Longtime Munster middle school counselor denies violating student confidentiality laws
The School Town of Munster fired a long-time middle school counselor accused of violating student confidentiality laws Monday night.
The School Board of Trustees voted 3-1 – with Board President Kyle Dempsey absent – to not renew the contract of Julie Atkinson during its Monday night meeting. Atkinson had been a counselor with Wilbur Wright Middle School for 17 years.
Addressing the board and the audience before the vote, Atkinson, who was placed on leave from her position January 10, said the basis of her firing was that she'd consulted with a licensed social worker about a report conducted on a student in crisis. The child's mom, she told the Post-Tribune, was aware of their actions and didn't have a problem with them since they'd been working with them since early in the school year.
She's also 'extremely familiar' with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), which protects students' educational records and personally identifiable information. People who have access to this information either have a legitimate educational interest – which Atkinson said the social worker had by virtue of them working with the child – or a parent's permission to see it, which she said they had.
'As a licensed school counselor, I'm extremely aware of my ethical obligations as they relate to confidentiality and FERPA – which are two separate things – because those are the literal basis of my profession,' Atkinson said. 'If students or parents don't trust me, they won't talk to me, so to suggest that I have violated a student's right to privacy is perhaps the most offensive thing I could be accused of doing.'
Atkinson pointed out, however, that the administrator who initiated the action against her, Principal Bojan Jovanovic, 'wasn't able to answer the questions, 'What is FERPA?' 'What does FERPA mean?' and 'What provision of FERPA did she violate?'' during a hearing on the matter with the School Board and her. She also said the mother of the child in question said she's never to this day heard from anyone in the administration about the incident, which took place in November.
'The psychological and physical effects I have experienced during this forced social isolation have been profound because my coworkers were allowed to just think I was ill,' she said. 'At one point, (Jovanovic) encouraged the staff to send me a 'Thinking of You' card as if admin also didn't know why I wasn't at work and wanted to support me.'
Atkinson said she was given the opportunity to resign 'many times' but didn't because she didn't violate any policies or laws, and she wanted her children to see the importance of standing up for what's right 'even when you know you're not going to win.'
'If I can be fired for this – despite having enthusiastic parental support – then I would urge the other counselors and social workers in the district to take notice,' Atkinson said. 'If I can be fired after 17 years of being consistently rated as 'highly effective,' then any employee in this district can be fired at any time.'
Outgoing STM Superintendent Bret Heller declined comment by email Tuesday.
Scores of parents posted messages supporting Atkinson on a social media post her husband, Ben Atkinson, made asking whether Atkinson would be able to speak at the meeting. Heather Burmester, who was present, said Atkinson played a crucial role in one of her son's acclimations to school when they moved to town.
'It's not just, 'Oh, she's a good counselor.' The experience people have with Mrs. Atkinson, the experience that our students of color have reported with her is above, above average. She's irreplaceable,' Burmester said. 'If there was an issue, there has to be some other recourse so this board could say 'No' to certifying her termination.
'We cannot lose her, especially on the heels of the Elliott fiasco, where we lost six good people.'
Board members John Castro, Amy Sinder and Ingrid Schwarz Wolf voted to terminate Atkinson, while Board Vice President Kristen Smith voted against it.
Debora Porter, UniServ Director for Area 1 of the Indiana State Teachers Association, said she and their staff fought as hard as they could, but there was an imbalance of power they couldn't overcome.
'We felt we were on the just side, but they had all the power, and under Indiana law, we've gone as far as we can go,' Porter said. 'You would think that the way public education is under attack in this state, we would cling to each other, but it seems the stress is getting to everybody.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Arkansas Corrections Board lawsuit against governor stays alive with Supreme Court ruling
Arkansas Supreme Court (Courtesy Photo) A lawsuit over who has the ultimate authority over the state prison system gained renewed life Thursday with the dismissal of a state appeal of a lower court preliminary injunction. The Arkansas Board of Corrections filed a lawsuit in Pulaski County Circuit Court on Dec. 14, 2023 against Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the secretary of state and Arkansas Department of Corrections, challenging the constitutionality of Act 185 and 659 of 2023. Act 185 requires the secretary of corrections to serve at the pleasure of the governor rather than the board, while Act 659 alters the reporting structure for the directors of the Division of Correction and Division of Community Correction, requiring them to serve at the pleasure of the secretary rather than the board. The board argued the laws violate Amendment 33 of the Arkansas Constitution, which protects the power of constitutional boards like the board of corrections from 'usurpation by the Governor or the General Assembly, or both,' according to Thursday's ruling. Arkansas judge sides with prison board in dispute with governor, corrections secretary A circuit court judge granted a preliminary injunction in January 2024, which Attorney General Tim Griffin appealed. The Supreme Court's ruling Thursday dismissed the state's motion to send the case back to the circuit court, order the preliminary injunction vacated and the case dismissed as moot. The high court also dismissed a motion to disqualify the corrections board's attorney from further participation in proceedings before the court. In its motion to remand, the state argues the controversy ended when the board fired former Corrections Secretary Joe Profiri. The firing was part of a dispute between the board and the executive branch that started in late 2023 over who controls the state's prison system. The board's refusal in November 2023 to approve a request to increase prison capacity by 500 beds prompted harsh public criticism from Griffin and Sanders. The board responded by hiring an outside attorney the following month to represent it in employment matters. Because Profiri was fired prior to the entry of the preliminary injunction, the lower court's finding of irreparable harm was erroneous, the state argued. The board said it wasn't seeking court confirmation of its right to fire Profiri, but relief from the legislation regarding the board's authority under Amendment 33. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Karen Baker said she agreed with the board's assertion that Profiri's termination doesn't resolve the ultimate question of whether the board controls the secretary or division directors, and therefore the dispute is not specific to the individual holding the secretary's office. 'The Board's complaint concerns the Challenged Legislation and the resulting changes to the Board's supervisory authority. This dispute exists notwithstanding the individual who holds the Secretary position and is not personal to Secretary Profiri,' Baker wrote. 'Further, because this case presents an existing legal controversy, it is not moot. Therefore, we deny appellants' motion to remand.' The state also filed a motion to disqualify the legal counsel obtained by the corrections board, arguing the firm was obtained illegally. The board didn't follow state law for securing outside counsel, and the board did not have the 'authority to hire special counsel because the Board is not a constitutional officer,' the attorney general's motion argued. The circuit court denied this motion, explaining that 'the Board is a constitutionally created board, making its members constitutional officers' who therefore had the legal authority to hire special counsel. The attorney general typically represents state agencies, but state law gives constitutional officers the ability to hire outside counsel when they disagree with the attorney general over a constitutional provision. In dismissing this motion, Baker notes the board correctly points out that 'an order denying a motion to disqualify adversary's counsel in a civil proceeding is not an appealable final order.' 'As a general rule, an appeal from an interlocutory decision brings up for review only the decision from which the appeal was taken, here, the granting of an injunction,' Baker wrote. The motion to disqualify the attorney is outside the scope of the Supreme Court's review of the preliminary injunction, she said. The high court majority affirmed the lower court's issuance of an injunction because its 'findings that there would be irreparable harm were not clearly erroneous.' The crux of the lawsuit, Baker wrote, is whether the board retains ultimate authority over the corrections secretary and directors or whether the challenged legislation constitutionally transfers that power to the governor and corrections secretary. 'The evidence presented to the circuit court demonstrates that, in the absence of the injunction, the dispute will be ongoing until the constitutionality of the Challenged Legislation is resolved,' Baker said. 'This, coupled with appellants' failure to even argue their likelihood of success on the merits, leaves us with little choice under our deferential standard of review. 'We hold that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the Board demonstrated that irreparable harm would result in the absence of the requested preliminary injunction, and we affirm,' she added. Arkansas Supreme Court sends AG's FOIA lawsuit against prison board back to circuit court Special Justices Troy Braswell and Bud Cummins joined in the decision. Associate Justice Barbara Webb concurred in part and dissented in part. Associate Justice Shawn Womack dissented. Associate Justices Cody Hiland and Nicholas Bronni, both of whom were appointed by the governor, did not participate. Webb wrote that she agreed with the majority that the matter is not moot because Profiri's termination doesn't resolve the question of whether Acts 185 and 659 of 2023 are unconstitutional. She also agreed that it's not appropriate to disqualify the board's counsel at this time. However, she argues the board 'failed to demonstrate irreparable harm' and the circuit court therefore erred in enjoining the challenged acts. 'The crux of the Board's claim for irreparable harm was Secretary Profiri's alleged acts of insubordination, which were directly attributable to Act 185 requiring the Secretary to serve at the pleasure of the Governor rather than the Board,' Webb wrote. 'This harm is not irreparable…By definition, if a secretary may be terminated and his actions undone, then it cannot be said that any harm resulting therefrom is 'irreparable.'' In his dissenting opinion, Womack argues the court must vacate the preliminary injunction and dismiss the lawsuit because sovereign immunity bars the board's lawsuit against the governor, corrections secretary and Department of Corrections. Sovereign immunity, which Womack cites often in court opinions, is the legal doctrine that the state cannot be sued in its own courts. 'Even if that was not so, the Board would still lose because it failed to show irreparable harm — a necessary element to establish entitlement to a preliminary injunction,' Womack wrote 'Therefore, I also join the other dissenting opinion in this case.' Regarding the issue of the disqualification of the board's 'potentially illegally retained counsel, I again remind citizens of this state of their ability to protect themselves 'against the enforcement of any illegal exactions whatever,'' he said. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Washington Post
a day ago
- Washington Post
Elon Musk is gone, but DOGE's actions are hard to reverse. The Institute of Peace is a case study
WASHINGTON — The staff was already jittery. The raiders from Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency had disposed of the U.S. Institute of Peace board, its acting president and its longtime outside counsel. But until 9:30 p.m. on March 28, there was hope the damage might be limited. Then termination notices started popping up in personal emails.
Miami Herald
2 days ago
- Miami Herald
UnitedHealthcare Is Struggling To Recover From Luigi Mangione
It was a personal and corporate tragedy that quickly became a national reckoning. When UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson was shot dead on a Manhattan sidewalk six months ago, minutes before a company investor conference, the crime sent tremors through the healthcare industry and society more widely—tremors that continue to reverberate. The attack on the 50-year-old executive—allegedly by the now 27-year-old Luigi Mangione—immediately sparked an outpouring of public fury not at the gunman, but at UnitedHealthcare itself. Within hours, social media was awash with dark jokes. One viral comment said: "Thoughts and deductibles to the family. Unfortunately my condolences are out-of-network." Many expressed frustration over high costs and denied care from the industry. UnitedHealthcare in particular has suffered a prolonged backlash, seen its stock plummet and has been threatened by multiple lawsuits. The CEO who replaced Thompson, Andrew Witty, has also already stepped down from the role due to "personal reasons," adopting the position of adviser to the next appointed chief executive, Stephen Hemsley. Mangione is facing federal and state murder charges, to which he has pleaded not guilty, but still receives sympathy or even praise from some Americans. A crowdfunding campaign for his legal fees has attracted over $1 million, with donors expressing concerns his trial had become "politicized." Bullet casings at the crime scene were etched with the words "deny," "defend," and "depose," an apparent reference to the "delay, deny, defend" mantra that critics use to describe how insurers handle claims. Authorities were quick to attempt to dispel public sympathy for Mangione. "We don't celebrate murderers, and we don't lionize the killing of anyone," New York Police Commissioner Jessica Tisch said. "Any attempt to rationalize this is vile, reckless and offensive to our deeply held principles of justice." Investor confidence in UnitedHealthcare, once rock-solid in this blue-chip giant, has nonetheless been shaken. Executives have been in damage-control mode in public forums. In an earnings call days before stepping down, Witty said: "The health system needs to function better." "The mission of this company, why we exist, is to improve the system for everybody and help people live healthier lives," he added. "That means getting more people into high-quality value-based care and keeping them healthy in the first place." In a statement announcing the change, Hemsley said: "We are grateful for Andrew's stewardship of UnitedHealth Group, especially during some of the most challenging times any company has ever faced. The Board and I have greatly valued his leadership and compassion as chief executive and as a director and wish him and his family the best." While it is "impossible to say how much of the current challenges facing UnitedHealthcare are due, entirely, or even partly, to the murder of this executive," Dr. Howard P. Forman, a professor of radiology, economics and public health at Yale School of Management, told Newsweek, "it has changed some of the behaviors of the company and how they approach their work." YouGov polling shows a steady decline in popularity for UnitedHealthcare, dropping from a rating of 48.4 percent approval in January to 34.8 percent in April, which was the lowest percentage rating recorded since YouGov started tracking public favor of the company in October 2020. The shooting "tarnished UnitedHealthcare's reputation and disrupted its operational stability," Ge Bai, a professor of health policy and management at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Maryland, told Newsweek. "The public increasingly views insurance companies as barriers to care, using tactics such as 'delay, deny, and depose,' especially given how expensive premiums are in the first place," she added. In 2023, UHC dismissed roughly one in three claims, the highest denial rate of any major insurer, according to data from ValuePenguin, a consumer research organization. Bai also said that many are frustrated that "after paying tens of thousands of dollars for insurance premiums, when they're sick they still cannot get the care they want or are left to shoulder hefty medical bills." Richard Scheffler, a professor of health economics and public policy at University of California, Berkeley, told Newsweek: "The oversize profits at a time where health care is becoming even more unaffordable is a key factor in the negative view of company." Dr. Howard P. Forman said there has been "a steady drumbeat of bad news over the last few years about UnitedHealthcare group and their competitors." He pointed to the "federal investigations and charges, shareholder lawsuits, and press coverage of seemingly bad behavior by these companies, with UnitedHealthcare group drawing more attention than the others." "I think many people are fed up with feeling like their most desperate, challenging, and personally upsetting moments are being toyed with by companies that are not trained to practice medicine or make such important decisions," Forman said. However, while it's understandable for consumers to get angry at their health insurers, it is also important to remember "there is no easy answer" for such companies as they navigate costs and care, Jonathan Gruber, a professor of economics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, told Newsweek. As health insurers act as the middlemen between health care providers and patients, while they impose some costs, "the main driver of their spending is the underlying spending on health care providers," he said. To lower premiums for consumers, health insurers may then to implement actions that are less favorable, Gruber said, such as "limiting which providers patients can see and denying claims that are deemed inappropriate." These actions can impose "very high burdens" on consumers, he said, and patients "don't like this and would rather just get to use the care they and their doctors suggest." But allowing consumers to do that would result in higher premiums, Gruber added, so it leaves insurers in a tricky position. So, while insurers "are not blameless by any means," Gruber said, adding that "executives are overpaid and their methods are sometimes much too blunt," it's worth noting there aren't easy solutions to hand either. Forman also said that "the system, itself, and its cost remains a major problem and pointing fingers without self-reflection is not going to end well." UnitedHealthcare didn't become a household name overnight. It grew over decades into the nation's largest health insurer—a core division of UnitedHealth Group, a Minnesota-based healthcare conglomerate that ranks among the world's biggest companies. The group today touches almost every aspect of American healthcare, from insurance plans to clinics and pharmacies. Under the UnitedHealthcare brand, it sells health coverage to employers, individuals, and government program beneficiaries. With roughly $400 billion in annual revenue and about 400,000 employees as of 2024, UnitedHealth Group wields immense influence. However, in the months since the shooting, the stock price of UnitedHealth Group has significantly fallen. On December 4, the day Thompson was killed, the company's stock price was at $610.79. The following day, its stock price went down to $578.97. After a week, it was dropping faster, falling to $533.53. At the end of May, the stock price was less than $300—less than half what it was before the shooting. It is important to note, however, that in April the company's stock price sharply rose higher than before the shooting, so the decline has not been consistent. "The shooting contributed to the stock price crash, but other factors are also at play," Bai said. "Adverse financial results due to higher than expected claims" could also be a reason, Mark Pauly, a professor of health care management at Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania told Newsweek. UnitedHealth Group reported a higher-than-expected financial performance for fiscal 2024—an 8 percent year-over-year revenue increase to $400.3 billion. Higher-than-expected financial performance in companies could also lead to a drop in stock price for a number of reasons, including that investors might become more cautious about buying shares in a company until the foundations of the performance have been investigated. In the case of UnitedHealth Group, the fact the positive financial performance was released during a period of heightened scrutiny following the CEO's death may have added fuel to the fire. In April 2025, UnitedHealth Group cut its earnings forecast for the year, citing rising medical costs and a spike in care usage, especially by seniors. The disclosure wiped out over $100 billion of market value in a single day—UnitedHealth's stock plummeted 22 percent, hitting a four-year low. "We have paused guidance and in the next weeks and quarters we will take actions necessary to deliver the performance we are capable of while providing exceptional services and outcomes for customers, consumers, and care providers," a spokesperson for UnitedHealthcare told Newsweek. In May, a proposed class action lawsuit was filed in the Southern District of New York against UnitedHealth Group. The suit, brought by investor Roberto Faller, accuses it of misleading shareholders by failing to disclose the impact of public backlash following the killing of Thompson. The complaint alleges that UnitedHealth continued to project strong financial results despite the growing controversy. According to the lawsuit, UnitedHealth projected earnings per share of $29.50 to $30 in December 2024 and reaffirmed this forecast in January 2025. However, the suit claims these projections were misleading, as the company was internally struggling and facing mounting criticism for its high rate of insurance claim denials and its handling of the CEO's death. The failure to address these issues, the lawsuit claims, led to a loss of investor confidence and ultimately triggered the dramatic drop in the company's stock price on April 17. The legal action seeks class certification and damages for investors who purchased UnitedHealth shares between December 3, 2024, and April 16, 2025. In addition to UnitedHealth Group, the lawsuit names Chief Executive Andrew Witty and Chief Financial Officer John Rex as co-defendants, alleging they were directly involved in the dissemination of misleading information to investors during the affected period. Scheffler said the increased "scrutiny and investigation" of the company was also influencing public opinion. Shares in UnitedHealth Group fell sharply again after The Wall Street Journal reported on May 14 this year that the company was facing a Department of Justice (DOJ) investigation for possible Medicare fraud, citing anonymous sources. Newsweek has not verified the details of this reporting. Neither the DOJ nor UnitedHealth Group has made any public announcement confirming it. The WSJ report said that the investigation had been active since at least the summer of 2024, and is being led by the health care fraud unit of the DOJ's criminal division. The shares recovered substantially in the days following the report. The company responded at the time with a statement, saying: "We have not been notified by the Department of Justice of the supposed criminal investigation reported, without official attribution, in The Wall Street Journal today. "The WSJ's reporting is deeply irresponsible, as even it admits that the 'exact nature of the potential criminal allegations is unclear.' We stand by the integrity of our Medicare Advantage program." A class-action lawsuit was brought against the company alleging it uses artificial intelligence to assess coverage for some elderly patients who are on a Medicare Advantage plan, but that 90 percent of denials by the algorithm are later reversed following an internal appeal process or legal proceedings. The lawsuit was filed on November 14, 2023. It names UnitedHealth Group, UnitedHealthcare and NaviHealth as the defendants. It was brought by the families of two now-deceased patients who were denied coverage by UnitedHealthcare for stays at nursing homes. The suit is ongoing, and its claims have not been proved in court. "Claims that we use an AI algorithm to automatically deny claims are false," a UnitedHealthcare spokesperson said. "All adverse clinical determinations are made by medical directors, in accordance with CMS Medical coverage criteria. The lawsuit is based on unfounded allegations and mischaracterizes the incredibly valuable work of our experienced and compassionate clinicians." However, the last six months for UnitedHealthcare have clearly been rocky. "The fall of UnitedHealthcare will be studied for years to understand the root cause of an American health care system that is increasingly unaffordable, of poor quality for many and whose costs are unsustainable," Scheffler said. Related Articles Democratic Mayor's Budget Would Remove 25,000 People From MedicaidMore Than a Million Americans Removed From Health Care Plan in One MonthPrudential Group Insurance President: The Workforce Risk Employers Can't Afford to Ignore | OpinionMap Shows 14 States Offering Health Coverage To Undocumented Migrants 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
