MARYLAND STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

IN THE MATTER OF REQUEST

FOR REMOVAL
WASHINGTON COUNTY
BOARD MEMBER
KAREN HARSHMAN

*
*
*
CASE NO.: MSDE-BE-17-16-37668
*
*
*
*
*
____________________________________________________________________________
RESPONDENT KAREN HARSHMANS
PREHEARING STATEMENT
_____________________________________________________________________________
Ms. Karen Harshman, Respondent in the above referenced action, by and through attorney Ira C.
Cooke, hereby submits the following Prehearing Statement as supplementation to pending Motions and
prior Oral argument. In support thereof Respondent states as follows:

I.

Issues Presented:
1.

Karen Harshman is entitled to representation by Counsel to be provided by the

Washington County, as the allegations against her are clearly issues related to actions as a
Board of Education Member. The fact that the other Members of the Board are
represented by staff Counsel and litigation counsel clearly illustrate this fact1.

2.

Third party outside counsel was selected and approved without a vote by the full Board
of Education, and as such, the retention of outside counsel is problematic.

3.

Outside Counsel, as well as the County Board of Educations full time attorney have an
irreconcilable conflict of interest in attempting to prosecute this matter. Ms. Harshman is
a full-fledged Member of the Washington County Board of Education.

4.

Attempting to represent a portion of the Board of Education is an unambiguous conflict

of interest for the attorneys involved. It was counsels duty to unequivocally inform their
purported client of this inherent conflict prior to undertaking any such representation.

In point of fact, Ms. Harshman is the only Member in any kind of legal jeopardy, dictating the most emphatic need for
representation. To assert she is not entitled to counsel is absurd. Equally absurd is the fact that she is somehow not permitted
to avail herself of Board Counsel, given she is a Member is good standing.

5.

The prosecution of this action is delegated by statute to the State of Maryland Board of
Education and by proxy, the Office of the State Attorney General for the State Board of
Education. Allowing third party counsel to act as both complaining witness and
prosecutor violates the most basic tenets of due process. This is, again, especially true
since third party counsel has been retained to represent the Washington County Board of
Education, of which, Ms. Harshman is a member.

6.

The action of removing a duly elected official is a grave matter. For an executive agency
to unilaterally disenfranchise the voters of the County is a dangerous precedent.

7.

It is incumbent on the State of Maryland to scrutinize why the taxpayers of Washington

County are paying for an attorney who is a full-time employee as counsel to the County
Board. Yet a Baltimore law firm has been hired for this matter.

8.

Ms. Harshman is not guilty of the charges as alleged.

9.

Counsel for the Washington County Board (privately retained) has alleged in a
submission to this tribunal that the facts as outlined in the charging document are
undisputed. This is absolutely false, and Counsel has been apprised of this in writing
previously.

10.

The aggressive and manner the Board is seeking a rush to judgment in this matter evinces
a sense of panic.

11.

Ms. Harshman, as explained ad museum, ad infinitum, voted for her own removal hoping
to avail herself of an objective tribunal.

12.

The charges as alleged are internally inconsistent. Ms. Harshman is charged with failing
to report inappropriate contact between a school employee and a student. She is then
charged with fabrication of the same allegations. These positions are irreconcilable, and
not appropriate in an administrative setting.

13.

The individual who reported the alleged inappropriate relationship to Ms. Harshman
(which now is a basis of the Complaint against Ms. Harshman) was/is herself a
Washington County Board of Education Member. Her knowledge of the incident
therefore predates Ms. Harshmans. Yet she is not facing the same charges as
Respondent.

14.

This same individual had unique knowledge of the facts in the case, as she herself was
the school employee who married a seventeen (17) year old school student, when she
was twenty four years of age (24) and the principal at the boys school.

15.

Ms. Harshman therefore had reason to rely on the veracity of the self-report.

16.

The subject Board Member is one who has spearheaded the drive to remove Ms.
Harshman from the Board. Yet she remains strangely free of consequences.

17.

Ms. Harshman requires extensive Discovery at this point in order to ascertain the factual
and procedural background and impetus for these charges.

II.

Witnesses
1.

All Current Members of the Washington County Board of Education.

2.

All individuals who have served as Members of the Washington County Board of
Education in the last twelve (12) years.

3.

Timothy Rowland, Herald Mail Reporter/Op Ed writer.

4.

Ryan Miner.

5.

Superintendent of Washington County Schools, Clayton Wilcox.

6.

Herald Mail Reporter CJ Lovelace.

7.

Washington County Sheriffs Deputy(s) and/or City of Hagerstown Police Officer(s) sent
to Ms. Harshmans House at the Behest of School Board and/or Superintendent of
Schools. Names yet to be determined.

III.

8.

Jacqueline Fischers Spouse.

9.

All witnesses named by the Washington County Board of Education.

10.

Other witnesses to be identified during the course of Discovery

Expert Witnesses
1.

IV.

None at This Time. This is subject to modification.

Exhibits
1.

Notice of Charges filed by the Washington County Board of Education.

2.

Washington County Board of Education Meeting Minutes for the last four (4) years, to
include both open and closed sessions.

3.

All documents used in support of charges against Respondent.

3

4.
V.

Discovery Disputes
1.

VI.

Any all documents obtained in Discovery.

None.

Motions.
1.

Please See Motions previously filed with the Court. Responses to the same are pending,
as are Replies.

__/s/_________________________________
Ira C. Cooke, Esquire
Attorney for Karen Harshman, Respondent
Law Offices of I. C. Cooke, L.L.C.
138 West Washington Street, Suite 200
Hagerstown, MD 21740
(p) 240-347-4944
(f) 443-773-3316
E-Mail: IraCooke@iracookelaw.com