Community Outraged After Police Arrest School Custodian on 22 Counts of Child Pornography

This is a deeply disturbing and complex situation that understandably triggers outrage and concern from the community. Here is a breakdown of the key issues and the conflicting perspectives at play.

Summary of the Incident

• Who: Michael Siar, a custodian at Baldwin High School in the Baldwin-Whitehall School District (Pennsylvania).

• What: Arrested on September 8, 2025, on 22 counts of possession of child pornography and 3 counts of criminal use of a communication facility.

• The Conflict: The school district hired him in 2024 despite him having prior “summary level” magistrate charges from 2023. The community is outraged that someone with any prior charges was able to gain employment in a school.

Why the Community is Outraged

The outrage is multifaceted and justified:

1. The Nature of the Charges: The current charges are among the most serious and horrifying possible, directly involving the exploitation of children. The fact that the accused worked in a high school amplifies the fear and anger.

2. Perceived Hiring Failure: The community’s trust is shattered. Parents and residents feel the school district’s hiring process failed to protect their children. The existence of any prior charges, even minor ones, is now being scrutinized as a potential red flag that was missed.

3. Lack of Transparency: The statement from Superintendent Lutz is seen by many as defensive legalese rather than an empathetic acknowledgment of a terrible failure. It focuses on the technicalities of the law rather than the gravity of the situation.

4. The “Summary Charge” Loophole: This is the central point of contention. The public is learning that certain types of charges may not appear on standard background checks, which feels like a dangerous loophole.

The School District’s Defense

Superintendent Lutz’s statement hinges on a specific legal distinction:

• Summary Offenses: In Pennsylvania, summary offenses are the least serious category of crime, similar to traffic tickets. Examples include disorderly conduct, harassment (in some forms), truancy, or minor retail theft under $150.

• Clearance Requirements: Pennsylvania law requires school employees to have specific clearances:

  • Pennsylvania State Police Criminal History Check

  • Pennsylvania Child Abuse History Clearance

  • FBI Federal Criminal History Fingerprint Check

• The Gap: Summary offenses often do not appear on these standard criminal background checks, especially if they are very recent or did not result in a conviction that rises to a higher level.

The district’s argument is technically correct: they followed the state-mandated screening process. They are asserting that Siar’s 2023 summary charges were not something they could have or should have discovered through their standard vetting.

The Unanswered Questions and Next Steps

This defense is unlikely to satisfy the community, and several critical questions remain:

1. What were the 2023 summary charges for? The nature of those prior charges is crucial. Were they for harassment or disorderly conduct? If so, that could be a significant red flag that, while not disqualifying, might have warranted further investigation.

2. Did the application ask about prior charges? Many applications ask “Have you ever been charged with a crime?” even if it was a summary offense. If Siar answered “no” and that was untrue, that would be grounds for termination for cause and a different legal issue.

3. Is the standard clearance process sufficient? This incident will likely trigger a fierce debate about whether Pennsylvania law needs to be changed to include a deeper dive into an applicant’s history, including summary offenses, for anyone working in a school.

What Likely Happens Next

• Internal Investigation: The school district will conduct a full internal review of its hiring practices.

• Legal Proceedings: Siar will face the legal system for the 22 counts of child pornography.

• Policy Review: The school board will face immense pressure to overhaul its hiring policy to go beyond the state minimum requirements, potentially including more thorough background checks and reference interviews.

• Community Meetings: The district will likely be forced to hold public forums to address the outrage and explain what steps they are taking to prevent this from happening again.

In conclusion, the community’s outrage is a natural response to a horrific breach of trust. While the school district may be technically correct that they followed the law, the public expectation is that those entrusted with children’s safety will go far beyond the legal minimum to ensure it. This case exposes a potentially dangerous gap in the system that other districts across the country will now be examining closely.