The SMMUSD refuses to answer questions about its handling of student complaints about Thomas Beltran, former Lincoln MS teacher convicted of sexually molesting 11 students

Michael Chwe, michael@chwe.net
Return to smmusdsafety.org

On Friday, May 2, 2008, a 12-year-old Lincoln MS student and her parents went to the Santa Monica Police Department to complain about Lincoln teacher Thomas Beltran, who had taught at Lincoln Middle School for 20 years.  On Saturday, May 3, 2008, Mr. Beltran was arrested for sexually molesting four students; he was later convicted for sexually molesting eleven Lincoln students over a period of more than ten years. 

However, on May 7, 2008, Assistant Superintendent Mike Matthews announced in a press release (right) that an eighth-grade Lincoln Middle School student had complained about Mr. Beltran two years earlier, in March 2006.  The student had said that she "felt uncomfortable being in Mr. Tom Beltran's class because of the way he touched her."  The student made a written complaint to Frank Costanzo, at the time Assistant Principal of Lincoln, who referred the student to Kathy Scott, Lincoln Principal at the time.  The SMPD investigated and found that there was insufficient evidence for proceeding.  In the end, Principal Scott's response to the student's complaint was to remove the student from Mr. Beltran's class and instruct "Mr. Beltran to not touch any of the female students in his classroom in order to protect himself from any further misinterpretation."  These quotes are from a letter from Ms. Scott to SMPD Detective Gladden on March 3, 2006 (right), included in the press release.

There are three severe irregularities associated with the handling of the March 2006 complaint which have never been acknowledged or addressed by the SMMUSD.

First, when Asst. Supt. Matthews issued the press release, he claimed that the SMMUSD had no knowledge of the March 2006 student complaint about Mr. Beltran.  Even though the student's complaint had warranted police involvement, and even though the SMPD thought Ms. Scott's letter was worth keeping, according to Asst. Supt. Matthews, no record of the letter was kept anywhere in the SMMUSD and the only reason that the SMMUSD was in posession of it was because the SMPD gave it to them on May 6, 2008.  On May 8, 2008, Asst. Supt. Matthews said that "this is all new to us" and said that there were no complaints about Mr. Beltran in his personnel file.

Either Ms. Scott did not forward her letter to the SMMUSD central office or she did and the central office lost or destroyed it.  Large organizations such as schools ordinarily keep copies of their outgoing correspondence.  If no copy of the letter was kept anywhere in the district, including at Lincoln MS itself, there is the obvious question of whether Ms. Scott consciously chose to destroy it.

In July 2008, the SMMUSD Board adopted new policies on the reporting of child abuse and sexual harassment which for the first time required school principals to report suspected cases to the Superintendent.  In other words, if Ms. Scott had not sent her letter to the SMMUSD central office, her action would have been consistent with inadequate district policy at the time.

The second severe irregularity is that on May 7, 2008, Lincoln Principal Tristan Komlos (who had replaced Ms. Scott in September 2006 as Lincoln Principal) and Assistant Principal Frank Costanzo claimed that they had never seen Ms. Scott's letter before.  This claim invites obvious questions.  Mr. Costanzo had first received the student's March 2006 written complaint, and it is difficult to believe that Ms. Scott did not involve him fully in the resolution of the case.  Also, after Mr. Beltran's arrest on May 2, 2008, Mr. Costanzo, given his knowledge of the March 2006 complaint, would presumably be expected to quickly locate all records of the complaint and ask Ms. Scott for all information about it, if only to fully cooperate with the police investigation.  If he had not seen Ms. Scott's letter by May 7, 2008, he must not have tried.

The third severe irregularity is the handling of the March 2006 complaint itself.  The student who complained in March 2006 was included in the criminal case against Mr. Beltran.  In other words, although she had complained (in Ms. Scott's words—the student's own words have not been publicly released) of being "uncomfortable being in Mr. Tom Beltran's class because of the way he touched her," the student had been in fact the victim of sexual abuse.  Thus it must be concluded in retrospect that the March 2006 investigation, which included the SMPD, was woefully insufficient. 

Different circumstances in the May 2008 complaint and the March 2006 complaint might explain why one resulted in arrest and why one did not.  One difference is that the May 2008 complaint was made directly to the SMPD while the March 2006 complaint was first made to Lincoln administrators.  In her March 30, 2006 letter, Ms. Scott was willing to accept Mr. Beltran's statement that the eighth-grade student had "misinterpreted" his touching her, thus seemingly placing blame on the student.  Ms. Scott's letter mentions the need to "protect" Mr. Beltran "from any further misinterpretation" but does not mention the need to protect his students.

Also, as the first person to receive the student's complaint in March 2006, Mr. Frank Costanzo was required by California Penal Code Section 11166 (i) (3) to report suspected child abuse to law enforcement authorities himself, not simply report it to his immediate superior.  Under California Penal Code Section 11166 (h), Mr. Costanzo and Ms. Scott could have reported suspected child abuse as a team, but then Mr. Costanzo would have had the responsibility to follow up on the report, and must have known that the SMPD were contacted.

On May 21, 2008, a group of ten Lincoln parents including myself wrote a letter (right) to Ms. Dianne Talarico, SMMUSD Superintendent at the time, and Ms. Tristan Komlos, Lincoln Principal at the time asking 14 questions about these and other problems with the Beltran case.  On May 30, 2008, Supt. Talarico responded saying that "Our attorney is assisting us in reviewing and preparing a response. The active investigation status of this case prohibits the district from responding to many of your questions at this time."  We never received a further response.  On September 2, 2010, I wrote to Superintendent Tim Cuneo asking for the district to answer our questions now that the criminal case against Mr. Beltran has been long resolved.  Supt. Cuneo has not responded.

Despite the irregularities with the SMMUSD's handling of the eighth-grade student's March 2006 complaint against Mr. Beltran, and even when the student was included as a victim in the criminal case, Asst. Supt. Matthews was willing to state in the May 7, 2008 press release that in March 2006 the district "took appropriate action to ensure the protection of the complainant."  In retrospect, no reasonable person can conclude that the SMMUSD took "appropriate action" to protect the eighth-grader who complained in March 2006 and who was victimized by Mr. Beltran.  Even after Mr. Beltran's conviction and imprisonment, even when asked directly, the SMMUSD has not revised its statement.  

In his press release, Asst. Supt. Matthews did not mention any further action taken by the SMMUSD as a result of the March 2006 complaint once the SMPD concluded that there would be no criminal charges.  One must conclude that the SMMUSD is willing to offload responsbility for child safety to outside organizations such as the SMPD, even though teachers can endanger child safety in many ways which do not rise to the level of criminal charges (such as sexual harassment). 

On May 8, 2008, Asst. Supt. Matthews said that the SMMUSD was able to disclose the existence of the March 2006 complaint because "it came from police files, not the school's, which would've made it a confidential personnel matter."  In other words, if the SMPD had not been involved with the March 2006 complaint, the SMMUSD would never have even admitted that there had been previous complaints about Mr. Beltran. 

By choosing to not answer basic questions about its handling of the March 2006 complaint against Mr. Beltran, the SMMUSD has shown it is unwilling to hold itself accountable for actions fundamentally related to the safety of our children.  
SMMUSD Press Release by Asst. Supt. Mike Matthews, May 7, 2008.
Letter from Ms. Kathy Scott, Lincoln Principal to Detective Gladden, SMPD, March 30, 2006.
Letter from ten Lincoln parents to Supt. Dianne Talarico and Principal Tristan Komlos, May 21, 2008.