Our HUUSD’s “Aggrieved Minority” - Clarifying The Public Record
PUBLISHED in the mid-April 2018 Valley Reporter and on Front Porch Forum.
To The Editor:
I write to clarify the public record re: my IN MY VIEW Op/Ed re: HUUSD school redesign published here two weeks ago, given recent public statements misrepresenting my use of the term “aggrieved minority” in my Op/Ed.
To be clear (part 1) - my use of the term “aggrieved minority” was in reference to two specific individuals in our six town community who have carried out a months-long campaign accusing our HUUSD board and administrative team of negligence, incompetence, financial malfeasance, and criminal behavior, allegations recently dismissed by both the Vermont state attorney general’s office and state auditor’s office because said allegations were based on a “lack of evidence” and “conjecture.” To keep it civil (not “disparaging,” as alleged), I chose to use the term “aggrieved minority” in my Op/Ed, rather than to publicly name these two individuals, and I was careful to use their own language in summarizing their allegations.
To be clear (part 2) - I did NOT use the term “aggrieved minority” to refer to ANYONE in our six town community asking good questions about the future of our schools, our evolving board process, our administrative work, and our superintendent’s proposal for school redesign. Thoughtful dialogue and spirited debate is natural, healthy and vital, and it’s what we Vermonters do well. That my use term of the term "aggrieved minority” has been misrepresented in a letter published here last week, as well as on Front Porch Forum and in public comment at our April 11 board meeting, is unfortunate.
To be clear (part 3) - my IN MY VIEW Op/Ed represents my views alone, not the views of other individual board members or the entire board as a whole.
To The Editor:
I write to clarify the public record re: my IN MY VIEW Op/Ed re: HUUSD school redesign published here two weeks ago, given recent public statements misrepresenting my use of the term “aggrieved minority” in my Op/Ed.
To be clear (part 1) - my use of the term “aggrieved minority” was in reference to two specific individuals in our six town community who have carried out a months-long campaign accusing our HUUSD board and administrative team of negligence, incompetence, financial malfeasance, and criminal behavior, allegations recently dismissed by both the Vermont state attorney general’s office and state auditor’s office because said allegations were based on a “lack of evidence” and “conjecture.” To keep it civil (not “disparaging,” as alleged), I chose to use the term “aggrieved minority” in my Op/Ed, rather than to publicly name these two individuals, and I was careful to use their own language in summarizing their allegations.
To be clear (part 2) - I did NOT use the term “aggrieved minority” to refer to ANYONE in our six town community asking good questions about the future of our schools, our evolving board process, our administrative work, and our superintendent’s proposal for school redesign. Thoughtful dialogue and spirited debate is natural, healthy and vital, and it’s what we Vermonters do well. That my use term of the term "aggrieved minority” has been misrepresented in a letter published here last week, as well as on Front Porch Forum and in public comment at our April 11 board meeting, is unfortunate.
To be clear (part 3) - my IN MY VIEW Op/Ed represents my views alone, not the views of other individual board members or the entire board as a whole.
Finally, interested citizens can find more detailed reflections here at my new HUUSD board blog:
Civility over Toxicity - re: school redesign, the only way out is forward!
Respectfully,
Rob Williams
HUUSD Board Trustee, Waitsfield
Comments
Post a Comment