Part 2: Put-in-Bay school janitor keeps job after sharing 'love' notes with 14-year-old
Private fishing trips, special treats also OK by district as long as there are no criminal charges
PUT-IN-BAY — A week after a sheriff’s report cleared a school janitor twice accused of “grooming” 14-year-old girls at Put-in-Bay School, school Superintendent Scott Mangas said he will keep his job.
Details in a sheriff’s report of an investigation into the complaints are alarming some families, but school officials took the news with a shrug.
“The individual is currently an employee of the school district, as no criminal wrongdoing was established through the investigation,” Mangas wrote in response to a decision by the county prosecutor’s office to not file charges.
There was no anti-grooming law in effect when the first incidents occurred, in 2021 and 2022, and the later incidents do not meet the requirements of the statute that was enacted in April 2025, according to the prosecutor’s office. Mangas emphasized that the school district is “not a law enforcement agency” and defers to those agencies when making personnel decisions.
The superintendent’s statement clarifies the district’s stance on the janitor’s employment, but it offered no insight as to whether the behavior was ever addressed, or if any monitoring plan was established after the first complaint was filed four years ago.
Keep it quiet
District families were never kept informed after the first complaint, or after a second one was made with a sheriff’s deputy in August 2025, according to a sheriff’s report obtained this week by StayTunedSandusky.com in response to a public records request. The sheriff’s office didn’t start an investigation until after the newspaper reported about the complaints in early January.
When they did meet with the complainants later in January, family members told detectives that for the families involved it was pretty obvious district officials favored the janitor over them, the reports states.
One parent told detectives the district made the janitor apologize and she said she was told there was a plan to monitor his behavior, according to the report. But there isn’t any indication in the janitor’s district personnel file that any action was taken after the complaints were made, or that any monitoring was conducted. There’s no documentation showing that the employee was ever even informed about the complaints.
Mangas’ response also raises new questions whether the district approves staff members exchanging “I love you” notes with children and leaving special gifts for them in their cars, or going on special trips. The janitor did all those things with the girl, according to the sheriff’s report, assertions he did not dispute.
There also are red flags regarding the school’s internal record-keeping. Mangas offered no explanation.
“At this time, the district does not have records on file documenting the specific incidents,” he said.
There is no documentation in the district’s files that it was ever notified of the complaints in 2022 and again in 2025, or records that reflect the janitor was ever spoken with or counseled about them. As far as district files are concerned, the janitor has an unblemished record. There’s no mention of the complaints the families lodged against him.
The only record provided by the district in response to our public records request for personnel and disciplinary records is a copy of an alleged love letter the janitor and a 14-year-old girl exchanged, which has no discernible information. It’s not clear why Mangas provided it.
StayTunedSandusky renewed its records requests to the sheriff for copies of the letters and notes that were exchanged with the girls, and for a copy of the Put-in-Bay Police Department’s investigation of the 2022 complaint.
Leadership transition
Mangas, who was not the superintendent at the time of the original 2021–2022 incidents, said his knowledge is strictly limited to “current district records and the recent investigation.” This distancing suggests a gap between the administration that oversaw the initial reports and the current leadership tasked with answering for them now.
Read-watch Part 1
What’s Next?
The district has stated they have “no further comment on this matter at this time.”
However, for parents and community members, the discrepancy remains: If the Sheriff’s Office has records of these concerns, why does the school district claim they do not?
We will continue to follow this story as more information becomes available.
Stay Tuned.
Please subscribe.
Support local journalism.
A/I assistant’s transcription
Below is a transcription summary of the 22-page redacted sheriff’s report filed April 8, 2026, by detectives related to their interviews with student families:
The supplemental investigative reports from Ottawa County detail a repetitive pattern of behavior by the suspect, identified by several witnesses as targeting specific female students under the guise of mentorship. One witness noted that while the suspect appeared “amazing” to some, he seemed to specifically target “the weakest link,” such as students lacking a male role model or those who were not socially accepted by their peers. Over a period of several years, this behavior manifested through anonymous notes, snacks, and “love letters” consistently signed “Love Mr. —,” often accompanied by a heart symbol.
Witnesses described a series of escalating interactions, including an incident where the suspect snuck his dog into the school to have private interactions with a student. One victim reported receiving approximately seven to eight notes over a three-year period, noting that every “love note” was accompanied by a treat. In one instance, a brownie was placed in a student’s locker with a note claiming the gesture was out of the “kindness of his heart” after she had initially refused his offer to buy her a treat during a school field trip.
The records further detail a 2024 senior spring break trip to Hawaii, where the suspect reportedly took a student on a “solo boat ride” with just the two of them. Upon returning, the student was reportedly wearing different clothes and later told her best friend that the trip was “the worst decision that she had ever made”. Despite these reports, witnesses expressed deep displeasure with the school’s response, stating that administrators treated the victims differently after they reported the behavior.
Physical evidence mentioned in the narratives includes at least two letters with hearts on them, one of which appeared to have the heart partially erased before being turned over to law enforcement. One student expressed that she now feels “scared” every time she sees the suspect at school. The reports also highlight that the suspect would go out of his way to say “hi” to specific students while not maintaining the same level of friendliness with the general student body.
Families involved in the investigation reported that the school failed to provide assistance and instead seemed to protect the suspect’s reputation. One parent noted that the suspect would make “nice comments” to students to build rapport, causing some to initially defend him by saying “he’s not like that”. However, the investigation remained pending as more victims and witnesses came forward with similar stories of “special relationships” and unmonitored access to minors.
The investigating deputy, Det. Rob Russell, concluded these interviews noting the ongoing nature of the case and the continued dissatisfaction of the public regarding how these incidents were handled by both school officials and initial responding officers. The narratives underscore a systemic failure to recognize these “mentorship” behaviors as potential grooming, even after multiple families raised concerns about inappropriate gifts, private outings, and “love letters” sent to students as young as 14.
The investigative reports from Ottawa County document a persistent pattern of behavior by a school employee, identified as a janitor, who allegedly targeted specific female students starting in 2021. According to witness statements, the suspect engaged in “mentorship” behaviors that included leaving anonymous “locker notes” and gifts for a 14-year-old student who was reportedly being bullied. These interactions escalated to include “love letters” signed “Love Mr. —” and a gifted hooded sweatshirt. Although school authorities and local police were notified in 2022, the school reportedly dismissed the behavior as “normal” and allowed the suspect to remain in his position after an apology.
New complaints surfaced in 2025 involving another student who received “thank you” notes and snacks. Deputies noted a “semi-erased heart” on one letter, which the suspect claimed he did not draw. Victims described the suspect’s behavior as “weird” and “weird with the letters,” noting that he seemed to target students he perceived as the “weakest link,” such as those lacking male role models. The reports also mention a 2024 trip to Hawaii where a student allegedly went on a solo boat ride with the suspect and later described the experience to a friend as the “worst decision” she had ever made.
The documentation highlights significant public frustration with the law enforcement and school district response. In one instance, a victim confronted a deputy, calling him “untrained” and demanding to know who was actually investigating the suspect. The deputy’s narrative states he attempted to offer his business card twenty-nine times during the emotional exchange. Families reported feeling that the school treated them differently after reporting the incidents, effectively protecting the suspect while isolating the complainants.
Ultimately, the Ottawa County Prosecutor’s Office declined to file charges on April 8, 2026, closing the grooming and importuning investigation. The files indicate that while law enforcement was aware of the suspect’s history—including admission to writing “I love you” to a minor—the behavior was consistently framed as misguided kindness rather than criminal grooming. The records reflect a pending status or case closure despite multiple families providing consistent accounts of the suspect providing unmonitored gifts, private transportation, and inappropriate correspondence to students.
The following summary details the final investigative phases of case 2025-27400, conducted by Detective Robert Russell of the Ottawa County Sheriff’s Office. These reports focus on intelligence gathering and witness interviews conducted between January and April 2026.
In late January 2026, Det. Russell coordinated an interview with a former student who had since moved to a community college. During the same period, investigators met with the Put-In-Bay school principal to review internal records. The principal stated that the school had no documentation regarding the initial 2022 incident, noting it occurred prior to his tenure.
On February 3, 2026, Det. Russell interviewed the former student at her college residence. She described her relationship with the suspect as that of a “mentor.” She recalled receiving letters from him following her boyfriend’s suicide in 2022, in which the suspect stated he was proud of her and available for support. She maintained that she did not find the correspondence or his behavior inappropriate.
Regarding the senior trip to Hawaii, the witness stated that nothing out of the ordinary occurred, though she noted the suspect once asked if she wanted to get coffee. While she denied that a fishing trip took place in Hawaii, she admitted to going on numerous solo fishing trips with the suspect on Put-In-Bay. She estimated they went ice fishing three times and spring fishing five times, during which they would listen to music and talk.
The witness confirmed that the suspect signed his notes with either “From Mr. —” or “Love Mr. —.” She also corroborated reports of the suspect providing gifts, noting he would leave dill pickle chips for her and candy canes in students’ lockers during the holidays. She expressed her belief that he provided these items to many students, not just her.
When asked why other complainants might have provided her name to the police, the witness suggested it was because they were aware of her ongoing friendship with the suspect. She confirmed that she remains in contact with him and has never witnessed him acting inappropriately with anyone.
Following these interviews and the intelligence gathering phase, the case was reviewed by the Ottawa County Prosecutor’s Office. On April 8, 2026, the investigation reached its conclusion when the prosecutor’s office officially declined to file charges.
The final report concludes with the determination that no criminal charges would be pursued regarding the incident. The documentation remains classified as confidential law enforcement investigatory records, summarizing the transition of the case from an active investigation to a closed intelligence file.