62 entries for Mr John Brander

Mr Rothe made an appointment to meet with the Bishop of Kildare and Leighlin, in whose diocese Walsh Island NS was located. At the meeting, they discussed the circumstances of Mr Brander’s departure from Walsh Island NS. The Bishop told him that Mr Brander was an urgent problem at the time and it was dealt with quickly. He made the point that, if they had waited for the Department of Education to act, it could have taken years.

Mr Rothe said that the Bishop appeared to be surprised to learn that Mr Brander was teaching in Tullamore. He was very critical of the manner in which the Department of Education dealt with this sort of problem.

Following their meeting, Mr Rothe and the Bishop entered into correspondence on the matter, commencing with a letter from Mr Rothe: Dear [Bishop] Further to our meeting of April 30th I think it fair to clarify my position. I have made a written complaint to the Department of Education with the objective of finding out why the management of Sacred Heart Secondary School were not informed of Mr. [Brander’s] behaviour in Walsh Island NS. I now know that managers are not obliged to report such matters to the Department. The school manager has ultimate responsibility. It would have saved me time and expense had you told me that when I asked you. As one who has suffered greatly because of this I have the right to know the truth, a right which many people do not seem to recognise. I believe that you made an unwise judgement in allowing Mr. [Brander] an opportunity to get back into teaching. I also believe that other people had the right to information about Mr [Brander] if he was to be prevented from coming into contact with children in any capacity. During my enquiries I have found that what happened to me in school is not at all uncommon. I now know that there have been and continue to be numerous similar cases. It appears that each year the Dept. removes the right to teach from a number of persons. I would think this number to be between three and six. This does not take into account the number of teachers sacked by individual managers or Bishops. I know from Department sources that complaints are frequently lost and are dealt with only when they are accompanied by an avalanche of similar complaints. In one case I know of this took five years. I would also like to point out that the teachers sacked by the Department go out on full salary or pension which is of course tax-payers money. I find this a little hard to accept as it seems unlikely as I will get medical or legal expenses or payment for time lost from work through illness. It is clear to me that there are many thousands of people who have some knowledge of the problem of sexual abuse in schools. Every person I have spoken to connected with education recognises that there is a problem. It is undoubtedly something which many people do not forget and which many never talk about. I recognise of course the problems of getting proof in such cases. However there is an unwillingness to deal with cases even when sufficient proof exists. The people who then suffer are the children who are left at risk. It is the children I am concerned about. I do not believe that the action taken in the [Brander] case was of any help to me either [at the time of the abuse] or now. The attitude of clergy I have been in contact with is to say the least regrettable. To an outsider it would seem like an attempt to cover up the facts rather than deal with them. If society is now more informed and enlightened on such problems as homosexuality it is no credit to the clergy in my opinion. I ask you to consider the plight of many children who are sexually abused in their own homes by members of their families. Who are they to turn to for help. Various bodies try to help while society in general continues to ignore the realities. The point I wish to make is that society will never deal with that abuse or alleviate some of the suffering that accompanies it until it first deals effectively with cases of sexual abuse in schools. I now find myself interested in not one case of sexual abuse but many. I believe that the number of such cases can be greatly reduced if the relevant authorities are prepared to take action. I am therefore asking that an investigation be made to find out the extent of the problem and how it can best be dealt with. I have made it quite clear at all times that I am interested in seeing that what happened to me in Walsh Island NS will not continue to happen to others. In anything that I have done I believe I have acted responsibly. Trying to do that can be frustrating if others do not accept their responsibilities. I am not saying that anyone would deliberately allow an unhealthy situation to continue. Somebody must show courage and leadership in tackling a problem which most are unable to even discuss. I look forward to any early reply.

Mr Rothe also contacted Fr Derek, former curate in the Walsh Island parish, whose parish priest had been Fr Colm. Mr Rothe had approached Fr Derek, as he felt that his meeting with the Bishop had been unsatisfactory. He gave evidence of a meeting he had with Fr Derek, with whom he had a good relationship. Fr Derek advised him that, when Mr Brander was sacked, a Department of Education Inspector and an Irish National Teachers’ Organisation official were involved. He did not learn their names.

Fr Derek said that, if Mr Brander was still teaching, it was the Department’s fault.

The discovery from the diocese contained a further letter from Mr Rothe, which commenced: I have again asked [the Bishop] what action is to be taken to establish an investigation into cases of sexual abuse in schools whether or not I am to be compensated for medical expenses etc. and what the position is regarding the employment of Mr. [Brander] in Sacred Heart Secondary School, Tullamore, Co Offaly.

Mr Rothe gave evidence that his efforts thus far were an attempt to avoid having to write a formal letter of complaint to the Department of Education. He had no idea how to go about this task, and felt that there were implications for him professionally in so doing. Despite this fact, he wrote: Dear Sir, I wish to make the following points concerning Mr. [Brander] who is presently teaching in Sacred Heart School, Tullamore. Mr. [Brander] taught in Walsh Island NS, Geashill, Co Offaly from 1965 to 70. He was then sacked because it was found that he was sexually abusing boys in his classes. He was the principal teacher in Walsh Island. The manager of the school, Fr. [Colm] reported the matter to [the Bishop]... Mr. [Brander] was then barred from teaching in primary schools. He then taught in Presentation Convent, Castlecomer before taking up his present post in Tullamore. I have been in touch with the authorities in Sacred Heart, Tullamore and they informed me that they were not informed of Mr. [Brander’s] behaviour in Walsh Island either by the Department or [the Bishop]. Many parents in Tullamore are unhappy with Mr. [Brander’s] teaching and methods of maintaining discipline etc... I am sure that [the Bishop] will verify anything I have said here regarding Mr. [Brander’s] conduct in Walsh Island I am myself a teacher and fully realise the seriousness of the charges I make against another teacher, I would not make any charge that I could not prove. I will expect the matter to be fully investigated and appropriate action taken. Yours sincerely

The letter from Mr Rothe quoted in full above raises the following points about Mr Brander: He is presently teaching in Sacred Heart Convent, Tullamore ; He taught in Walsh Island NS in the late 1960s; He was sacked from Walsh Island for sexually abusing boys; The manager in Walsh Island reported this to the Bishop of Kildare and Leighlin; Mr Brander was barred from teaching in primary schools; He taught in Presentation Convent, Castlecomer; Mr Rothe said that he had been in touch with authorities in Tullamore who advised him that they were not informed of Mr Brander’s past behaviour by either the Bishop or the Department of Education; Many parents in Tullamore were unhappy with his teaching/discipline; The Bishop could verify the above information.

The matter proceeded through another exchange of memoranda between officials: Re: Mr [Brander] Mr [Brander] has been on incremental salary as a member of the staff of Convent of Mercy, Tullamore since ... Previously he was in Presentation Convent, Castlecomer... He served as a primary teacher from [the early 1940s until the late 1960s] with a number of very short breaks – almost a year in [the mid-1940s] and again [in the early 1960s] but otherwise very short. He is now [in his early sixties]. The recruitment and employment of teachers in Secondary schools is a matter for management. Our concern is to ensure that they are properly qualified, that they are authorised quota and that they are properly timetabled. If this man’s work has been inspected and reported on during his years as a secondary teacher, then the records will be available in Inspection Section. If not, perhaps one could be arranged. Teachers Section would not call for the inspection of any particular teacher. “Recognised teacher” has a particular meaning ascribed to it in the Rules for the Payment of Incremental Salary to Secondary Teachers and we cannot go beyond that. I would see the same limitations in relation to the payment of grants but this is essentially a matter for your own area. Mr [Rothe] has, according to his letter, brought the matter to the attention of school management and I would say that the problem now rests there. It would not be for the Department to give character references to a school in relation to a teacher which it proposes to employ. If Mr. [Brander] has served for the last 13 years as a secondary teacher – in girls’ schools – without coming under notice, is it correct to rake up the past now? I have not attempted to trace any report in relation to his N.T. service.

Further internal memoranda on the problem of Mr Brander were exchanged: Convent of Mercy, Sec.school, Tullamore [To] PO [in Post Primary Section] (1)This school caters for girls only according to the ... October Lists. (2)There is no adverse report on the teacher Mr [Brander] in the reports on this area’s Inspection File for the school. [Signed] R/Cig (Inspection Section) ... [To] PO [in Secondary Salaries Section] We discussed this case on the telephone earlier today. As you will note from above, the teacher who is the subject of complaint is at present employed in a Girls School: the inference seems to be that he is not, therefore, a risk to the pupils even if he was guilty of the offence or offences complained about by Mr [Rothe]. As you will note also from above minute, there is no adverse report of any Inspector on file here in respect of Mr [Brander]. On the contrary, the last Inspector’s report in which he was mentioned – one dated [two and a half years earlier] ... – praises the teacher’s work in the phrase “Oide an-mhaith é seo: cailíochtaí sa Ghaeilge aige.”22 Copy of that Report is attached. The fact remains, however, that the Department has received Mr. [Rothe’s] very serious complaint and that the whole context of the complaining letter might well appear to imply that Mr. [Rothe] considers the nature of the offence to be such as to indicate unfitness for employment as a teacher by reason of conduct unbefitting a teacher. As you are no doubt aware, the relevant statutory regulations [viz. Regulation 4 of the Regulations for the Register of the Intermediate School Teachers] empower the Minister (not the Registration Council) to “remove from the register the name of any teacher who shall be shown to his satisfaction to have been guilty of conduct which is, in the opinion of the Minister, unbefitting a teacher.” Before doing so (i.e removing a name), the Minister is required by the regulations to give the teacher an opportunity of being heard. Having regard to the complaint and to the statutory provisions which I cite and which are obviously designed to cover the kind of offence or offences complained of I consider that the papers should be submitted for the Department’s decision as to whether any action beyond consideration of the complaint should at this stage – 13 years post eventum – be put in train. I note that the complainant offers no explanation whatever of the lateness of his complaint; such explanation might well be considered reasonably necessary, however, in view of the implications of the lateness for the availability of evidence at this juncture. If, however, evidence was made available to the Department about the offence or offences at or around the time of their occurrence, then the question arises,: from the nature of the present complaint, why did the Dept. not act earlier. I do not express any opinion on the bona fides of the complaint or on whether any action should be taken on it beyond considering it carefully – and in the light of any other evidence available on the matter in the Primary Branch – if there is any such evidence – and that a Departmental decision should be obtained. For the complainant may have the matter raised elsewhere presently and seek to blame the Dept. for alleged negligence. [Signed] [PO Post Primary Financial Section]

On the same day, the HEO in Registration and Pension wrote to a HEO in Primary Payments Section: [To] HEO 1.We have had a complaint about Mr. [Brander] currently a secondary teacher, but who taught in Walsh Island NS, Geashill, Co Offaly. Could you ascertain whether there is any record of a complaint against this teacher on the primary side? Are there any indications on why he left Primary teaching. 2.Please also confirm that Mr [Rothe] teaches in ... Thanks. [Signed] Registration [and Pension]

She in turn wrote to a colleague in Pensions: Offaly     176/6     Walsh Island NS [To] Pensions Re: Mr [Brander] – Sec Branch –[HEO]– Registration has asked if we have any record of a complaint against this teacher – he transferred to Secondary Teaching some years ago and served as Principal Teacher in Walsh Island NS according to our school records [in the late 1960s]. His own cards are missing also the file ... for apt. of Principals in this school is missing so I cannot trace his details at all. (Taken up [late 1970s]). Perhaps you would have something on him in Pensions. I’d be thankful to get a reply if so. [Signed] HEO

The HEO in Primary Payments was then in a position to reply to the HEO in Registration and Pensions: Mr [Rothe] apptd. as Asst. on ... and still serving. 1. We have no records unfortunately re Mr [Brander] – his cards and apt. file are missing – the file ... apt. of Principal is noted in Registry “Up” [late 1970s] but Records Section do not have it. All I have is a record of his past Primary Service. See copy obtained from T.P.O. [Signed]

In the Department of Education and Science’s Statement to Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse, made in the advance of its Phase III hearing, the Department wrote: Mr [Brander’s] conviction subsequently led to many parliamentary questions and ministerial representations on the apparent inaction by the Department of Education to deal with Mr [Brander] in [the early 1980s]. The letter appeared to cause no sense of alarm in the Department and effectively was not acted upon. This view was expressed by the Minister for Education in [the late 1990s], Michael Martin, when he stated that “following my review of the papers, I am firmly of the view that the Department’s response to this complaint was seriously lacking and that there can be absolutely no excuse by reference to the standards of the time”. Rule 4 of the 1967 Regulations for the registration of secondary school teachers provide for the removal of a name from the Register of Secondary School teachers by the Minister if warranted – “The Minister may, after giving the applicant an opportunity of being heard, refuse to register him on the grounds that, in the opinion of the Minister, his moral character renders him unfit to be employed as a teacher” and “the Minister may, after a similar opportunity of being heard, remove from the Register the name of any teacher who shall have been shown to his satisfaction to have been guilty of conduct which is, in the opinion of the Minister, unbefitting a teacher”. The Regulations allowed for legal representation. While the Department’s papers on this case indicate that withdrawal of recognition as a teacher was identified as possible course of action, this was not pursued.

The memoranda set out above between civil servants seem to have been more concerned with procedural niceties in dealing with the complaint rather than actually investigating it. At no stage were the past, present or potential future victims of Mr Brander considered. The fact that the complaints related to a period 10 years previously and that Mr Brander was due to retire in the near future were used to justify taking no action.