relationship with Victim 3. Kociela testified
that he passed information of these rumors up to the Superintendent at the time,
Dr. Naccarati. and also to school solicitor, Attorney Lee Price. After Or. Naccarati
was made aware of the allegations by Principal Kociela, she responded by
assigning Kociela and then Assistant Superintendent Glasspool to investigate the
c1rcumstances.
According to Principal Kociela, after he and Or. Glasspool were ass1gned
to investigate the matter by Superintendent Naccarati, they imtiated their
investigation by speaking with Joseph Ruggieri on either December 19 or
December 20, 2011. Ruggieri was informed of the subject matter for the meeting
and asked verbally to attend a meetmg with Pnnctpal Kociela and Dr. Glasspool.
Ruggien declined unton representation for the meeting and watved h1s right to a
three-day notice of the hearing. Desptte the fact that, according to Kociela, th1s
meettng was clearly an Informal hearing no documentat1on was made m
Ruggien's personnel file of the heanng or the purpose of the hearing, nor 1s there
any documentation of the substance of the meeting.
According to Kociela, at the meettng, Ruggieri was asked 1f he had any
contact w1th Victim 3 outstde of school and whether he had her phone number or

 exchanged any text messages. He replied in the negat1ve to each question.
While Principal Kociela testified that it is typical to have an informal hearing
transcribed, this hearing was not transcribed or noted in any way. The task of
note taking or transcribing is generally designated in advance of the meeting and
is the sole duty of a particular individual in the room; in this instance, no one was
ever given that duty by either Kociela or Dr. Glasspool.
Principal Kociela acknowledged to the Grand Jury that at the conclusion of
this meeting he was unsure whether or not he believed Ruggieri's denials
Pnncipal Kociela's testified that part of the reason he did not immediately believe
Ruggieri was because "the information that came to (him] that there were
numerous students who were talking about this." Principal Koctela noted that
when Ruggieri represented other teachers at informal hearings. he would behave
defenstvely and aggressively 10 In this instance. he was simply confident,
definitive in his answers and apparently not offended in any way by the
questions Kociela expected that Ruggieri would have been more offended by
the allegations.
This Grand Jury 1ssued a search warrant for. among other things, relevant
tnformat1on in extstence on the Plum School Oistnct computer server One ttem
of relevance that was retrieved from the school's electromc files was an erna11
dated December 20, 2011 from Joseph Ruggieri to Princtpal Koc1ela regarding
their recent meet1ng The subject line read simply "Thanks." The email read as
------·--·-"l

Joseph Ruggten has served as the Vtce Prestdent tor Plum Borough Education Assoctalion
also known as the Teacher's Assoc•atton, for the last e1gt1t years of '''s career as a tedcher tie
had served as "gnevance cnatr'' for at least one year before he was elected V•ce Prestdent tn
that capactty, he represented other teachers at mformal heanngs

 follows:

I appreciate you treating me like a professional in what was surely
for different reasons an awkward conversation for each of us.
Ryan, I will let you know how the conversation tomorrow works out.
and you can relay it to Tim if you wish. I am sure different
managerial styles could provoke different responses and reactions
to such injurious rumors. So thank you for bringing this potentially
damaging information to my attention. Out of respect for myself
and for my superiors, I will take the next steps to alleviate suspicion
and continue to maintain appropriate positive teacher/student
dynamics. Respectfully, Joe.
Kociela testified that he was unsure of the reason for Ruggieri's thanks
and appreciation and does not recall getting this email. Principal Koctela did not
provide a copy of the email to the Grand Jury in response to the subpoena duces
tecum that had been issued to him prior to his appearance. Kociela also test1fied
that he did not recall if the "conversation" referenced in the ema1l that was to
occur the very next day was with Victim 3. He also does not recall having a
follow up conversation with Ruggien regarding this ··conversation." Pnncipal
Kociela agreed that th1s email seems to be in appreciation for not being more
heavy-handed in hts handling of the matter Notably, no disciplinary action
followed this ''Investigation,'' and no documentation of this meeting extsts in
Ruggien's personnel file.
Principal Kociela responded to Rugg1eri's email that n1ght stat1ng "Thank
you, Joe. I appreciate your understanding and worktng w1th us on thts. Will
touch base tomorrow. Ryan." Kociela was unable to explain to the Grand JlJry
why he typed the word "your"

tn

bold and 1f he and Ruggteri did actually touch

base the next day. Koctela acknowledged that the tnformal heanng w1th Ruggteri
was rn no way accusatory Furthermore, Kocrela never inqUired as to whether

 Victim 3 was spending an unnecessary amount of time in Rugg1eri's classroom.
Principal Kociela next asked Guidance Counselor Kerry Plesco to become
mvolved in a meeting with Victim 3 as Plesco had a good rapport with her.
During that meeting, Victim 3 was asked if she ever saw Ruggieri outside of
school. if she ever communicated with him by phone or 1f she ever had a sexual
relationship with him. Principal Kociela testified that Victim 3 remained calm and
"was also very confident" in her responses that nothing was going on. Plesco
testified that Victim 3 responded in the negative to each question and explained
that Joseph Ruggieri simply helped her with her homework.
Principal Kociela testified that he was uncertain as to whether he believed
Victim 3. He noted that "if multiple students were talking about it at that point.
then is there a possibility that there could be something to it. .. " Plesco testified
that at the time, she was unsure of whether or not she believed Victim 3's
denials. She called Victim 3's mother to make her aware of the meeting. Victim
3's mother was already aware of the rumors and stated that she didn't believe
them.
Soon after speaking with Ruggreri and Victrm 3, a meeting was held w1th
Victim 3's parents. Kerry Plesco and Principal Koc1ela. According to Principal
Kociela. they wanted to meet with V1ctim J's parents because they were
'interested in rnformmg them of the rumors, but also asking 1f they had any
concerns, any suspicron ... In regard to the possrble relatronshrp wrth Mr
Ruggieri ·· Vrct1m 3's parents said that they believed that Ruggien was a pos1t1ve
role model for their daughter and was helping her academrcally Pnncrpal

.,~

-I

 Kociela acknowledged to th1s Grand Jury that Victim 3, given that she was not a
strong student. was unlikely to have forged a strong bond with a teacher over
academics. To the contrary, he acknowledged that her bond with Ruggieri, g1ven
her academic and disciplinary issues, probably lent some credence to the rumors
about the two.
Following Plesco's meeting with Victim 3, Plesco was summoned to the
Superintendent's office. Present at this meeting were then Superintendent
Naccarati, Assistant Superintendent Timothy Glasspool and Principal Ryan
Kociela. The school solicitor. Attorney Lee Price, was present by telephone.
During this meeting, Superintendent Dr. Naccarat1 inquired of Plesco stating,
"Kerry, do you think [Victim 3) was lying? Do you think this is going on?" Ptesco
testified that she responded by saying "I'm glad I don't have to make that
determination because I don't know." Likewise, Kociela testified that he had
likely expressed to Dr. Naccarati that he did not feel completely confident in
Ruggieri's denials of the relationship. Ne1ther Plesco nor Principal Koc1ela could
unequivocally g1ve their respective professional opinions that the relationship
between Ruggieri and Victim 3 was an appropriate student- teacher
relationship. Nonetheless, the matter was considered to have been closed at
that time.
The fact that th1s meeting took place was confirmed by btlling records from
school solicitor Lee Pnce. Attorney Lee Price billed Plum Borough School
District for 3.9 hours of services rendered on December 20, 2011 for "Telephone
call from Administrators regarding sexual compla1nt investigations procedures.

 conference call with principal, Guidance Counselor, Or Naccarati and Dr
Glasspool; telephone call from same; telephone conference w1th Or. Naccarati
regarding the same. Legal research regarding mandatory reporting."
At the close of Kociela's "investigation," he reported to Dr. Naccarati that
the student and teacher were denying the existence of a relationship and that the
student's parents seemed content with Joseph Ruggien's role as a mentor to
their child. Consequently, Dr. Naccarati determined that nothmg more need be
done.
This Grand Jury finds it to be disturbing, to say the least; that desp1te so
much suspicion and concern over the potential of an illicit relationship between a
teacher and a student, no record of any meetings or discussion with Ruggiert
exist in his personnel file. Furthermore, no documentation exists in Victim 3's
student files of these meetings or of any consideration that it may be necessary
to get an outside agency involved for the student's well-being.
After the close of his internal investigation. Kociela continued to get
reports of stmilar rumors, one of those reports be1ng from former school secunty
guard Tanya Oslowski Oslowski testified before the Grand Jury regarding her
report of mformation to Princtpal Koc1ela. She reported that she had learned
from students at Plum Senior Htgh School that Victim 3 was

tn

a relationshtp wtth

Joseph Ruggten. She learned this tnformat1on over w1nter break when the school
was closed. A student had reported to Oslowski that "everyone kn(ewj" about the
relat1onsh1p. Oslowski was so disturbed by this informatton that she called Ryan
Koctela at hts home over the holiday to report to him what she had !earned

 Pnncipal Koc1ela told Oslowski that he was aware of the 1ssue and that he was
investigatmg it He further mformed her that Officer Kost was aware as well and
that Oslowski was fulfilling her reporting obligation by making th1s phone call
Michael Loughren served as an Assistant Principal for Plum Sentor Htqh
from 2008 through 2013 under Pnncipals Kmzler and Koc1ela

During that t1me

he handled, among other duties, student discipline As such, he interacted with
Victim 3 on a fa1rly regular basis.
Loughren testified that he was involved in a meeting with Victim 3, her
stepfather and Principal Kociela in Victim 3's senior year of h1gh school. Vict1m 3
was a senior in the 2012-2013 school year. Loughren test1fied before tt11s Grand
Jury that Principal Kociela had asked for him to be 1nvolved in thrs meet1ng based
on concerns that were brought to his attention by Kerry Plesco Accord1ng to
Loughren, Koc1ela had Informed him that Kerry Plesco had received reports of
rnappropriate contact between Rugg1eri and Victim 3 from a student Wh1le
Loughren suffered from a lapse in memor1 of the details of the conversation. ne
was able to recall that the subject of the discussion was rumors of a sexual
relationship between Ruggien and Vict1m 3 and that Victim 3 denied that anyt111ng
mappropnate was gomg on between the two

Loughren acknowledged that he

had never been 1nvolverJ in a meet1nq like tt11s before. but to the surpnse of ttw5
Grand Jury. he was unable to recall any details of the follow up work from th•s
meeting

He test1f1ed that at the close of the meeting "(wje sa1d Well now. the

parent dentes tt, the kid dentes 1L"
Loughren also testtfied that he belteved Vtcttm 3

111

her denial of the

 relationship with Ruggteri

He based this optnton. not on his knowledge of Victim

3 or Ruggieri. but rather on the fact that Victim 3 made these statements 1n front
of her Stepfather. It somehow seemed tmprobable to Loughren that a female
teenager involved in a sexual relationship with a teacher 20 plus years her sen1or
would have any incentive to be untruthful about the matter when talking with her
Stepfather and school officials
Loughren's qu1ck d1smtssal of the matter and lack of clear recollection

IS

particularly emgmatic to thts lnvesttgative Grand Jury g1ven his own suspictons
Loughren testified that about three weeks prior to this meeting. he had seen
Vtctim 3 1n Ruggieri's classroom. While they did not appear to be dotng anyth1ng
wrong, Loughren testified it gave htm an "uncomfortable feeling." It disturbed him
enough that he immediately made both Officer Kost and Princtpal Koctela aware
of what he saw. Loughren felt dtsturbed by his "uncomfortable feeltng·· even
though, he claimed to have never heard any rumors of Inappropriate
relationshtps between Joseph Ruggten and students tn the past He testified that
after he t1ad seen Victim 3 1n Ruggten·s classroom. he went strarght to Off1cer
Kost's office and satd "Officer Kost. I have an uncomfortable feeling
[Vtctim

3J

I JUSt saw

tn Mr Ruggien's room. They weren't dotng anythtng wrong. fhere

was nothtng that would cause alarm. but I have a gut feelmg samethrng 1s nat
fight " Officer Kost dtd not questton why Ass1stant Princtpal Loughren would
report such an 1nnacuous matter to htm

Rather. Kost responded by tellrng

Loughren that it was an "internal matter" and should be reported to Pnnc1pal
Koctela

Pnnc1pal Koc1ela, ilkew,se. did not quest1on why such a seen11nqly

 mundane and harmless event was worthy of discussion

He, mstead. 1nstructed

Assistant Princ1pal Loughren to 'keep your eyes and ears open ·· Loughren
never asked Principal Kociela why 1t was necessary for h1m to keep hts ··eyes and
ears open .. It seems clear to this Grand Jury, even if it was not clear to Mr.
Loughren, that the reason Prrnc1pal Kociela, Loughren and Officer Kost all
reacted as they did to an otherwise harmless event was because they knew what
so many others tn the school knew - that Rugg1err was notorious for maintam1ng
inappropnate relationships w1th the female students. Particularly disturbing 1n
Officer Kost's response to Loughren's suspicions 1s the fact that. by th1s po1nt. in

2012 or 2013, Institutional Sexual Assault was a crime and any allegat1on of such
conduct should have been handled by police and most certatnly not as an
"internal matter "
Loughren was also involved m a meeting w1th Ruggieri and Ryan Koc1ela
regarding the "rumors'' of sexual contact between Ruggieri and Victim 3. He
stated that he didn't remember tf th1s meet1ng was before or after that of the
meeting w1th Vict1m 3. but he does recall that Pnncipal Kociela warned Rugg1en
dunng the meetmg that he would be speak1ng wtth Victim 3 in the future
regarding the matter. Rugg1eri den1ed any mappropnate contact between h1m
and Victim 3
Loughren adrn1tted to th1s Grand Jury that he d1d not believe Rugg1en')
den1al ··,n his gut "but. again. could not recall 1f he expressed th1s concern to
Pnr1C1pal Koctefa

Despite what had to be an incredibly uncomfortable and

d1st,nct1ve meetmg 1n Loughren's career. he claimed to have no recollect1on oi

 whether Koc1ela expressed any thoughts to him after the meeting. Further, he
sa1d that he was unsure of whether he took notes dunng that meetmg, or of 1f he
had, what may have happened w1th those notes. and he test1fied that he did not
remember what occurred after the meettng. Loughren said he was never
directed to prepare any documentation specifically for purposes of keeping a
record in Ruggieri's personnel file

Desptte the fact that Loughren believed

Ruggien to be untruthful, he did not find it necessary to contact Victim 3's
Stepfather to express his concerns regarding Ruggieri's truthfulness, or lack
thereof. This Grand Jury
IS

IS

troubled by Loughren·s admitted course of action

It

worth noting that this Grand Jury discovered a letter of recommendation wntten

by Joseph Ruggieri for Loughren recommending him for the position of Princ1pal
at Center Elementary 1n 2011

While this letter

IS

possibly suggestive of the

esteem in which Loughren held Rugg1eri m 2011. we cannot ignore the poss1bll1ty
that his actions. and h1s testimony regarding the Ruggien matter, may have been
colored by a sense of grat1tude towards Ruggren
Th1s Grand Jury heard from Vtctim 3 about her relationship w1th Ruggterr
and her tnteract1on w1th Plum Admintstrators

She testified that she had Ruggten

for a wnting class m the fall of her Junior year. 2011

At some point dunng her

1untor year Rugg1ert contacted her fnend by way of a pnvate message on
Facebook

Ruggren asked Victim 3's fnend about Victim 3 Victim 3 later went to

r11s classroom wtth two other classmates and Ruggten asked them about thetr
plans

Soon thereafter r1e began to email Victim 3 about personal matters on hrs

·I:!

 school ema1l account

11

V1ct1m 3 sa1d that she recogn1zed she had been gett1ng

special attention from Rugg1en and recognized that thrs special attention was
probably obvious to others.
Victim 3 admitted that Ruggieri began to contact her by phone a couple
months after the emarls started. She testified that they communicated by text
message and email numerous times per day, throughout the day. She spent
most of her study halls 1n Ruggieri's classroom and testified that her study hall
teacher never questioned why she was dorng that. The two would text daily and
discuss personal matters such as school, fnends, fam1ly life and boyfriends.
Ruggieri would share w1th her information about his childhood. his ex-w1fe and
girlfriends At one pomt dunng high school, Victim 3 was transferred to an
alternative school for a period of time. Shortly after that transfer, on Apnl 3.
2012, phone records show a 72 minute phone call between Vict1m 3 and Rugg1en
followed immediately by another 18 minute phone call in the evening hours
Victrm 3 testified that she has no recollection of what she spoke about to Joseph
Rugg1en for an hour and a half on that occasion. She denied that the relatronshtp
ever became sexual in nature.
V1ctrm 3 remembers havrng a meet1ng wrth etther Principal Kocrela or
Assistant Principal M1chael Loughren ·She testified that she adm1tted she and
Rugg1en had been ema1llng each other. but she did not dtsclose th;:lt the ema11s
had been of a personal nature Vict1m 3 testrfied that she was nervous she would
---·---·
'' Whrle thrs Grand Jury made attempts to get those emarls bv way of setztng coptes of th·~
school's hard dnve pursuant to a Grand Jury search warrant. the ematls were not able to oe
re<.overed Plum School Orstnct ch;:mged therr email prov,der 'n lhe summer of 2012 and ern~!:IS
r'Ot saved or archtved were perm:=mently tosl Consequently .10 record ex1sts of these part•Ct.;lar
em ads from 20 11

 get in trouble for speaking w1th him. but she was never told that she was m any
trouble. Communication between her and Rugg1en slowed down after the
meeting, but did not stop completely She testified that Ruggieri simply became
more "standoff-ish."
When questioned about her lack of memory regarding some very
significant and unusual events in her life, she testified that she was usmg a
significant amount of medication and recreational marijuana at the time. Wh1le
Victim 3 appeared to this Grand Jury to be quite open and candid about the
rumors she had heard regarding Ruggien and other female students, she was
not at all forthcoming regarding her own relationship with Rugg1eri.

B.

Victim 2

Detective Focareta interviewed Principal Kociela and Superintendent
Glasspool on February 17. 2015. Detect1ve Focareta testified that dunng th1s
interview. Principal Koc1ela provided Focareta with all the documentation that he
had regarding interaction between Rugg1en and V1ctim 2. Included

1n

that

documentation were notes of meet1ngs that Koc1ela had w1th Rugg1en from
October 14. 2014 and November 13. 2014. notes of a phone call made to V1ct1m
2's mother and notes of 1nterv1ews conducted by school administrators of e1ght
students on February 9- 10, 2015
Pnnc1pal Kociela's notes from h1s October 14, 2014 meetrng wtth Joseph
Rugg1eri 1nd1cate that Rugg1en h1mself brought to Pnnc1pal Koc1ela concerns ot
rumors Circulating about the ex1stence of an 1nappropnate relat1onsh1p between
Vtct1m 2 and h1rnself Rugg1en assured Princtpal Koc1ela that he and V1ctnn 2

 had had no contact outside of school Based on this assurance, Principal
Kociela called Victim 2's mother. Pnnctpal Koc1ela documented his telephone
parent conference as follows:
spoke with [Victim 2's parents]. let them know that [Victim 2) told
Mr. Ruggieri today that someone told her that there was a rumor
going around about something gomg on between (Victim 2] and Mr.
Ruggieri. Told mom the Mr. Ruggien immediately came to me to let
me know what (Victim 2) told htm, told mom that he assured me
that nothing was going on. told mom that I also spoke wtth [Victim
2). She assured me that nothing was gomg on and that she didn't
know where the rumors were coming from. I told her to let me
know if she needed any assistance in any way with the sttuation or
if there was anythtng else I need to know about it. Mom thanked for
letting her know this.
Victim 2's mother testified before this Grand Jury regardtng her tnteractlon
wtth administration at Plum Senior Htgh School. She confirmed her contact wtth
Principal Koctela tn October. 2014. Victim 2's mother testified that Pnncipal
Kociela told her not to worry because he had spoken to ''Joe" and Mr. Ruggieri
had assured him that the rumors were false. Based on this self-servmg assertion
by Ruggteri, Pnncipal Kociela offered hts assurances to Victtm 2's mother and
told her that he would speak to her daughter about tt.
Joseph Tommarello testified that he contacted Superintendent Glasspoot
on September 30, 2014 after he had learned from a student at Plum Htgh School
student. that Victim 2 was rumored to have been tnvolved 1n a relattonship 'J'Jilt1
Ruggten and to have been found at hts home

Telephone records show a four

mimJte phone call from Tommarellos cellular telephone to Or Glasspool's office
phone on September 30, 2014 at 814 am

Tommarello recounted that he

relayed the 1nformatton he had learned to Supenntendent Glasspool. :md trut

 Glasspool responded by saying that rf he learned anything from police or
students, that he would let Tommarello know. Glasspool suggested that the
mformation was just "student rumor and gossip."
Testimony was presented to this Grand Jury from Victim 2's guidance
counselor, Nadia Abbondanza. She testified that while making presentations in
Ruggieri's classroom one day in October. 2014. she noticed Victim 2 coming and
gotng from his room more than she should have. smce V1ctim 2 did not have
Ruggieri for class. This behavior raised suspicions for Abbondanza because she
was aware that Rugg1eri had overly close boundary issues with a previous
female student. specifically, Victim 3 Abbondanza consulted with Kerry Plesco
regarding this 1ssue and sought her advice. Kerry Plesco advised her to tell
Principal Kociela about her concerns. Abbondanza testified before th1s Grand
Jury that she informed Kociela that Victim 2 was going rn and out of Ruggieri's
classroom unnecessanly and spending a lot of time with him. She made th1s
report erther the same day or a day after her observations. She testified that
Kociela appeared to take her concerns senously and told her that he would take
care of it. Kociela did report back to Abbondanza that he had called Victim 2's
parents and had meetings With Victim 2 and Ruggrerr. According to Pnncrpal
Kociela. Victim 2's parents believed that Rur;Jgten was Simply servrng as a mentor
to Vrctim 2 and had no concerns about therr retatronshrp
Davrd Gray testified to this Grand Jury that t1e frrst learned of rumors
regarding Ruggien and Vict1rn 2 on October 25, 2014 from two other teachers
while at a soctal event

He was. at that trme. the

r ~acher's Assocratton

 Gnevance Chair and Contract Negotiator, and Ruggieri served as the Teacher's
Association Vice President. Gray felt that he should share th1s potentially
damning information regarding the Teacher's Association Vice President with the
Teacher's Association President Martha Freese. Freese, in turn, shared w1th
David Gray information regarding a post on a Twitter page called "Plum
Confessions." On this page was a post stating simply· "[Victim 2! fucks Mr
Ruggier1."
Martha Freese shared with Dav1d Gray that she had made Ruggieri aware
of th1s Tw1tter post and that he had responded by offering to resign from his
pos1tion as Teacher's Association Vice President.
Gray. feeling that it may be necessary to report this information. consulted
w1th Freese regarding their obligation to make a report of suspected ch1ld abuse.
Rather than just act, in an abundance of caution, and make a report, the two
consulted with attorneys from the Pennsylvania State Education Associat1on
They were advised that the new mandatory reporting law requning them to 1nake
a report d1rect1y to Childline would not take effect unt1l January 1, 2015. Instead,
they could fulfill their reporting obligations by s1mply go1ng to the1r
superintendent
Consequently, Gray and Freese reported the 1nformat1on concerntng the
rumors learned by Gray and the post on the 'Plum Confessions' fw1tter page to
Superintendent Glasspool1n a meet1ng that occurred on October 30. 2014

Gray

testified about that meet1ng as follows
We sa1d, We have something to tell you We have somethtng to
report " We sa1d -when I say ·we,'' Martha and I want to report a

; :"'i

 rumor to you." And he said, "What is the rumor?''
And Martha said to Tim [Giasspool], "There 1s a rumor gomg around
that Joe Ruggier is having an inappropriate relat1onsh1p with a
student."
And he said, "That's not the one I heard," or "That's not the rumor I
heard."
So she said or Tim said- we said, "Well. what 1s the rumor you
heard?" And Tim said "I heard that [Victim 3) is l1ving in his
basement.''
I said, ''Who is [victim 3)?"
He said, "[Victim 3] graduated last year,"
And then he got out a note pad and stuff and he sa1d, "So, who is
the g1rl?"
And we said [Victim 2]
He wrote 1t down. And then he said, "Is this JUSt a CYA." to us.
Cover your ass.
Martha Freese's testimony corroborated Gray's regardmg that same meet1ng.
She also recalled Glasspool asking 1f the report was a "CYA."
David Gray recounted that Superintendent Glasspool responded by saying
that he would need to 1nvest1gate the s1tuation and that 1t would be necessary to
involve Ryan Kociela, Officer Mark Kost and the school solicitor, Attorney Lee
Price.
That night at 8 16 pm, Supenntendent Glasspool sent an ematl to Dav1d
Gray and Martha Freese stat1ng as follows:
On adv1ce of legal counsel. we believe. I have an obl1gat1on to
investigate the rumors you mention to me tonight
You told me there are rumors that somethmg 1s go1ng on wtth Joe
R and a particular female h1gh school student. To begm my
1nvest1gat1on I need a source. the student who started the Tw1tter
feed, name of concerned res1dent. name of the two PSEA
members, etc
I want to keep th1s confidential for obvious reasons and w1ll not
d1vulge that you were the intttal source of, wt1at you have referred to
as. rumors.
Please call me to discuss.
Martha Freese testtfied that st1e called Dr Glasspool the next morntng to

 d1scuss the matter and that she did report the names of the individuals that told
David Gray of the rumors and also gave h1m the name of the Twttter feed. It

IS

worth noting that Martha Freese also had communication via text message with
David Gray agreeing to keep the names of their sources confidential

Martha Freese testified that she recetved a follow-up email from T1m
Glasspool about two weeks later stating that they had concluded their
investigation and that the rumors were unfounded. Unfortunately, she was
unable to retrieve this email. Ukew1se, our review of the Information recovered
from the school servers did not include that email
Principal Kociela's notes indicate a second meet1ng with Joseph Rugg1eri
on November 13, 2014 at 9:20; those notes state as follows:
Spoke to Joe about continued rumors of his involvement with
student [Victim 2] Told him that it has been recently discussed by
members of the basketball team, that two teachers have come to
me about it with overhearing others talk about 1t, Twitter references.
and that Dr. Glasspool is aware I drrected that he have no further
contact with [Victim 2], tn order to try to alleviate the rumors,
including keeping things 1n his room. visits during study halls and
between classes. etc. Joe agreed cooperatively. He said that he
thought the rumors had d1ed down from our last conversation. but
knew and was upset about the Twttter posts He said that has had
recent contact with [Victim 2's] father about college searches v1a
email I also instructed that any other student, male or female. not
keep thtngs in h1s room. Agatn. he was agreeable
Pnncipal Koetela also mformed GUidance Counselor Abbondanza that
Rugg1eri and Vict1m 2 were not perm1tted to be tn the same roorn together When
asked if other teachers. coaches or school employees were made aware of th1s
new restrict1on on Rugg1eri and V1ct1m 2's mvolvement. Abbondanza test1f1ed that
she rJ1d not bel1eve that to be !f1e case

Vtc!lm 2 and Rugg1en were s1mply left on

II)

 their honor to police thetr own whereabouts within the butlding. Not surpnsingly,
Abbondanza saw Victim 2 in Ruggten's classroom once aga1n after thts
restriction was put 1n place. She Immediately notified Kociela of the violation
Kociela simply told her that he would take care of 1t. At no point in time was
Abbondanza ever asked to document what she witnessed, or to make report to
Officer Kost.
Despite the fact that these "rumors" involve, what was at that t1me a
cnminal act, no documentation ex1sts to indicate that the school personnel
involved Officer Kost in their ''investigations ··
Student Witness 1 reported her knowledge of Victim 2 to Kerry Plesco on
Friday, January 23, 2015. At that point in ttme, the rumors were so well known
throughout the school that Victim 2 and Joseph Ruggien were receiving votes for
"cutest couple" for the high school yearbook. Interviews of students conducted
by administrators showed that one student athlete had wntten 1n h1s locker room
locker for other students to see ''Mr Rugg1eri stole [my) gtrlfriend."
Abbondanza·s next relevant tnteractton with Victtm 2 came in February
2015. Assistant Princtpal Adam Szarmach brought Vtctim 2 to Abbondanza's
office when he saw Victtm 2 crytng 1n a hallway. Victim 2 told Abbondanza that
she was upset because students were telling her that tf Jason Cooper was ·gotng
down., then Rugg1en would too. V1ct1m 2 told Abbondanza that she was aware of
the rumors betng spread regardtng her relatronshtp wtth Rugg1eri, but that the
rumors weren't true

Prmctpal Koctela. for the first tnne. asked Abbondanza to

document this meetmg

II

 Shannon Crombie, an Assistant Principal at Plum Senior High School from
January. 2014 through August, 2015, testified about her involvement 1n the
·•mternal investigations" into Rugg1en and Cooper. She testified that she learned
of concerns of an inappropriate relationship between Jason Cooper and Vict1m 1
and was tasked with the duty of speaking to one of Vict1m 1's frrends. Officer
Kost was not involved in the interviews. but according to Crombie. he was
updated on the progress of the interv1ews
At one pomt, Crombie descnbed a conversation between Crombie,
Kociela, and Kost during which she asked Officer Kost 1f traffic cameras might
exist to place Victim 1 at Jason Cooper's home. Crombie obviously felt that the
"Internal Investigation" was tnsuffic1ent, but it apparently was not obvious to
anyone else, including Officer Kost. that the ent1re matter should be handled by
experienced professtonals from the police department Furthermore, no one
considered at this pomt making a report to Chlldl1ne 1n th1s s1tuat1on where they
clearly could not even dispel the1r own suspicions of Cooper's wrongdomg
Ultimately after the Plum Police tn1t1ated an 1nvest1gation mto the act1ons
of Jason Cooper, Crombie cla1med to have become aware that concerns
regardmg Rugg1en ex1sted. Crombie testified that she was asked by Pnnc1pal
Koctela to conduct an 1nterv1ew of one student who was bel1eved to be
knowledgeable about an tnapproprtate relat1onsh1p between V1ct1m 2 and
Ruggieri

Desptte getting th1s asstgnment from Pnncipal Kocrela. slle never

asked Koc1ela why he believed there may be reason to suspect Ruggien of any
dl1c1t behavior. She testified before th1s Grand Jury that shP. had no knowledge of

I~

 why Kociela asked her to speak to a student about Rugg1eri or what caused
Kociela to believe that Ruggieri was behavmg tnappropriately.
Even more disturbing to this inqUiry is the fact that Cromb1e had written in
her notes the names of six girls with whom Rugg1eri was suspected of havmg
Inappropriate relationships. Included in that list of names was the name of V1ct1m
2 This Grand Jury recovered Crombie's personal notes of this described
incident during a search of her office conducted on May 19, 2015 pursuant to a
search warrant While Crombie admitted that she knew she had rece1ved this list
of names from Kociela, and that she noted them in her notebook, she said that
she had no recollection of the circumstances by which she received this
mformation or what she did w1th this Information after she received it. She
acknowledged to this Investigative Grand Jury that receiving the names of s1x
potential victims of sexual assault at the hands of one of the teachers in her
school district would have been quite shocking; however, notw1thstandmg that
fact, her apparent lack of recollection of any pertinent details regarding this
conversation w1th Koc1ela is both disturbing and 1ncredible. After rece1v1ng the
names of six potential VICtims, this Plum school administrator failed to follow up
w1th Officer Kost did not check these girls' names tn school records 1n order to
confirm whether they were current or former students and did not follow up w1th
Pr,nctpal Kociela about these gtrls. Crornb1e both admitted to having received
th1s 1nformat1on and to doing absolutely nothmg w1th 1t. In fact. sa1d she had no
tdea why the informatton was prov1ded to her

She suggested to the Grand Jury

that whtle she has never been mvolved m a shockmg situation such as th1s

 before, she is nonetheless completely void of any memory of the details of the
events with wh1ch she was involved due to her "stress" and "sadness ..

C.

Additional Victims

Plum Senior High School class of 2014 graduate. Witness 1. testified that
she reported to school administration that she had learned, through rumor. about
four separate h1gh school students, Vict1ms 2, 3, and 4, who had been 1nvolved in
sexual relationships w1th Rugg1eri wh1le they were still students at Plum Sen1or
High School. Additionally, ACDA Detectives, who had initiated an investigation
into this matter, had learned the names of several female students that were
Widely known amongst teachers and students at Plum Senior H1gh School to
have been involved, or rumored to be involved, in an inappropriate relationship
with Ruggieri.
Th1s Grand Jury finds most alarming that Principal Koc1ela reported the
names of four girls to Detective Focareta at the 1n1t1ation of this investigation
Th1s Grand Jury located and quest1oned Victim 3. Victim 4, and three other
young women With whom Ruggieri was rumored to have had been Involved w1th
in a sexual relationship
A class of 2007 v1ct1m test1fied that she spoke to Ruggier1 regularly about
personal matters while she was a student. Although she den1ed that she ever
had sexual contact w1th Ruggien wh1le she was a high school student. she did.
r1owever. adm1t to engaging tn sex w1th Ruggierr shortly after she graduated from
high school
A class of 2009 v1ct1m testified before this ()rand Jury that she began
I I

 talking to Ruggieri about her personal issues in her jun1or year when she had him
for class. She sa1d that at one p01nt m her JUnior year, she began hav1ng
personal problems at school and wanted a place to retreat from other students
Rugg1eri allowed her to eat her lunch 1n h1s classroom every day and he even
wrote a note so that she could spend her study halls in h1s classroom each day
as well. She testified that she spoke to Ruggieri about her personal issues at
school and he shared with her his mantal problems and other private matters
During her senior year she stopped spending her free penods 1n h1s classroom
She testified that "[e)ventually I got. like, I don't know, I felt like our relationship
was more than- like, getting too close so I krnd of started to back off.

I just had

a feeling that - I don't know, things were weird . " This class of 2009 v1ct1m said
that she was also aware of rumors of his Involvement in sexual relationships w1th
other students.
A class of 2013 v1ctim testified that Ruggieri began communicat1ng w1th
her when he was send1ng her course materials. Eventually he began
commun1cattng with her about matters outs1de of class. She 1s uncertatn as to
how Ruggieri obtained her cellular telephone number, but she descnbed how r1e
also began communicating wtth her vta text message about matters ott1er than
coursework. She dented. however, that she ever had any phys1cal or sexual
contact With Joseph Rugg1er1 while she was st1ll a htgh school student On one
occas1on, though. after she graduated from h1gh school. she sa1d Ruggten drove
several hours to her college campus 1n order to v1s1t r1er She also test1fied that
st1e was aware of h1s relat1onst1ip with Victtm 3 as the twfJ were tn the s<:1rne

 graduating class
Victim 4 graduated in 2014. She testified before th1s Grand Jury that she
d1d speak with Ruggieri about personal matters while she was a high school
student, but, she denied that she ever engaged in any phys1cal or sexual contact
with him.
While none of these girls admitted to having sexual contact with Ruggien
while they were students, this Grand Jury still views each of them as v1ctims It

IS

evident to the Investigative Grand Jury that Ruggieri was engagmg 1n a pattern of
"grooming'' these young female students. either to prey upon them as soon as
they graduated, as certain of the v1ctims cla1m, or. as in the case with V1ctim 2, to
do so while they were still students The behavior of "groommg" 1s not
necessarily, on 1ts own, a criminal offense However, it is the opmion of this
Grand Jury that professional school administrators and resource officers should
be aware of patterns of teacher conduct relating to ··grooming" potential vict1ms
and should take steps to interdict where such conduct

IS

evident. Every one of

these above described female students were well known by both students and
teachers alike to have been personally involved w1th Ruggieri, and/or to have
spent an exorbitant amount of time hts classroom outs1de of class t1me Although
year after year. Ruggien was known to ··p1ck a new gtrl·· 11 appears th<Jt netther
Pnnc1pal Kociela nor Off1cer Kost made any efforts to identtfy the pattern or put a
stop to th1s predatory behavior by a teacher w1thm the very walls of the school
itself

 V.

Documentation of Teacher Discipline at Plum Senior High School

A.

Teacher Discipline

Principal Kociela testified before th1s Grand Jury regarding the standard
polices of teacher discipline. He explained that d1scipline can start as somethmg
informal as a verbal warning for minor matters like appearing for work late or not
calling a parent when a student is failing a class. A record of a verbal warning
was not kept in teacher personnel files. An 1nformal meeting between Koc1ela
and a teacher, likew1se. would not necessarily result in documentation •n a
teacher's personnel file The next level of teacher discipline, according to
Kociela, was an informal hearing held in Kociela's office. Typically, the teacher
would be informed of such a meeting, given a three day notice, and notified of his
or her nght to bnng an "association representative·· to the meeting. Typically, but
not 1n all cases, an tnformal hearing would result in documentation in a teacher's
file by way of an e-mail notify1ng the teacher of the heanng or a formal letter
There existed no protocol for mamta1n.ng documentation of an mformal heanng
(Documentation of such a heanng notified by email may only have been kept 1n
Kociela's email folder for a respective teacher) An informal hearing would result
from a ··concern for drugs or alcohol
~51Ck day for an enterta111ment day.

Improper comments m class
1nappropnate language

falsify1ng a

.mappropnate

relationships " Princtpal Koctela explamed that inappropnate relationshtps could
be s1mply social relationships Wtth students or sexual relationships Where 'tt1ere
ts somethtng to be found w1th those

dunng an tnvestigatton." documentation

would be made 1n a teacner's file Even where· nothtng rs found· there would strll

li

 be some notation or record of the meet1ng in the file.

B.
Difference in discipline and documentation betwee11
Ruggieri and Cooper
Th1s Grand Jury had the opportunity to review the personnel files of Jason
Cooper and Joseph Ruggieri

Cooper received a formal written repnmand in

2013 for contacting students via an online social networkmg s1te. A letter
documenting th1s reprimand was avatlable in his personnel file

Koctela rece1ved

a report from teacher Denms Swogger. on January 16, 2015, that students were
discussing mappropriate, but not sexual, comments between a student and
teacher on a soctal networking site. Kociela already knew this teacher to be
Jason Cooper. Kociela reported to Dennis Swogger that he had spoken to one
of the students that made this report on the very next school day, January 20,
2015. This Grand Jury recovered typed notes. made by administrators. for every
student and teacher that was tnterviewed regardtng the "mternal mvesttgation
mto Jason Cooper's acttons. Cooper and Vict1m 1 were both interviewed and
dented the existence of a relat1onsh1p between the two On January 23, 2015.
Koctela told Swogger that he would need to g1ve Jason Cooper hts "three day
not1ce" Kocrela dtd, m fact. gtve Jason Cooper hts three day notice of an
1nformal heanng and allowed for him to get a teachers assoc1at1on
representative We also recetved multiple copies of a transcription from the
"informal heanng." Every stage of disciplinary actton was documented. Otf•cer
Kost received a "formal complamt" from Koc1ela on January 28. 20 15'" tor the

•.: ihts date was reported by Offtcer Kost •n

h1s

lnc1dent Report as January 2u. 20 11)

V.ust uter

 allegation of institutional sexual assault and a police investigatton immediately
followed

Notably different were the acttons, or lack of actions. taken against

Ruggieri.
It seems apparent to this Grand Jury that Ruggren enjoyed. at a minimum.
a lack of oversight at Plum Senior High School and more realistically, an outnght
disregard of clear and recurring warning signs of inappropriate behavior. Thts
favored treatment can be seen most obviously in contrast between the manner in
wh1ch his case was handled by Plum administration from that of Jason Cooper
Kociela had known of "rumors'' of Ruggieri and numerous female students
for years. and yet never documented any of those matters, never contacted a
counselor to asstst any of the female students. never not1fied police, never
notified Childline, never nottfied Allegheny County Chtldren. Youth and Family
Desp1te telling Kerry Plesco on

Serv1ces. and never reprimanded Ruggteri.

January 23. 2015 that he planned on turn1ng everything over to police. it was not
until after Detective Focareta learned of allegattons regardtng Ruggtert from h1s
own investigation that Kociela felt 1t necessary to make mention of the ··rumors·
to police

Only after Detect1ve F ocareta conducted a formal mterv1ew of Koc1ela

did he learn that. not only had Koctela met wtth Ruggteri regardtng

RLJo.~gten's

relationship wtth Vtctim 2 on two prror occasions. but he had known of at !east
three other former female students with whom Ruggterr llad reportedly been
11Wolved with tn a sexual relat1onship

Unltke

1r1

Cooper's case. Ruggten rumors

were handled by private. undocumented meetings tn wh1ch Ruggten was stmply
1nforme•j Chief At mstrong that h1s report was incorrect and he 11ad actually rece1veu ti'•S
complamttrom Pr1n<:1pal Koc•ela on January .28 2015 Th1s Grand Jury never recc1vt·d d
suoolemental report correctmg th1s error

I'.J

 asked to keep h1s distance from Vict1m 2 1n order for the "rumors" to extingutsh
Plum administration showed no concern for the well-being of Vict1m 2, no less
concern that a suspected serial child predator continued to be employed. Without
being Childltned or otherwise formally investigated by Plum High School.
This Grand Jury is appalled that Ruggieri was perm1tted to simply contmue
his pattern of behavior with absolutely no oversight by admimstration and w1th
seemingly little or no concern for the children entrusted to the district's care It is
incomprehensible that any individual 1n a supervisory posit1on over professional
educators would dtsregard such a clear continuity of conduct by a teacher at the
risk of the safety of the children the district ts entrusted to educate and protect

VI.

Protections Afforded to Joseph Ruggieri
This Grand Jury has great concern that the manner in wh1ch Rugg1en was

permitted to conduct himself with female students m the school contributed to a
culture of sexual harassment. The protection afforded to Ruggien by the school
admmistrat1on appears to have fostered a dysfunctional culture w1th1n the high
school

A. Hesitation of teachers to report joseph Ruggieri.
It seemed ev1dent to this Grand Jury that there extsted a hes1tat1on

amongst teachers to make negative reports agamst Joseph Ruggten because he
was both well-respected and w1elded a considerable amount of power wtthtn the
school through h1s pos1t1ons wtth the Teacher's Assoc1at1on
One such example ts the manner

tn

which Scott Kolar's report of Rugg1en

was made to Pnnctpal Kociela At the ltrne Kolar reported that he had learned of
-,(I

 rumors alleging mappropriate conduct between Ruggien and Victim 3, Kolar was
seek1ng admission to the Teacher's Assoc1at1on Ruggien, as an officer of the
Teacher's Association, was openly against the inclusion of the ROTC teachers 1n
the un1on. Kolar and Kociela both testified that Kolar had asked Kociela to keep
Kolar's name, as the reporter. anonymous so as not to jeopardize the
acceptance of ROTC teachers into the union Kociela testified that he was aware
that Kolar's report of Ruggien's conduct could be discredited by the
Superintendent because of the union issues that existed at the time. Kociela told
this Grand Jury that he ··wanted to follow through with the concerns that Mr
Major Kolar was bringing to my attention, and I thought 1t (d1sclosmg Kolar's
identity] might cloud and invalidate the concerns .. "
One witness described Ruggieri as the Vice President of the un1on and as
such. he was the individual "that stood before us to discuss our conduct, how we
should behave, how we shouldn't gtve people our cell phones, how you should
not e-ma1l students. how you should not be on soc1al med1a .. (h)e's very
educated on .. how he should behave "
Another member of the faculty tnformed this Grand Jury that Rugg1en was
a bnght guy and had represented a lot of umon teachers over the years. Th1s
lnvest1gat1ve Body accepts that 1n h1s representation of h1s colleagues he would
have also gathered knowledge of the indiscretions and repnmands of every
teacher m the buildmg. Those teachers likely would have felt not only mdebted to
him, but they also would have been aware that Rugg1eri knew of each teacher's
proverbial "skeletons

111

the closet" Admittedly. there was no ev1dence presented

 that he made it a practice to hold that mformatron over anyone's head Common
sense, however. dictates that a teacher who hears an unbecoming rumor about
Ruggeri would be reluctant to come forward if Ruggieri has knowledge of that
teacher's own indiscretions.
Contrary to the opinions of some of his peers, Ruggreri at times was
flagrant rn his disregard for professronalism when rt came to certain female
students. This Grand Jury had an opportunity to review a school email between
Joseph Ruggieri and another teacher on February 20, 2014 at 11 19 am.
regarding one of the students wrth whom Ruggieri was rumored to have been
rnvolved. This email was one of few that were able to be recovered from the
school's server. It reads as follows.
Teacher: maybe you should put her desk up front close to yours so
she pays attention
Ruggrerr She sits favorably close and I am a mover. This is a
rookre suggestion.
Teacher: grve her all the answers and whisper sweet nothings in
her ear. ...
Ruggieri. Thrs is entrapment You are a mandatory reporter HAHA
In a place where adolescent girls are learning to be strong rndependent
adults. this Grand Jury finds 1t to be disgraceful that they are objectified by the
very people who are charged wtth the duty of protecting and empowenng tllern
Oennrs Swugger. an art teacher at Plum Htgh School. testtfted about h1s
report of Cooper to Princrpal Kocrela

Swogger testlfted that some students

approached him about inapproprtate contact between a teacher and a student
At the time. Swogger did not know the tdentrty of the teacher He was unsure
what to do With thrs tnformatron and stated he dtd not have any evtdence at the

-,_•)

 time to believe that the 'Inappropriate contact" involved a sexual relationship.
Swogger, looking for gutdance on what to do with this unusual and disturbing
mformation, Immediately contacted Ruggieri for gwdance. Swogger testified that
Ruggieri served as a "go between" for teachers and administrators and that he
was available as a union representative to give general guidance. He believed
that Rugg1eri would know what to do in this situation. Swogger testified to h1s
belief that Rugg1eri was "held in high regard generally by most people."
Swogger sent a text message to Rugg1eri immediately after speaking to
his students. Ruggieri responded by thanking him and saying that he had
already dealt w1th this issue once this year and that he would talk to Ryan
[Koc1ela}. The miscommunication between the two teachers became readily
apparent when Rugg1en admitted to Swogger that he believed that Swogger was
speaking of him (Ruggieri).
Ruggieri assumed his role as "advisor" and did, in fact, advise Swogger of
h1s responsibility

1n

such a situation. He told Swogger that t1e was a mandatory

reporter and that if he Witnessed something that he must report it. He later
stopped down to Swogger's classroom in person to speak w1th htm Ruggten told
Swogger of an instance when he saw something inappropnate and JUSt kept
walkmg as if to imply that Swogger. too. should Just do nothtng

Swogger.

uncomfortable w1th that advice. dtd report the mformation that he recetved from
hts students the next day on January 16. 2015
Another teacher testtfied regardtng Joseph Rugg1en's role 1n the school
0 In your opmton. dtd [RuggtenJ have more power than any other
teacher tn the school?

.. ,

. 'J

 A: Yes. . there were times where Ryan (Kociela) would go to Joe
[Ruggieri] about a teacher or about the bell schedule or about the
buses or just- I think Ryan would bounce thmgs off Joe, What are
the teacher going to thtnk about this if we do this? Do you have
any suggestions for me? So I would say yes to that question,
because I think Ryan used Joe as a buffer between himself and the
faculty. So I would say yes.
This witness went on to testify that in his opinion, teachers appreciated Ruggieri's
role in serving as a spokesperson of sorts for the teachers because "[Ruggien]
helped bridge that communication between the teacher and the pnncipal "
Principal Kociela acknowledged to the Grand Jury that, even back in 2011.
Ruggteri was one of the teachers' representatives for dtsciplinary matters and
that Ruggieri was part of the district liaison commrttee. Kociela admittedly had
more interaction with Ruggieri than the other teachers in the building. He has
known Ruggieri since they were both teachers going back over 15 years and
agreed that Rugg1eri was well-respected among his peers Principal Kociela
testified that he believed 1t would have been understood by Dr. Naccarati and
Attorney Lee Price that 1n the "internal investtgation" conducted m December.
2011, Ruggieri's position as a representative of the Teacher's Assoc1ation
created a unique and awkward situation in that Ruggten was typically the teacher
who represented other teachers. Principal Koctela further agreed that Ruggien
probably d1d "carr[y] more power because tle had the support from other
teachers.·

B.
Greater Concern for Teachers and Institution than the
protection of Students
Throughout the test1mony of witnesses. 1t became apparent to th1s Grand

 Jury that Plum administration had a greater concern for teachers, union relat1ons
and the reputation of the school than for the safety and well ness of female
students
Teacher's Assoc1ation President Martha Freese testified that she learned
of rumors surrounding Ruggieri from a student in 2012. Rather than report th1s

information to the Superintendent or Childline. she mstead told Ruggieri that
students were talking about h1m. She testified that she took this 1nformation as
·'kids were talking about a teacher," and not a report of suspected exploitation of
a teenager. In fact, she told the student that it was ··not nice when kids talk about
teachers" and clarified that she was "explaining [to him] what goss1ping 1s " She
never followed through with this information in a manner which would have
served to protect a student from sexual exploitation by a teacher.
David Gray, Teacher's Association Gnevance Chair and Contract
Negotiator, testified that upon receiving advice from counsel of the Teacher's
Associat1on that he must make a report to h1s supenntendent, he and Freese
mquired as to whether or not they needed to reveal their sources of informat1on
Martha Freese consulted with counsel from Pennsylvania State Education
Assoc1at1on (PSEA) and was told that she d1d not. Although they may not have
been legally requtred to reveal their sources Withholding thetr sources certa1nly
would 1mpede any mvest1gations into such serious allegations. While th1s Grand
Jury commends David Gray and Martha Freese for takmg action and makmg a
report to Supenntendent Glasspool tn accordance w1th the law tn effect at the
ltrne, 1t

IS

clear that ttletr act1ons were

111

no way mottvated by concern for a

I

I

 vict1m, but rather a sense of obligation based on their un1on pos1tions

Text

messages between Martha Freese and Dav1d Gray state 'We prov1ded the
name of the teacher AND the student. Our help ends there." Martha Freese
testified that when she called legal counsel in Harnsburg from the PSEA, she
was told that she had no reporting obligation since she had ··no knowledge," but
that she could report to her superintendent if it would make her feel more
comfortable.
One of the most disturbing displays of d1sregard for teacher's duties is m
the advice provided to teachers during a union meeting that was called after the
arrests of Cooper and Ruggieri. In preparat1on for that meeting, Teacher's
Association President Martha Freese prepared a list of "talking pomts" for the
members and emailed it to Plum School District's representative through the
PSEA for review Included in those "talking points" for teachers was the followmg
statement " ... If you are one of those people saying, 'Who didn't see this
coming?' your [teaching] certtficate IS m jeopardy As a mandated reporter you
are obligated to report rn1sconduct and if you have failed to do so. your cert1f1cate
is m jeopardy.. .. Freese noted. parenthetically, that she was instructed to
include th1s warnmg by counsel for the PSEA Wh1le this Grand Jury does not
necessanly believe that the intention of either Freese or any member of the
PSEA was to mstnuate that teachers should deny any knowledge of past
wrongdoing by Ruggieri m an effort to preserve the1r teach1ng cert1ficat1ons. th1s
statement has a potent1ally chilling effect on a teachers' cooperation with law
enforcement. Approxunately 80 teachers from the entire d1stnct were ,n

 attendance at that meeting.
Guidance Counselor Kerry Plesco testified that at one point in time, while
Dr. Naccarati was the Superintendent. they were all told not to make notations
about the students. Guidance Counselor Nadia Abbondanza testified that she
was made aware of a "no documentation" policy that existed under either Dr
Naccarati or Dr. Glasspool. She learned of this policy orally through other
gUidance counselors. This policy was Implemented to protect teachers and the
institution from parental complaints.
Joseph Tommarello explained to th1s Grand Jury that when he was a
School Board member, he was explicitly told by Dr Glasspool that sensitive
matters should not be put in writ1ng or documented in an email Rather. toptcs of
a sensitive nature should be discussed by phone or in person because. as
employees of a school district, thetr communications are subject to the Sunsh1ne
Act and therefore recoverable by any c1tizen through a Right to Know request
That pract1ce was reiterated in a discussion between Dr. Glasspool and
Teacher's Assoc1ation President Martha Freese. Freese testified that at some
po1nt in e1ther Apnl or May. 2015, Dr Glasspool had approached Martha Freese
and told her that the media was rnak1ng R1ght- To-Know request for e-rnalls and
asked her to mform the other officers that 'we need to use less e-rnalls · She
made note of this d1scussion in an agenda that was shared amongst un1on
officers for a union meettng. Specifically, she wrote "Tim [Giasspool] and RTK
There w11f be less ernails for communication •

-

~

''I

 C.

Relationship of Kociela and Ruggieri

At least two witnesses spoke of the personal relationship matntarned
between Kocrela and Ruggieri saying that they spoke regularly and that one
witness knew of at least one instance where the two were together at a small
social gathering that took place at Kociela's home.
Pnncipal Kociela acknowledged to this Grand Jury that, given his work1ng
relationship with Joseph Ruggieri as a building representative for the Teacher's
Assocration, he was in an awkward position tnvestigatrng hrm in 2011

Joseph

Ruggieri was typically the person rnvolved when other teachers were rn trouble
He characterized hrs relationship with Ruggieri as "personable" and
acknowledged that he had a good relattonship prior to becoming assrstant
principal when the two were both teachers and colleagues. The two spent time
together socially when they were both teachers. Th1s Grand Jury also had an
opportunity to revtew a letter of recommendation wntten by Joseph Ruggieri on
behalf of Ryan Koc1ela's wife for admission to a fellowship program While this
letter was written rn 2003. 1t clearly ev1dences a h1story of frrendshtp and
apparent mutual respect towards one another.
The nature of thetr relat1onsh1p 1s JUSt one of many reasons why
mvest1gat1ons 1nto allegatrons of inappropnate conduct between a teacher anJ
students need to be handled by profess1onal law enforcement rather than
mternally wtthin a school d1stnct.
Failure of Plum School District to effectively utilize law Enforcement
in Criminal Investigations

VII.

The testimonial ev1dence presented to this Grand Jury has clearly

 established that. until the initiatton of this Grand Jury Investigation in May of

2015, rt was the practice of the admmrstratron and staff to refrarn from rnvolving
police when allegations of criminal behavior amongst students and teachers were
raised. Through its investigation, this Grand Jury was unable to identify any
written policy, procedure or guideline of Plum School Distnct that overtly
prohibited staff from cooperating with law enforcement agencies in criminal
investigations. However, it was clearly the practice of admrnistration to conduct
its own "internal investigations."
This Grand Jury was presented wtth evrdence that. at one pomt during the

2014-2015 school year, administrators were confronted wtth an allegatron that a
male high school student used his cellular telephone to record a female hrgh
school student performing a sex act on him A third student reported to
administrators that an offer was made to him, by another student, to watch the
video. Administrators responded to thrs report by calling the alleged perpetrator
to ttle office and looking at his phone Desprte ttle fact that this alleged act
const1tutes a clear violatron of the law and that there was a pollee officer 1n the
bUIIdrng to gtve gUidance on the appropnate procedure to address matters of th;s
nature, no action was taken by law enforcement. Instead. thrs Grand Jury
learned that no police officers. not even the school resource officer. were made
aware of this allegation because admtnrstrators couldn't f1nd anything
1ncrimtnating on the alleged perpetrator's telephone No ev1dence was
uncovered that any of the admin1strators wtlo responded to ttlis complaint were
ever trained on how to properly handle ev1dence der1ved from a cellular dev1ce

 Law enforcement officers are trained to retrieve such data and do so on a regular
bas1s. Furthermore. no evidence was discovered of how much warning the
alleged perpetrator had of his meeting with administrators Obviously. it takes
mere seconds to delete incriminating electronic evidence on a cell phone, but
such evidence can often be recovered by law enforcement
Just as disturbing was an allegation of rape that this Grand Jury learned of
through the review of Assistant Princtpal Shannon Crombie's personal notes from
the 2014-2015 school year seized from her office by way of a Grand Jury search
warrant. Her notes indicated that three male students approached a female
student, hereinafter Jane Doe 1, at lunch and asked her if a male classmate.
hereinafter John Doe 1. had raped her Jane Doe was upset by the questtons
and reported the encounter to administrators According to Crombie, Jane Doe 1
was upset about the use of the word ··rape" and wanted the students to stop
mak1ng this claim

The alleged act had occurred in the even1ng hours at John

Doe's home. Crombie first testified that she did not not1fy Officer Kost. However.
after further questiontng. she stated that she did "believe[ d) that we spoke to
Officer Kost about this." Rather than allowmg law enforcement to handle the
matter. she called John Doe 1's mother and father. separately, and confirmed t11s
whereabouts for the evening m quest1on before she mformed them of the reJson
for the call. She tnsisted to this Grand Jury that school admtn1strat1on was
concerned about the use of the word "rape " However. she still took steps to
confirm the whereabouts of an alleged perpetrator during the t1me

in

quest1on.

wh1ch was after school hours. Her notes of her conversat1on w1th .Jane Doe 1

 state "Mrs G and Mrs. C talked to [Jane Doe 1] regarding the use of the word
'rape.· Assured her no one believes that she was attacked." It is worth noting
that Crombie was an attorney and had a former career in the practice of law.
Nonetheless, she still apparently did not understand the ramifications and harm
she could have caused by conducting her own investigation of the matter
Officer Kost's police reports contain no mention of this complaint
These instances are simply two examples of the apparent gross
negligence with which administrators acted by rnternally managing potential
crimtnal situations. The school policy, while not prohibiting the involvement of
police, do not seem to dictate the involvement of police when there extsts the
potentral of criminal conduct. Likewise, it seems apparent that School Resource
Officer Kost was unable to articulate. and was in fact. unaware, of any school
policy regarding when admrnistrators should refer a matter to him
An "internal investigation" conducted by educators who lack both the skrll
and the resources to adequately perform such a function can irreparably harm a
future criminal investigatron. The actrons taken by school admintstrators in
conducting student interviews regarding potentrally criminal matters could have.
and ltkely drd. result in the destructron of electroniC evidence available on a
student's telephone and provrde targets of tt1e rnvest1gat1on wrth ttme to prepare
false alibiS or explanatrons.
Nowhere 1s the potent1al for harm more evident than when evaluat1ng the
manner in which Princrpal Koc1ela and then Ass1stant Superintendent Glasspool
handled the investigation into Ruggren's involvement with Victim 3 •n 2011

 Joseph Ruggieri was interviewed first and then warned that administrators were
gomg to interview the v1ctim. Consequently Victim 3 appeared calm and
confident in her denials of outside contact with Joseph Ruggeri during her
interview. In fact. Plesco had reported to ACDA Oetect1ves that Victim 3 was so
unexpectedly calm dunng the meeting that "[i]t's like she knew this was coming"
Th1s is not surpns•ng as she was most likely prepared for each question and
coached on her responses by her ''mentor."
While fault is fairly placed on administration for not involving law
enforcement where there existed clear allegations of crimmal conduct, tt cannot
be 1gnored that one likely reason for not involv1ng Officer Kost may have s1mply
been due to Kost's own lack of effectiveness and competence as a police officer.

A.

The Role of a School Resource Officer

Plum Police Chief Jeffrey Armstrong testified before the Grand Jury
regarding the role of School Resource Officer Mark Kost He testified that the
role of a school resource officer 1s to "act as a condwt between the School
District and the pollee department. so that the School Distnct . [has] an officer
there access1ble at all t1mes who 1s familiar with the climate and the students and
the faculty

." Dunng all relevant ttmes. Officer Mark Kost served as n1e school

resource off1cer at Plum High School and had a worktng offtce tn Plum Sentor
High School.
Chtef Armstrong described for this Grand Jury the process by whtch Plum
Police officers are tasked w1th documenting their acttons Spectfically he
testtfied that everythtng that the pollee department does. that an officer performs

,_

I.!

 in the capacity of a police officer. is requ1red to be documented with a compla1nt
report .... The complaint report is the mmimum documenting standard for the
Plum Borough Police department field reporting policy." Where a complaint
leads to a matter that is criminal in nature. then officers are tasked with authonng
an incident report.
Chief Armstrong provided, pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum. every
report that School Resource Officer Kost has authored since 2007. None of
those reports mention any investigation, whether conducted by school
administration or law enforcement, into any allegations of 1llegal or inappropriate
behavior by Joseph Ruggieri pnor to the investigation tnto Ruggieri's assault of
Victim 2 1n January, 2015.

B. Failure of School Resource Officer Mark Kost to act in his
role towards the protection of children and enforcement of the
law.
Plum Police Officer Mark Kost had served as a school resource officer for
Plum School District for the last 13 years. Officer Kost, as a sworn law
enforcement officer of the Commonwealth. was charged w1th the duty of
protecting our citizens and enforcing the law. H1s dut1es d1d not change whether
he was ass1gned to patrol

10

h1s commun1ty or tasked with polic1ng the 1ns1de of

d

school. He had a constant responsibd1ty to be vigilant, tnvest1gate. and work
towards the goal of performing hts dut1es as a sworn law enforcement officer

In

hts capactty as a member of law enforcement, he did not enJOY the same abtl1ty
to turn a blind eye towards suspected cnmtnal actiVIty or dangerous s1tuat1ons
the ordinary Citizen

.~s

 Kost testified before thts Grand Jury that the majority of the time.
whenever allegations of criminal conduct surfaced, Princ1pal Kociela would
conduct his own mvestigation. even to the point of requesting video from
surveillance cameras. Typically, if Kociela obtained evidence of a crime and a
culprit, he would then turn it over to Kost. Kost was unsure as to why Kociela
would not simply go to him, as a police officer, immediately. He suggested that
this practice was the way 1t had been done in the past and so it simply continued.
Kost testified that he never warned Kociela of the potential dangers in conducting
his own internal investigations as a school administrator.
Plum Pollee Ch1ef Armstrong testified before thiS Grand Jury that he had a
meeting with Kost on February 26, 2015, to discuss Kost's substandard police
reports and his Involvement in the mvestigations occurring at Plum Senior Htgh
School. Kost reported to Chief Armstrong that the first he ever heard of any
information regardtng Cooper was on January 28, 2015. It was during that same
meeting that he learned of concerns by Dr Glasspool of Ruggien's behavtor
towards V1ctim 2. Officer Kost admitted to Ch1ef Armstrong that he was aware of
concerns at the school that Vtctim 2 was spending too much time in Ruggieri's
classroom pnor to January 28. 2015, but satd he knew nothtng beyond that
Offrcer Kost dented to Chtef Armstrong that he was aware of any allegations or
rumors. It ts the beltef of th1s Grand Jury that th1s self-servmg statement by
Officer Kost is not accurate Several wttnesses testified to the close relat1onsh1p
that ex1sted between Officer Kost and Principal Koctela and the fact that Kost
was generally at least knowledgeable of any tnternal investtgat1ons" that Koctela

 was conducting. Unfortunately, the Grand Jury was unable to recover any
written documentation, made by either Officer Kost or by members of the school
administration. proving Officer Kost's tnvolvement

1n

discussions regarding the

allegations against Ruggieri prior to 2015.
However, police reports authored by Kost regarding the initial investigation
rnto Cooper include information from students that had made reports of Cooper's
wrongdoings; included in that information was the content of the report made by
student Witness 1. Witness 1 had reported to Kociela that Ruggieri had been
engaging in sexual relationships with students for years and provtded the names
of four separate female students as well as an account of a substttute teacher
who had engaged in sexual relationships wtth students. In his police report. Kost
made only vague reference to allegations regarding another teacher, but did not
include the names of Ruggieri or the suspected victtms in hts report. When
asked why he did not include the allegations against Rugg1en 1n his report. he
only replied that he didn't think he needed to
Dennis Swogger testified that he approached Kost before school one day
to inform htm that he had made the mistake of 1nforming Ruggteri that he had
made a report of Cooper to Kociela. Kost's only response to him was. ··don't
worry about 1t

don't thrnk about rt anymore .. Had Kost done h1s duty ancl

made some mqutry of Swogger concernrng those discussions w1th Ruggten, he
would have learned that Rugg1eri 11ad believed that the rumors Swogger reported
had been about Ruggien himself and not Cooper Officer Kost did not even
document the conversation w1th Swogger 1n a report

 When Kost was asked by Chief Armstrong tf he was aware of any other
allegations of inappropriate relationshtps between Ruggien and any other
students rn the past he answered, unequivocally, that he was not When asked 1f
Kost participated in any meetings or discussions with administrators at the school
regarding Ruggieri prior to January 28 1h, Kost replied that he may have, but only
regarding the fact that girls were spending time in hts classroom.
Officer Kost never authored even a complaint report about his involvement
m dtscussions with administrators about Ruggieri. This Grand Jury knows that
Officer Kost's statements to Plum Police Chief Armstrong appear to be 1n direct
contradiction to the credible testimony of former security guard T onya Oslowsk1
She testified that she reported rumors of Ruggien and Vict1m 3 to Kost years ago.
In January, 2012, after school was back in session from the winter break,
Oslowski asked Kost if he was aware of the report about Ruggieri that she had
made to Pnncipal Kociela. Kost reportedly nodded his head in the affirmattve,
but offered no further information. After a few days had passed and Oslowskt
had seen no change in Ruggieri's status, she inqutred agatn of Off1cer Kost. To
this he responded "no victim, no cnme." She was never asked to document her
report to Principal Kociela in any way. by anyone
Tanya Oslowskt tlas since left the employ of Plum School Dtstnct After
she learned of the arrest of Cooper 1n February. 2015, she testtfied that she
called Kost. Kost told her to "watt unttl the second one- the second arrest.
Oslowski had asked tlim tf there would be any surpnses wtth the second arrest
to which he responded "no ·· She testtfted that she was able to determtne from

tili

 that response that the second arrestee was going to be Ruggieri. When she
spoke to Kosta second ttme after Ruggieri's arrest, she asked whether or not
she should call the Allegheny County District Attorney's office about her report to
Kociela that she had made concerning Ruggieri and Victim 3. At that time,
Officer Kost spoke as though the two never had a conversation about suspected
Victim 3 in 2012. He told her that he would call her back. A few minutes later he
called her back and told her that he was going to have to report what she told
him about Ruggieri, as though this conversation was the first he was hearing of
this information. Soon thereafter, she saw in the newspaper that Officer Kost
had retained an attorney. He only authored a police report regardtng his
conversations w1th Tanya Oslowsk1 after hts conversations with her in February,

2015. He wrote no police reports in 2012 memorializing her report of an
allegation against Ruggieri.
Officer Kost testified that he had learned of Victim 3 from Koctela. He
testified that before Kociela met w1th Victim 3 and her parents, Koctela had asked
Kost about the parameters of statutory sexual assault and what Kociela needed
to do if he learned of a cnme. Kost told th1s Grand Jury that he d1d not reach out
to anyone for adv1ce on th1s matter even though he had never investtgated a sex
assault case before. This Grand Jury found his response to be alarmtng. Officer
Kost had at h1s dtsposal, the entire Plum Police Department and the legal
acumen of the Allegheny County Distnct Attorney s Office Etther the detecttve
bureau of the Plum Police Department would have been capable of handling thts
investigation or the Allegheny County Police Department.

 -----------------------------------------

Chief Armstrong also testified before th1s Grand Jury. that while Officer
Kost was never a strong report writer. the reports regarding Cooper and Rugg1en
were particularly deficient. These reports were so devoid of any substantive
content that they were completely lacking in usefulness. Chief Armstrong
test1fied that these reports were "by far the worse reports [Kost] has ever wntten."

It is worth noting, Officer Kost admitted that he would not write reports even
where instances of documented theft or simtlar crimes occurred at the school
He testified that report wnting was "one of his weaknesses."
Armstrong asked Kost specifically about his knowledge of Victim 3 Kost
was asked if he was aware of any inappropriate relationships between Joseph
Ruggieri and Vict1m 3. He replied that he knew only that she spent time 1n
Ruggieri's classroom. Kost was asked how he became aware of that, to wh1ch
he replied that Kociela told him Chief Armstrong asked specifically ''what action
did you take as a result of learning this?" Kost replied "nothing."
Pnncipal Kociela testified that Kost was made aware of Kolar's allegations
of Ruggieri because it involved a matter that was potentially criminal1n nature
However, Kost mformed Koc1ela that, smce the age of consent at that time was
16 years old. a sexual relat1onsh1p between Rugg1en and Victim 3 would not have

constituted a crime and so he could not offer any ass1stance
Thts Grand Jury recogn1zes that the laws were s1gntficantly dtfferent

1n

2011 when allegations of Rugg1en relat1onsh1p w1th Vict1m 3 first came to light
Information made available to this Investigative Grand Jury ind1cate that V1ct1m 3
was likely 16 years old dunng any potential sexual acts that had occurred

 between she and Rugg1en. At that time. 16 remained the age of consent.
However, the law has since changed

Sexual interaction between a student and

teacher became illegal 2012. Kost has a duty to be aware of that fact
Regardless of how school adminrstrators choose to act, or not act, in protecting
the1r students, Kost had an independent duty to protect the string of female
students he knew were spending an unnecessary amount of time in Ruggieri's
classroom. Although Officer Kost was never asked by school administrators or
members of the teacher's unron to document or report suspected criminal
conduct. hrs job required him to do so Furthermore, school administration's
feelrngs that concerns about Ruggieri were unsubstantiated did not allevrate
Kost's responsibilities to look further.
As Koc1ela continued to receive reports of rumors about Ruggien mto

2012. it should have become apparent to Kost and school administration that the
matter had become worthy of crimmal investigation. Specifically, Assistant
Principal Loughran's report to th1s Grand Jury was that meetings held with
Ruggieri. Victim 3 and her parents were during Victim 3's senior year of high
school. At that po1nt in t1me, Institutional Sexual Assault was a cnme. Loughren
testrfied also that he had made a report to Officer Kost in erther 2012 or 2013
concerntng Vict1rn 3's presence 1n Rugg1en's classroom. Kosts reply to 111rn that
It was an 'internal matter" was simply not accurate as rt related to the
commrssion of a cnme in an area where Officer Kost. as a pollee officer and
school resource officer had Jurrsdictlon to act.
Even if Kost hadnt recognized the senousness of the srtuatron. sometlltng

I i~ I

 as s1mple as writing a complaint regarding any discussions or meet1ngs about
Rugg1en over the years would, most likely, have garnered the attention of hts
lieutenant and been enough to initiate an investigation. It seems evident to this
Grand Jury that Officer Kost aligned himself with administrators at the school
rather than his police department, and to the detriment of the student body Had
he acted as a pol1ce officer, and not an employee of the school, and performed
his duty to investigate, he undoubtedly would have protected at least one victim
and possibly more
It is also evident that administrators and teachers 111 the school d1d not
view Kostas a valuable resource in the area of tnvest1gation. likely with good
reason. But tnstead of voicing these concerns to Ch1ef Armstrong, they JUSt
seemed to work around Kost. Kociela testified before this Grand Jury that he
wished he had more mvestigat1ve resources at his dtsposal to determine exactly
what may have been gomg on between Ruggteri and Victtm 3 outs1de of school.
or look at phone records

He discussed the posstbiltty of

h~nng

a pnvate

tnvestigator wtth Officer Kost. lron1cally it apparently didn't occur to etther of
them that they did have more investigative resources at their dtsposal - all the
resources of the Plum Police Department, the Allegheny County Police, tile
Dtstnct Attorney's Office. and even the Pennsylvania State Police
In today·s climate. 1t ts more Important than ever to have competent. well tra1ned pollee officers servmg tnside our schools

There may have been a t1me

when poltce departments could asstgn thetr less than competent officers to a
school, rather tt1an mak1ng them responstble for handltng tr1e ngors and dangers

 of typical police work Unfortunately, the dangers and rigors of the outside world
have travelled to the InSide of our schools. In a day and age when school
students are increasingly the targets of terrorism, school v1olence

13

,

bullying, and

sexual assault vta direct contact and electronic, it is imperative that only the
highest quality police officers be consrstently present in school burldings.
Anything less is not only rneffective, but potentially dangerous. One teacher told
this Grand Jury that Kost served as "more of a presence than anything." It 1s the
opinion of this Investigative Grand Jury that 1t is not enough for a school resource
offrcer to be merely a ·•presence" in our schools. School resource officers have
the same obligation as every other officer in a pollee department to be well
trarned 1n the technrcal aspects of safe and effective police work and intimately
aware of the elements of crimes, procedures for questioning Witnesses and
suspects, and the collection and preservation of evidence necessary to
successful prosecution.
It is the opmion of this Grand Jury, that where an officer 1s regularly
ass1gned a duty as school resource officer, he or she be required to take part tn
the same mandatory reporttng train1ng as the educators 1n a school, not only to
rerntnd officers of the1r own obltgat1on to report, but also to serve as resources
regard1ng teach•2rs obligations to report T111s Grand Jury t1eard no test1rnony
from any person. or saw any documentary ev1dence. that any school resource
otficer ever warned any teacher or adm1n1strator that fa1lure to report const1tuted
a cnrne The very person who was charged w1th the duty of recogn1zing

']

We •nclude 1n acts •.11 scl>ool Violence the acts of rnass vtolence. gdn'J v1oleneo:~ df1•j '>tudent ·~··
stur.ient v1olence that hav•:?. 11ntortunately tlecnme all too common ,n our schools

i I

 violations of the law and enforcing those laws. at no point 1n time felt 1t necessary
to rem1nd admimstrators or teachers of Plum about the potential of criminal
violations for failing to make a report to Ch1ldline. This Grand Jury is sorely
disappointed w1th the conduct of, and more Importantly. lack of action by Officer
Kost.

VIII.

Misconception of obligation to report

A.

Misunderstanding of "reason to believe"

It is clear from the testimonial evidence that the staff and administration of
Plum School distnct were regularly tramed on the1r obligation to make reports of
suspected child abuse. While this Grand Jury recognizes the importance of
extensively training employees on their mandatory reporting reqwrements. there
appears to have been a significant amount of confus1on and hesitation by
teachers and administrators regarding whether to actually make a report
reason for such

IS

The

puzzling to th1s Grand Jury especially because the names of

reporters are kept confidential. Furthermore. without clear direct1on or support
for school administration. school staff seemed unable to determine when a report

is necessary. The administrators of Plum School District have continuously
refused to comply with the mandatory report1ng statute. themselves cit1ng a lack
of sufftclerH proof to meet the standard of ·reason to suspect' child abuse as theH
reason for noncompliance
One w1tness test1f1ed that while she had undergone tramu1g regarfJtng her
obllgat1on to report allegat1ons of ch1ld abuse, she d1d not feel as though she was
3dequately trained in 20 11

She felt that. back m 2011. she had complied wttl1

 mandatory reporting requirements because there had been an Internal
Investigation

In 2011. her only legal requirement was to report her concerns to a

supervisor. It has been only since Ruggien and Cooper were arrested that she
has been made aware. through training provided by the school. that she is now
personally responsible to report allegations of abuse and that it 1s not her place to
investigate the matter. Rather, she knows now her duty is to report to Childltne
any concern she may have of suspected physical or sexual abuse.
Another witness testified that while she was aware of the fact that she was
responsible for making a Child line report of suspected sexual abuse of a student
at the hands of a teacher. she didn't believe that she needed to in the tr1stance of
Rugg1eri because she had not actually witnessed anything that led her to believe
an actual sexual relationship between student and teacher existed.
Principal Kociela testified before this Grand Jury that he never felt as
though he was able, through his internal investigation. to reach a determmat1on
as to whether or not a sexual relationship between Ruggieri and Victim 3 ex1sted.
He stated that, at one point. he had a conversation with Superintendent
Naccarati that ·'in order to get to the bottom of the Circumstances. it might take a
little more than what we have w1thin

111

our administration to do

It 1s

mcomprehens1ble to th1s lnvest1gat1ve Grand Jury that. even w1th H11s thougrtt tn
nnnd. no one considered calling Childllne - wh1ch does l1ave the power to
initiate a proper

~rwest1gation

when so required

In this case. there clearly

ex1sted a ·reason to suspect" the sexual exploitation of a ch1ld.
Eugene Marracc1n1 is the Director of Business Affa1rs for Plum School

::l

 District. His office is located JUSt across the hall from Superintendent Glasspool
in the Plum Sentor High School building. He testtfied before this Grand Jury that
on February 6, 2015 he had a lunch meeting with Board Member Joe
Tommarello. During this meet1ng, Tommarello expressed some surprise over the
termination proceedings for Jason Cooper and sa1d that he "thought it would
have been Mr. Joe Ruggien." He went on to inform Marraccini that Ruggieri has
been rumored to "fool around with students'' and spoke of an instance where one
girl was rumored to have been found 1n Ruggien's apartment. Marraccini test1f1ed
that Tommarello told him th1s information had been reported to Dr. Glasspool and
that Dr. Glasspool said he was going to investigate the matter.
Eugene Marraccin1 immediately inquired of Grczyk, the person responsible
for conducttng mandatory reporter tram1ng for teachers, as to whether or not he
was obligated to report Tommarello's information He testtfied that Grczyk
advtsed. s1nce he didn't know the victim or the time penod of when th1s happened
and since he was learning this information from someone w1th no direct
knowledge, he had no obligation to report.
Marraccint then shared thts information with Dr Glasspool Glasspool
asked him to prepare a memorandum about the drscuss1on Eugene Marracctn1
then wrote 1n h1s memorandum dated February 6. 2015, that he bel1evecJ t1e h3d
'no further obligation to pursue a formal mandated reporttng actton stnce Mr
fornmarello did not tell me the name of the student, when the alleged tnctdent
happened (two-year limttatton) and due to the fact that he 1s a th1rd party and not
one who actually wttnessed th1s matter firsthand "

 Marraccini explatned to this Grand Jury that he was taught. in h1s
mandated reporter traintng if you learn of something that happened more than
two years ago it is past the statute of 1tmitat1ons and so does not need to be
reported. He reiterated he believes he needs to have the name of a v1ctim the
name of a perpetrator and the time period to make a Childline report; however,
he admits he never asked T ommarello who the student was that he referenced
He testified that he also learned tn mandatory reporter traming you are not
supposed to react to rumors, only "firsthand facts." This ts, most certamly. not an
accurate statement of the applicable law. Regardless of whether the tratnmg
provided by Plum School District was deficient or Marracctni simply
misunderstood what he was taught, the consequences remain the same,
Marraccin1 made no report to Chlldllne or law enforcement He testified later
that he had prepared the memorandum as a "CYA." or 'cover your ass· so that
he could refer to th1s document later and ensure that he "went as far as [he]
needed to go with the tnformatton that [heJ had."
Marracctni testified that he had lunch wtth Glasspool about three days per
week but yet dtd not feel that he could ask Glasspool whether T ommarello had
shared this concernmg tnformatton and 1f so. whether Glasspool had followed up
on 11

Likewtse. Marraccm1 never asked tf Glasspool had ever heard th1s rumor

h1mself He explatned that he dtd not questton Or Glasspool about such a
senstttve matter because they do not talk about 'personnel matters .. Marraccm1
testified that he regarded this allegation as a "personnel matter" and not a repor1
of a potential sexual assault of a student

.-

' ·'

 After Ruggteri was arrested, less than two weeks later. Marraccin1 still d1d
not feel 1t necessary or appropnate to discuss the matter w1th Glasspool testify1ng
that, at that pomt. tt was a "police matter .. While he acknowledged that the
student he learned about from Tommarello very well could have been the same
student that was victimized by Ruggieri, he still did not feel it necessary to report
any Information to the police as it was a "mandated report1ng issue."
Dav1d Gray testified before this Grand Jury that when he learned of a
rumor of Ruggien and V1ctim 2, he first called Teacher's Associat1on President
Martha Freese to inquire about what to do with the information smce it was only a
rumor. He testified:
"I was very careful when I talked to [Martha Freese] that n1ght
said. 'I want to just make sure we do- we need to do what we need
to do. We need to do our jobs. and I need to make sure we are
dotng the nght thmg. Are we supposed to report a rumor? There 1s
no reasonable suspicion of abuse here Nobody saw anyth1ng But
are we supposed to report a rumor?' So that's why I went to her I
wanted to know. I wanted to know what do we do in this situat1on
here."
It is worth noting that the Allegheny County D1stnct Attorney's Office
offered to conduct training regardrng the changes rn the laws in 2012 to every
school district in Allegheny County. Spectfically, th1s Grand Jury learned that the
Allegheny County District Attorney coordinated a presentat1on for mandated
reporters

1n

schools so that school officials would understand all the s1gnJf1cant

changes 1n the law Offers to conduct

tillS

tra1ning were sent out to 65 sct1ool

d1strrcts 1n the county and over 45 school d1stncts accepted the offer and 1nV1ted
attorneys from the D1stnct Attorney's office 1nto the1r school

Three separate

offers were made to PI urn School Oistrtct frorn January, 2012 through July. 201 3

 Plum Schoof District d1d not accept any of the invitat1ons
Martha Freese learned of the District Attorney's offer of tratning during a
meeting With other union Presidents from Western Pennsyfvama. She mqUired of
Dr. Glasspool as to why Plum had not participated

He referred her to their

Director of Administrative Serv1ces.
The Director of the Child line and Abuse registry test1fied before this
Grand Jury regarding the process of making a Childline report. She testified
that, when making a report either online or by telephone, there are four options a
reporter can select to describe how they came about the 1nformat1on reported
Those options are. (1) told by another party; (2) med1a; (3) rumor. or (4)
observed. It is clear that the Childline obv1ously Intends, and is des1gned to
accept, reports from sources that have no direct knowledge of suspected abuse

In fact, "rumor" 1s an anticipated source of information. Th1s 1S tn compliance w1th
Sectton 6311 (b)( 1)(iii) of the CPSL, Persons Required to Report Suspected Child
Abuse, which states that a mandated reporter shall make a report of suspected
child abuse where ··a person makes a specific disclosure to the mandated
reporter that an identifiable child 1s the victim of ch1fd abuse ·· There are no limits
or restnct1ons for the bas1s of the informatton

B. Failure of Aclministrulion to act on their duty to make a
report to ChildLine
On February 13, 2015 Officer Kost reported that he rece1ved a telephone
call from Principal Koc1ela stat1ng that he called CYF at (412) 473-2094 at the
adv1ce of the school Solicttor Koctela reported to Kost that he had been

'I

 informed by CYF that he should have the police department call CYF so as not to
interfere with a police investigation
This Grand Jury had an opportumty to review the Chlldlme reports that
were ultimately subm1tted by Pnncipal Ryan Kociela regarding the assaults
against Victims 1 and 2.
Jason Cooper was arrested on the afternoon of February 11, 2015.
Pnncipal Kociela made a report to Ch1ldline on February 11, 2015 at 4:44pm by
phone. By his own test1mony, Principal Koc1ela first learned of potential
inappropriate contact by Jason Cooper on January 16,· 2015. Koctela made a
formal report to Officer Kost on January 28, 2015. However, it was not until
February 11, after Cooper's arrest by Plum Police. that Kociela submitted a
report of suspected ch1ld abuse to Child Line

In the descnption of the

"maltreatment that the v1ctim has suffered." he reported

"Ap was arrested and

arra1gned today The charge [stc] are 'corruption of minor and furnish1ng alcohol
to a minor'

No dates of Incidents known except that 1t is believed to have

happened pnor to ch turning 17."
During test1mony before thiS Grand Jury, the 01rector of the Childline and
Abuse Reg1stry indicated that her office oversees Child Abuse hotltne. Reports
rece1ved from the Chlldlme Hotl1ne are then dissern1nated to the appropnate
county's CYF agency

The results from a county CYF agency mvest1gat1on are

then reported back to the Ch1ldllne and Abuse reg1stry When a report 1s made
via Childlme. 1t 1s categorized by caseworkers as e1ther a 'Child Protect1ve
Serv1ces" (CPS) report or a 'General Protective Serv1ces (GPS) report

\JI/h·~r•C!

a

 report does not meet the standard of an allegation of "chtld abuse" as defined by
the Child Protective Services Law, it is categorized as a "General Protective
Services" report. A CPS Report requires that a county respond by ensunng the
child's safety within 24 hours. A GPS report allows for a county to respond as
they see appropriate and does not make it necessary to report the outcome of
any investigation they chose to pursue or not to pursue with the Childline and
Abuse Registry.
In this parttcular 1nstance, Princ1pal Kociela had access to tnformation that
Jason Cooper had been arrested for lnstituttonal Sexual Assault He was most
certainly aware of the allegation that Jason Cooper had had sexual contact w1th
V1ctim 1. Nonetheless. he did not include that information in hts Chtldltne report
As such, his Childline report was only categorized as a "General Protect1ve
Servtces Report." The Director of the Childline and Abuse Registry testified
specifically as to why Kociela's report was not class,fied as an allegation of ch1ld
abuse:

0: Had accurate tnformation been included tn here. that being that
the alleged perpetrator was. in fact, arrested for institutional sexual
assault and not simply for corruption of a mmor and furntshing
alcohol to a minor, what would have changed tn the way Ch1ldline
would have responded to this referral?
A.· We would have categonzed 1t as a CPS [Ct1tld Protective
Servtces l report
Both Princ1pal Koc1ela's lack of 1mmed1acy in rnakmg the repor1 and tile
m1s1nformation contamecJ withtn the report thwarted the entire goal of rnak1ng a
Chtldlme report, whtch ts to ensure the protection of children.
With regard to Rugg1en, Prrnc1pal Koctela was l1kewtse dereltct 1n t11s duty

 to make a Childllne report. A report was not made identifymg Victim 2 as a
potential subject of child abuse until February 12. 2015. Despite the fact that the
admimstration at Plum Senior Htgh School was inttially made aware of the
potential abuse of Victim 2 in October, 2014 and the fact that Principal Kociela
was aware that police were investigating the matter as of February 10. 2015. he
still did not make an immediate report in accordance with his obligations as
outlined in 23 Pa.C.S.A § 6313
This Grand Jury is cogmzant of documentary evidence from Dr. Glasspool
indicating that he was acting upon the advice of legal counsel in some of the
decisions that he had made. Furthermore, this Grand Jury has reviewed billtng
records to the School District from the Plum Borough School Solicitor for his
involvement in the "internal investigation" in 2011. from whtch this Grand Jury
infers that administration more than likely sought advice again in 2014 and/or

2015.
Thts Grand Jury

tS

also aware of evtdence mdtcatrng that Officer Kost was

made aware of the allegations that extsted in the fall of 2014. Specifically, Or.
Glasspool told David Gray that Glasspool would need to make Kost aware of the
allegattons that Gray had brought forth Addttionally. one w1tness told thts Grand
Jury that 'gtven what I saw rn Ryan and Mark [Kost]'s relat1onshtp and 11ow
closely we all worked wtth Mark [Kost). my assumptton was that Mark {Kostj
would have been tn the loop from the begtnning ... More than one wttness
expressed thts same senttment While neither Princtpal Koctela nor Or
Glasspool ever formally documented a referral made to Officer Kost. 1! 1s the

 belief of th1s Grand Jury that Officer Kost, was. at least to some extent, Involved
and aware of the allegations that came to light in October. 2014

Sect1on 6319

(Fa1lure to Report) of the Child Protective Services Law, prov1des an exception to
criminal liability where a report is made to law enforcement tn lieu of a report to
the Childline. If any one of a number of Plum School employees w1th
information about Ruggieri's mappropriate conduct with female students did m
fact, make a report to Officer Kost, Officer Kost never officially acted on that
report or memorialized it in any way.
We are convinced that admtnistration's intent1on in making belated reports
to Childline was not to protect the v1ctims, which is the primary goal of makmg
an anonymous Ch1ldline report, but rather to protect themselves

Had there

been actual concern for the safety of Victims 1 , 2, or any other student at Plum
Semor High School. a report would have been submitted weeks, tf not years.
earlier In the matter involvmg Joseph Ruggteri. a t1mely report submttted in 2011
may well have prevented other students from becommg victtms_

IX.

Hurdles presented with "reasonable cause to suspect" language

Sexual assault does not result in clear evidence of cllild
abuse so as to offer mandated reporters a ''reasonable cause
to suspect" cllild abuse.
A.

Despite the sweepmg changes made to the Chdd Protecttve Serw.:es Law
1n

recent years. the baste standard by which a mandated reporter ts obligated tu

make a report of child abuse has not changed

The statute. as 1t read both

before and after the changes of December 31, 2014. still requtres that the
mandated reporter make a report of suspected chtld abuse where that per<;on

·"' J

 has ''reasonable cause to suspect that a chrld rs a v1ctim of child abuse ·· Unlike
the obvious results of physical child abuse. such as marks and bru1ses on a
child's body, sexual assault does not necessarily yield the same obvious physrcal
manifestations as phys1cal abuse. Furthermore, sexual assault is not typically
carried out in public. Where the sexual conduct is consensual in nature, as can
be the case with an institutional sexual assault, it most likely would take place 1n
private This Grand Jury heard from numerous witnesses that they did not feel
that they had a "reasonable cause to suspect" child abuse. Most witnesses clatm
that they did not have any direct knowledge of the sexual assault and only heard
through rumors of a sexual relationship between teachers and students

The

only parties that would likely ever have direct knowledge are the perpetrator and
the victim of the sexual abuse or exploitation. It was unreasonable for any of the
witnesses to believe that they would need direct knowledge in order to make a
report of their suspictons

In fact. had anyone taken the ttme to vtew the online

Child line reportmg website, they would have seen that the categones of ··source
of mformation" options include "rumor,'' "media," and "told by another party '
Wh1le it is the opinton of this Grand Jury that teachers and administrators
used the 'reasonable cause to suspect' standard as an excuse to avo1d having to
perform the unpleasant duty of making an accusat1on agamst a respected
colleague and powerful un1on representative, the fact st1ll remains that the
standard of "reasonable cause to suspect" w1thout clanficat1on or examples l1kely
has a ch1lling effect on the successful prosecution cases of failure of a mandate(j
reporter to make a report

Ttle statute is void of a definition of what const1tutes a

 "reasonable cause to suspect." Where the act of child abuse is that of
consensual sex between a student and teacher, especially in a s1tuation where a
student initially denies of the existence of the relationship to the mandated
reporter, it is problematic to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the mandated
reporter had "reasonable cause to suspect."

B.
Difficulties presented in mounting a successful
prosecution for failure to report
Section 6319 of Title 23 provides for the criminal prosecution of mandated
reporters where there is a willful failure to make a report of child abuse.
However, several practical impediments extst to the successful prosecution of
this offense For example, a mandated reporter is obligated under § 6313 to
made a report "immediately." Prompt report1ng is certainly in keeping with the
purpose of the statute which is to "provid(e) protectton for children from further
abuse.'>~ 4 However, the language of the offense for a Farlure to Report does not

include lack of prompt report as a specrfically enumerated element of the offense
In order to successfully prosecute an offense under § 6319 arguably there would
need to be a total farlure to report, not a failure to immediately report, even
though an immediate report rs the obltgatron of a mandated reporter. In an
1nstance such as tile s1tuat1on at Plum Sen10r H1gh School. wt1ere reports were
ftnally made but only after such a delay that the report was meanmgless. one
could argue that no cnminal violation of § 6319 occurred
By way of further example. the crime requ1res a Willful fa1lure to report

I~• ~

 The element of Willfulness is defined in the Crimes Code as being satisfied "1f a
person acts knowtngly."

15

"A person acts knowingly with respect to a matenal

element of an offense when if the element involves the nature of his conduct or
the attendant circumstances, he is aware that his conduct is of that nature or that
such circumstances exist. '116 This language places the burden on the
Commonwealth to show that a mandated reporter knew he had a "reasonable
cause to suspect" child abuse where the only basis for the cause to suspect is a
rumor.
Further legislative action to amend th1s statute would serve to both ass1st
mandated reporters in understanding their obligations and to a1d prosecutors tn
pursuing cnminal charges where appropnate. Clarification of what constitutes
"reasonable cause to suspect," perhaps in line with the four categories of "source
of information" contained in the Childlme online reporting s1te. would prov1de
mandated reporters with more meanmgful gUJdance The addition of an annual
mandatory training requirement, to include signed venfication by every category
of mandated reporters. would ensure that all mandated reporters are aware of
their obligations and any changes m the law. A requirement that each school
distnct provide employees with contact mformation for a designated expert
consultant would allow for mandated reporters to make further inqu1ry wt1en
uncertam of the1r obligations

Finally, 1f additional amendments along these lmes

were to be adopted, the "willful" language could be removed making the fa1lure to
report a per se offense.

•'·J~f'n('S,\

~

W:!

''' I.":\ J>.1 (' S ,\

~

,,\J:!

 X.
Actions taken by Plum School District Thus Far to Remedy their
Shortcomings
On December 2. 2015, the Office of the Allegheny County Distnct Attorney
rece1ved a letter from Attorney Lee Pnce, Solicitor for Plum Borough School
District, on behalf of the school distrrct. The letter was accompanied by
documents representing the school district's efforts to remedy its obvious and
now exposed deficiencies. This Grand Jury recognizes that. since the arrests of
Joseph Ruggieri and Jason Cooper, the school d1stnct has worked towards
implementing policies that will ensure greater transparency and scrutiny
regarding teacher/ student relationships and improve trarn1ng of their teachers on
mandatory report1ng requirements.
Specifically, the school district has undertaken measures to offer ongotng
education on reporting procedures related to child abuse to staff and students.
Plum Borough School District has put a second police officer in the butld1ng,
posted mandatory reporting requirements in all the staff lounges and increased
staff training. The Distrrct has also rnstttuted a new ··t,pllne· focused on reportmg
"sensttive information to school officials . regardrng student safety, substance
abuse or potential threats to individuals or [our) facilrt1es " '' There has already
been an increase m staff trainmg focused on, not only mandated reporter
tra1n1ng, but also professtonaltntegnty appropriate student! teacher boundanes
and the use of soc1al media.
This Grand Jury

IS

hopeful that these remedtal acttons w1ll result,, an

mcreased awareness among teachers and administrators of the1r own duttes ancJ

'-' Plum Borough School D1stnct Webs1te School 015lflct Report Ltne
'..{.-,

 responsibilities to protect our Commonwealth's students from predators, whether
those predators are ins1de or outs1de of the school as well as contribute to a
more professional learning environment. More importantly, we are optimistic that
these changes will move beyond simply new polic1es added to a website and
actually effectuate substantive positive changes to the culture that ex1sted in the
Plum School District.

XI.

Conclusions and Recommendations:
It is the opin1on of this Grand Jury that an insular culture existed w1thrn

Plum School District that promoted the dysfunctional environment which allowed
for the misbehavior of teachers, administrators and the school resource officer
as descnbed herein. It rs 1mperative that school leadershrp, both within schools
and within the community, be aware of rndicators of a school culture that lends
itself to the creation and promotion of the types of issues experienced at Plum
Semor High School.
The investigation undertaken by this Grand Jury leads to the f1rm
conclusion that, until the m1tiat1on of thrs Grand Jury investrgation. the staff and
administration of Plum Borough School District left their students vulnerable and
enabled teachers to behave rnappropnately by· ( 1) faihng to take appropriate
admmrstratrve action aga1nst Joseph Ruggreri rn pnor years before cnmrnal dctron
became necessary, 12) farl1ng to document what frttle admrnrstratrve actron had
been taken against Joseph Ruggrerr rn his personnel file, (3) rgnorrng !herr
obligations as mandatory reporters; (4) failing to rnvolve law enforcement when
an allegation existed that a err me had occurred, and (5) r:ondw::trng "internal

 investigations" that potentially interfere with a proper investigation by law
enforcement and create conflict of interest Situations among staff
Arguably. the failure of Principal Ryan Kociela. Superintendent Timothy
Glasspool and Officer Mark Kost to make a report to Childlme regarding
allegations against Joseph Ruggieri. dating back from at least February, 2012
could constitute the crime of Failure to Report (23 Pa.C.S § 6319). However. as
an Investigative body we are not convmced that the consc1ous obJective of the
staff and administration of Plum Borough School District was to purposely put
children at risk. Rather. the course of conduct descnbed herein seems to be the
product of a dysfunctional culture fostered by adm1n1strat1on's concern for therr
peers and the reputation of the educational institution over and above ttlerr
statutory obligation. In addition. the failure to 1nvolve law enforcement where
there is an allegation of a crirnmal offense, combined with a total lack of
appropriate guidance from the School Resource Officer and School Solicitor
regard1ng how to respond to allegations of cnm1nal conduct contnbuted to ttlese
failures.
The Grand Jury does make the followrng recommendations
That the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania recons1der
the language 1n 23 Pa.C.S A § 6311 wh1ch requ1res that a mandatory
reporter have a ·reasonable cause to suspect" child abuse, or at least provrde
clear gwdance to mandatory reporters as to the actual meaning of that
language, especially where sucl11anguage could cause confuston and
potentially impede a mandatory reporter from reportrng possrble ch1ld abuse

 The Grand Jury joins in the recommendatron made by the Erghth Dauphrn
County Investigative Grand Jury that the law "should preclude school offic1als
from making preliminary inquiry into the veracity of the information ··

2. That the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania recons1der
the language of the offense of Farlure to Report, 23 Pa C.S.A. § 6319, to
1nclude as an element of the crrme that a report of suspected child abuse 1s
made "immediately, .. just as a mandated reporter is requrred to do as drctated
in the Reporting Procedure in § 6313 of the Child Protective Serv1ces Law
Specifically, we ask that the time frame of ··;mmediate" be explicitly defined to
require a mandated reporter to make a report of suspected child abuse as
soon as posstble, and no later than 24 hours after learning of the suspected
abuse.

3. That all school districts in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvanra refrain from
conductmg internalrnvestigations of potent1al cnmrnal offenses, but rather
1mmedrately tnvolve law enforcement when such conduct rs suspected

4

That school drstricts establish polrc1es and offer training to students. parents.
and communrty members of approprrate student/ teacher boundaries and
appropnate electronrc communiCation between educators and students w1th•n
that school d1stnct so that rnappropriate contact may be more eas1ly
recognizable

5

That the Pennsylvania Department of Educat1on establish clear stanrlmds for
educatiOnal instrtut1ons regarding

 a. Rigorous annual training of educators and school employees on the1r
obligation to make reports of suspected ch1ld abuse to Child line
mcluding the 1mportance of prov1ding complete and accurate
mformation necessary to 1nsure effectiveness of Childline's efforts.
Moreover, it 1s the recommendation of th1s Grand Jury that trainmg
should be accompanied by an exam testing the mandated reporters
knowledge and understanding of their obligations.
b. The conspicuous posting of mandatory reporters and their obligations
in a place vistble to employees, such as in staff lounges or offices
6.

That in accordance w1th the wisdom of the Eighth Dauphm County's
Investigative Grand Jury's recommendation that the General Assembly
mst1tute legislation creating a central repository for records of disciplmary
action against licensed teachers and administrators. clear standards for
record keeping be established to capture allegations of mappropnate student/
teacher boundary concerns. tncludmg the tnclusion of a report in a teacher's
personnel file.

7

That School Resource Officers undergo specialized tra1ning to meet the
specific concerns faced in an educatlonal111strtut1on. such
all relevant ch1ld protective statutes.

trJ~rwlg

to tnclu<Je

 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE: TBE 2014 ALLEGHENY
COUNTY INVESTIGATING

Cr~inal Division
AD-12-203-CR

GRAND JURY

CP-02-MD-944-2016

Case A

ORDER OF COURT

Filed on behalf of the
2014 Allegheny County
Investigating Grand Jury

Ron. Jill E. Rangos
Supervising Judge of the
2014 Allegheny County
Investigating Grand Jury

 IH THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF .AI..LBGBENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE: TBB 2014 ALLBGBENY
COUNTY INVBSTIGATXNG
GRAND JURY

CRIMINAL DIVISION
AD-12-203-CR
CP-02-MD-944-2016

ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this

/ 0 fJ\ day

of

(f\a.y

I

2016,

i t is the finding of this Honorable Court thaiRaport No. 1 of
the 2014 A1legheny County Investigating Grand Jury (Report No. 1)
is critical of certain individuals not indicted for any criminal
offenses.
Pursuant to this finding, i t is hereby ORDERED that, in
accordance with 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 4552 (e), responses to Report No.
1 submitted by Michael C. Loughran and Martha Freese are accepted

and shall be attached to Report No. 1 as part of the Report and

made public record in accordance with 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 4552 (b).

By the Court,

on.
GOS,
Supervising Judge of the
2014 Allegheny County
Investigating Grand Jury

 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE: THE 2014 ALLEGHENY
COUNTY INVESTIGATING
GRAND JURY

CP-02-MD-2124-20 16

RESPONSE TO REPORT OF GRAND
.JURY PURSUANT TO 42 Pa. C.S§4552
Filed on behalf of:
Martha Freese
Counsel of Record:

THOMAS N. FARRELL, ESQUIRE
PA I.D. NO. 61969
Farrell & Associates
100 Ross Street, Suite 1

Pittsburgh, PA 15219
(412) 201-5159

JUDGE JILL E. RANGOS
M1\'f

2 2016

 !N THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

fN RE: THE 2014 ALLEGHENY
COUNTY INVESTIGATING
GRAND JURY
RESPONSE TO REPORT OF GRAND JURY PURSUANT TO 42 Pa. C.S§4552

AND NOW, to wit, this

2nd

day of May 2016, comes MARTHA FREESE, by her attomey,

THOMAS N. FARRELL, Esquire, and files this Response to Report of Grand Jury Pursuant to 42
Pa.C.S.§ 4552 and avers the following:
I.

The Grand Jury was aware that Martha Freese was a Plum Borough elementary

school teacher who never worked in the Plum Borough High School.
2.

The Grand Jury was also fully aware that the "talking points" discussed in page 56

of the Report induded a directive by Martha Freese to cooperate with all law enforcement
personnel conceming any and aH on-going investigations (at that time) of the Plum High School.
3.

The Grand Jury discusses a conversation with Martha Freese and "a student" on

page 55 of the Report. Again, the Grand Jury characterizes Martha Freese as the "Teachers
Association President" but fails to point out that she was an elementary school teacher who did not
work in the high school. The Grand Jury misleads the reader into believing that the relationship
between Ms. Freese and the student was a teacher/student relationship. Nothing could be f11rther
from the truth. Ms. Freese was instructing her own child about unfounded gossip. There is no
violation under Pennsylvania law for a parent to properly instmct her own child about the dangers
of gossiping, nor should there ever be such a law.

 WHEREFORE, counsel for Ms. Freese respectfully submits this Response to Report of
Grand Jury Pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S.§4552 to be attached to the Report.

0
S N. FARRELL
ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT
PA I.D. NO. 61969

 ----- ----

~--~----~~-

-

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY

In Re: The 2014 Allegheny County

Criminal Division

Investigating Grand Jury

AD-12-203-CR
CP-02-MD-2129-2016

RESPONSE OF MICHAEL C. LOUGHREN TO REPORT NO. 1 OF THE
2014 ALLEGHENY COUNTY INVESTIGATING GRAND JURY

COMES

NOW

Michael

Christopher M.
response

to

C.

Capozzi,
Report

Loughren,

Esquire,

and

through

counsel,

and states as follows for his

of

1

No.

by

the

2014

Allegheny

County

Investigating Grand Jury:
A.

MR. LOUGHREN'S TESTIMONY WAS TRUTHFCJL AND COMPLETE.

Mr.

Loughren was

Jury about his

forthcoming with the Investigating Grand

knowledge and memory of the events.

In fact,

although testifying about events and meetings that had occurred
at

a

former

job

and

at

least

2~

-

3~

years

previously,

he

recalled the substance and important details of those matters,
including:
•

who he saw, where he saw them, what he saw and when he
made his observations; as well as,

•

what meetings he attended, when and where the meetings
occurred, who was present, the substance of what was
said and who said it.

Neither Mr.
nor

his

Loughren' s

testimony

before

actions at the time of the events
the

Investigating

Grand

Jury

were

colored by a friendship with or a sense of gratitude to Joseph

 Mr.

Ruggieri.

Loughren

and

Mr.

Ruggieri

were

colleagues,

nothing more.
Mr.

Loughren

sought

a

letter

of

recommendation

from

Mr.

Ruggieri because he believed it would provide perspective on his
qualifications as a school administrator from a current teacher,
who was also an active member of the teacher's union and a union
official. 1 ' 2

He

also

sought

and

obtained

letters

recommendation from the Plum High School Principal,

Plum

High

School

Counselors,
School
High

a

Plum

District

School

Principal,

High

School

teachers,

for

Plum

High

as

well

a

school

as

the former

School

Psychologist,

Assistant Superintendent and

from other school districts.
applying

two

a
two

administrators

of

Guidance

Plum

Borough

retired
and

Plum

teachers

Further, it is common for someone
administrator's

position

to

seek

recommendations from current teachers and union officials.
B.

MR.

Mr.

Loughren

LOUGHREN COMPLIED AT ALL 'riMES
LEGAL AND PROI!'ESSIONAL STANDARDS.

was

a

present,

Principal at Plum High School.
him

uncomfortable,

which

is

observant

WITH

and

THE

CONTROLLING

involved Vice

He made an observation that left
discussed

in

Section

c,

promptly reported it to a Plum Borough Police Officer

and

he

(who was

The Investigating Grand Jury did not ask 1-lr. Loughren whether or
why he had obtained a letter of recommendation from ~1r. Ruggieri; in fact, it
did not ask him a single question about this letter of recommendation.
1

Letters of recommendation do not connote a special relationship
between the author and the subject; they are intended to provide perspective
on the strengths, abilities and accomplishments of the applicant.

2

 also the assigned School Resource Officer

any hard evidence of an

reported what he saw to the two
Mr.

to address it.
request of the

and the Plurr

He acted on a gut instinct,

High School Principal - his boss.
absent

("SRO"))

inappropriate relationship,
~eople

who were best positioned

Loughren subsequently participated,

Principal,

ana

in two follow-up meetings,

at

the

which are

discussed in Section D.
At
matter,

the
(a)

conclusion

of

Mr.

Loughren's

involvement

in

this

the Principal and law enforcement were on notice of

his concern and

(b)

the student's step- father had been advised

that there were rumors of an inappropriate relationship.
C.

MR.
LOUGHREN SEES MR.
RUGGIERI'S CLASSROOM.

RUGGIERI

AND

A

STUDENT

IN

MR.

In 2012 or 2013, Mr. Loughren was making his regular rounds
when

he

Ruggieri
were

not

passed

by

Mr.

Ruggieri's

and the student
touching;

another;

and,

required

Mr.

and

observed

identified as Victim Number

they

there

classroom

were

was

not

nothing

Loughren's

in

close

occurring

between

Something

intervention.

They

3.

proximity

Mr.

to

them
about

one
that
the

situation, however, struck Mr. Loughren as peculiar.
Mr.

Loughren

to

this

made him uncomfortable.
information

from any

day

It \vas

source

cannot
~

that

say

certainty what

because he had knowledge or

Mr.

Ruggieri

inappropriate relationships with students,

3

with

was

carrying-on

he did not.

It

was

 likely a combination of factors,

including nis knowledge of the

student's academic and disdplinary record,
student in one of t-lr.

that

she was

not a

Ruggieri's classes and th21t she ougnt

to

have been at lunch at that time.
On the same day that he made these observations he reported
them to two people who were in positions of authority and whose
Mr.

judgment he trusted implicitly.
the SRO.

The

SRO suggested to !'1r.

internal matter and he
Later
the

the

Loughren first

should make

same day,

Mr.

Loughren

As

for

the

Principal.

Loughren
the

that

Principal

spoke with
this

was

aware of

reported his observations

Principal

asking

Mr.

Loughren

an

it.
to
to

"keep his eyes and ears open," this was Mr. Loughren's job as an
Assistant Principal;

it was what he did as he made his regular

rounds of the campus.
0 .

About
Principal
reported

THE PRINCIPAL INFORMS HR. LOUGHREN OF RVH:)RS CONCERNING MR.
RUGGIERI AND THE SAME STUDENT.

three

weeks

informed Mr.
that

she

had

relationship between Mr.
Victim Number 3.

Principal

and

making

Loughren
been

that

advised

these
a

observations,

guidance
of

rumors

the
Mr.

counselor
of

a

the
hac

sexual

Ruggieri and the student identified as

At the request of the Principal,

at tended two meetings:
step-father and

after

one meeting was with

Principal;

the

Ruggieri.

The

4

the

Mr.

student,

other meeting was
student

Loughren

denied

with
having

her
the
an

 inappropriate relationship with Mr. Ruggieri and her step-father
stated that he believed the relationship between Mr.

Ruggieri

and his step-daughter to be one of mentoring; Mr. Ruggieri also
denied having an inappropriate relationship with the student.
CONCLUSION

E.

Other
rumors

than

reported

learned,
between

the
by

one
a

time

the

guidance

counselor,

or even heard rumors,
students

and

Principal

informed

Mr.

Loughren

of inappropriate

employees

before

they

him

were

of

never

relationships
reported

by

local news organizations beginning in early February 2015.

Mr.

Loughren

his

not

only

acted

professional obligations,
responsible

manner;

he

in

accord

with

the

law

and

but also in a personally caring and
did

all

he

could

reasonably

do

or

reasonably be expected to do given the circumstances kno\-m to
him.

Respectfully submitted,

Christophe , l--~ ozzi, PA ID #77162
100 Ross Street, Suite 340
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Telephone: 412-471-1648
Facsimile: 412-592-0340
E-Mail: chris@cmcapozzilaw.com

5