Front Porch Forum (FPF): My Response To Mr. Henry’s FPF/HUUSD Remarks

PHOTO: Aerial view of downtown Waitsfield. 2018.

Dear Mr. Henry,

My deepest apologies for not responding to your FPF posting of one week ago any sooner than today. I confess that I have had a busy week, what with raising kids, working twelve hour days in Burlington, attending our HUUSD board meeting on Wednesday night, attending to regular board correspondence from my Waitsfield town constituents, preparing our YakItToMe! Mobile BBQ food wagon for summer farmer’s market work etc. You know, Life and all that. And forgive me for using Blogger here to post my responses to your FPF comments of last week. Alas, Front Porch Forum's word count is very strict, so I created this blog, in an effort to faithfully represent our discussion.

Secondly, congratulations on the FPF news your wife Heidi shared re: you and your family’s adventure to the Heartlands of Guatemala. Sounds like an exciting and meaningful trip!

So – to business. I read your FPF from last week with much interest, since it seemed to be specifically directed at my “In My View” Op/Ed column I published on FPF and in the “Valley Reporter” and “Waterbury Record” two weeks ago. I am hoping that my responses here to your FPF of last week will clear up some confusion about my board work and perspective for our community.

I have also taken the liberty of copying the full transcript of the “In My View” column you discuss below, as well – it might be a helpful reference for our FPF friends and neighbors who may have missed it the first time around.

Here is your entire FPF statement of one week ago, and my responses. I have published them both here in a sort of “call and response” fashion, and please note, I have not edited your remarks in any way, to try and be fair to your words and the sentiments behind them.

1) You wrote last week: As a part of the 'tiny' and apparently 'aggrieved' minority Rob Williams has taken some broad liberties characterizing, I feel a brief response is required. Unlike Rob, (whom I have never even spoken with) I will attempt to avoid personal attack and stick to facts which seem to conflict with his 'reality.'

My response to you: I made no personal attacks, and my “reality,” as I explained, is directly shaped by my own experiences as a citizen, board member, and parent of many years. As I clearly stated in the “In My View” column (see below), 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.” (I’ve provided a helpful list of some of those allegations below).

To keep my published perspective “civil” (not “disparaging,” as alleged elsewhere), I chose to use the term “aggrieved minority” in my “In My View” Op/Ed (again, see below), rather than to publicly name these two individuals, and I was careful to use their own language in summarizing their allegations, so as not to misrepresent their point of view.

NOTE: 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 here on Front Porch Forum (and elsewhere now) is unfortunate.

2) You wrote last week: There are ~200 pages of community surveys the board just published that broadly contradict several of Rob's assertions.

My response to you: Hmmm. More specifics would be helpful here. I have read the engagement surveys closely – and I share many of the concerns expressed in them. Furthermore, since I know you and I both like data, here’s some helpful contextual data. 54% of the community survey responses came from towns that contain 32% of our district population. 21% of respondents were from the town of Waterbury, which has 47% of district population.

Finally, the total number of survey respondents as a share of the entire district population seems to be 3.4%. Clearly, we have more work to do to engage a broader slice of our six-town community, and I imagine we both can agree that our board’s community survey is an important step forward in engaging in dialogue with our six-town community.

3) You wrote last week: Rob directly accuses us (this is clearly directed at me and my wife) of hatching broad conspiracy theories. We have done no such thing however. We have written several opinion pieces and letters that contain facts and data on school performance and policy, none of which Rob refutes.

My response to you: In my “In My View” column (again, see below), I neither named specific names, nor did I ”accuse” anyone of “hatching broad conspiracy theories.” I simply summarized the months-long allegations made by said “aggrieved minority” of two, in which they attempted to build a case for what I called “a conspiracy so immense,” (not a “theory,” as you allege, but an ACTUAL conspiracy) involving the HUUSD board, superintendent, and administrative team, which this “aggrieved minority” alleged were either willfully ignorant, woefully negligent, or active participants working behind the scenes to take advantage of community resources and undermine the will of our communities (which is the definition of “conspiracy” – a plan, often nefarious or illegal, formulated in secret by two or more persons.” And again, I’ve provided a helpful list of some of those allegations below).

Regarding your "several opinion pieces and letters" that you assert contain “facts and data.” First, let’s do some counting: I count EIGHT separate published pieces now over the past few months, amplified by the weekly reporting on said allegations by the “Valley Reporter” and “Waterbury Record” and on Front Porch Forum. I have conducted a review of all EIGHT of your published pieces (no small task), and have done my best to address your various claims here in the text of this response, as well as in the single “In My View” Op/Ed I shared two weeks ago.

True confessions. What I see PLENTY of in your eight "opinion pieces and letters" is the use of inflammatory language, repeated statements designed to cast aspersions on our hard working board members and administrative team, vague “power” phrases that (knowingly or not) may instill fear, anger, and division in our communities at a time when all of us are feeling natural concerns about our schools and communities moving forward in these uncertain economic and political times.

I realize this some FPF readers new to this conversation may think at first that I am exaggerating.

So, to be helpful, and by way of illustration, and to provide specific evidence, please permit me to include a representative but by no means exhaustive sampling of said inflammatory language, reprinted from your eight "opinion pieces and letters."

Thirty four separate phrases are listed here – and again, just a representative sampling:

“fundamental and functional issues with district leadership”

“using improper accounting”

”improper reporting"

“submitting and confirming false data"

“outright fabrication”

“fraud and deception”

“grossly negligent” (board)

“widespread fraud and abuse of management”

“resistance to compliance with public records law”

“subverting open meeting law”

“deliberately falsifying data"

“destroying public records”

“multiple violations of OML”

“wasteful spending”

“creating unnecessary and expensive legal conflicts”

“padding curriculum vitae at taxpayer expense”

“expenditures without proper justification and oversight”

“something being covered up - significant misuse of resources or administrative incompetence”

“did not intend to incur additional expense for taxpayer”

“clear and deliberate misrepresentation”

“destruction of records”

“deliberately misleads board on laws and application”

“set board policy and direction without the full board”

“actual facts misrepresented”

“submitted bad data and tried to cover it up”

“pattern of bias against school by superintendent”

“submitted bad data and tried to cover it up”

“hostile and retaliatory treatment” (HS)

“disregard for transparency” (HS)

“repeatedly violated OML”

“refused to fill public records requests”

“attacked and disparaged anyone pressing for transparency”

“misuse of public funds"

"deliberately misrepresenting communications”

That’s quite an impressive list.

Certainly, our HUUSD board and administrative team are comprised of imperfect individuals doing their best to collaborate most of the time, and all of us have made and will continue to make mistakes along the way – such is the way of humans, working in human organizations. And certainly, we have had our fair share of challenges and difficulties as we have moved our work forward.

4) You wrote last week: While I am not interested in a tit-for-tat with individual board members, Rob's voting record should be noted. He has twice voted against performing a review of the Superintendent and has voted against releasing very basic financial records the public is entitled to by law. He has put up no meaningful opposition to the Superintendent's Redesign Proposal to close two valley schools and bus grades 5-6 to Waterbury, the ongoing Proficiency Based Grading disaster or the continued cuts in honors curriculum at Harwood.

My response to you: Oh dear. I am afraid that all of these allegations are simply false. To wit: 1) As a member of the HUUSD board, I participate in an annual comprehensive review of the superintendent. 2) I actually SUPPORTED IN BOARD MEETINGS all records requests being met as required according to statute, as I would with any statute, and I worked to make sure that our HUUSD board and superintendent fully complied with records requests. (Valley Reporter editor Lisa Loomis can attest to this, as well). 3) I have kept a careful eye on the PBL process, meeting with many of my Waitsfield constituents on evenings and weekends to discuss their concerns, as well as reviewing all PBL data shared with me by a wide variety of stakeholders, and I have attended, as able, all HUUSD-sponsored public forums on this important discussion involving our students and their assessment experience. 4) And OF COURSE, I “put up no meaningful opposition to the superintendent’s redesign proposal,” as you allege, because I was one of the board members who urged our superintendent to draft and then publish said design proposal, as a talking piece for our six town communities, a proposal designed to elicit community conversation – which it most certainly has done.

Again, I am sorry to say that all of your allegations here are simply false. Oh dear.

5) You wrote: Rob's attack is unfortunately becoming the norm for the HUUSD board. Two sitting board members publicy smeared a Fayston board candidate in the run up to the recent election, and the Save Our Schools group has been broadly maligned as spreading 'mis-information' (liars?) and board members have raised the spectre of violence (thugs?). Elected representatives as rule do not attack members of the public and should be able to engage on issues without resorting to this.

My response: Again, I have not engaged in an “attack” on anyone. Every board member represents his or her constituents AND his or her own conscience, and every board member must speak for him or herself. Speaking for myself, I have never “attacked” or “smeared” anyone. I have invited the Save Our Schools group to join me in conversation on MRVTV to share their ideas and concerns with our entire six-town community, and I look forward to the continued conversation. I know nothing about your allegations re: my fellow board members spreading “misinformation / (liars)” or “raising the spectre of violence (thugs?”). If these two allegations were in any way true, I would hope that citizen constituents would hold said board members to account. As your wise Fayston neighbor Lorraine Wargo continually reminds us, “we can disagree without being disagreeable.”

6) You wrote: I agree with Rob on one point– you should watch the board meetings – check out the last one and see if it looks like (as Rob asserts) 'snacks. Drinks. Good ideas. Great conversation. And occasionally, jokes.' It didn't look like that to me or several other community members who attended. What it did look like to me was the third time in a year that this board has held a hour-long public shaming of a board member who fell out of line. For the record, Rob said and did nothing in each case.

My response: I am glad we can find some common ground here. Agreed - watch our board meetings, or better yet, attend! That said, I myself really enjoy our board meetings, and I am truly sorry that you do not. I’d be happy to share some of our snacks with you, if this would help. I know some good jokes, too.

Re: your allegation that the board recently “shamed a board member who fell out of line,” I am guessing (?) that you are referring to the same board member who carried on a regular private back channel email correspondence with the “aggrieved minority” of two referenced above (violating both our board’s code of ethics and our board’s unanimously voted and agreed-upon norms NOT to do this), only to witness those private back channel emails cherry picked and leveraged as “evidence” in the litany of allegations and formal complaints summarized above, thus undermining the board’s trust in said board member’s publicly stated commitment to board process.

And yes, you are correct here when you note that I “said nothing” in our board meeting on that particular evening, as the evidence for said board member’s behavior had just come to light via newly publicized documents from the state. Instead, I chose to listen and “hear out” said board member’s public explanation for said behavior, rather than speak (the gods gave us two ears and only one mouth as a daily reminder that listening is more important that talking). Bigger picture - when these sorts of situations reveal themselves, it is vital that boards engage in public conversation about any board member’s improper behavior, as uncomfortable or as time consuming as this process may be. Said board member, it should be noted, issued a public apology during our most recent board meeting, NOT because said board member has a different or conflicting perspective than some other board members (as alleged), but because said board member violated board process and, in dong so, was party, wittingly or not, to the litany of dismissed allegations and formal complaints mentioned above.

7) You wrote: if you want to keep it civil, not toxic, lets stick to facts. Speaking of which, even your one word, out-of-context quotes deserve a little fact checking.

My response: I couldn’t agree more with your first sentence! Hooray! More common ground! As a historian by training, I am a big fan of facts AND fact checking. I hope that my responses to you here have provided some important clarifications for you and our FPF community.

Again, my “In My View” column is attached, below.

And again, safe travels, Mr. Henry, to you and your family as you embark on what will no doubt be an exciting adventure to Guatemala.

Respectfully,

Rob Williams

HUUSD Board Trustee, Waitsfield

SNIP--->

TITLE: “The Only Way Out Is Forward” –

Moving Ahead With HUUSD School Redesign

PUBLISHED as an IN MY VIEW in the VALLEY REPORTER - APRIL 2018

There are currently two stories circulating in our central Vermont communities about the ongoing work of our HUUSD school board and administrative team.

The first is the story I am intimately familiar with, as 1) a parent of two children who have a combined 22 years of experience in our local public schools, 2) a school board member for 15 years, and 3) a taxpaying citizen in our town of Waitsfield. This story involves the challenging (and rewarding!) work of meeting together as a board several times monthly around a table with neighbors elected by our towns, all of us sharing a common purpose – to supervise and work with our capable administrative team (led by our superintendent Brigid Nease and finance director Michelle Baker) as we co-create the best possible educational opportunities for our K-12 students, as affordably as we can.

This school board work is difficult, for reasons with which most of us are familiar: declining enrollment, fiscal austerity measures at the national and state level, and the like. Both our current board and our administrative team are comprised of professionals who are visionary, hard working, and thoughtful – and, most importantly, we all care, very deeply, about our kids and our communities. Our current board membership has close to 30 of our own kids attending our local public schools, and all of us participate in our HUUSD meetings wearing our board, parent, and citizen hats alike.

And yes, you may have heard a second alternative story, voiced by a tiny group of aggrieved citizens, and regularly amplified in the pages of our two local newspapers, that goes something like this: our current superintendent (an “unprofessional” “bully” at best, and “corrupt” at worst), lords her “undeniably dishonest and hostile” authority over a “captive board” of “spineless” board members, assisted by an “inept” board chair who simply does the bidding of the “grasping” central office. This “scandal” extends to the highest levels of Vermont, and involves the state Attorney General’s office AND the state auditor’s office, as well as every single publicly elected school board member who disagrees with this particular interpretation of “reality.” Please note – every quoted phrase above is from materials published in our local newspapers and/or on Front Porch Forum. And PS - both the Vermont Attorney General’s office and the Vermont State Auditor’s office recently dismissed every single one of this tiny group’s allegations of impropriety and misconduct, citing “a lack of evidence” in all cases.

And, needless to say, this second alternative story voiced by this disgruntled few is completely alien to me. It does not match my own reality or my experiences: as an educator for three decades, a parent for 2 decades, and a 15 year veteran of board work right here in our communities. That this alternative story – “a conspiracy so immense” - has gained so much traction in our communities is equally fascinating, given the high level of visibility, transparency, and attentiveness to “public process” exemplified by both our administrative team and our current board membership.

So let me be crystal clear – I have the utmost confidence in our superintendent Brigid Nease, our finance director Michelle Baker, their capable team of professionals in our central office, our hard working board chair Christine Sullivan, our new board vice chair Caitlin Hollister, Rosemarie White, our board member who spends hours each month reviewing our board warrants, and our current board leadership. Together, we are moving forward with the challenging task of HUUSD school redesign, working in conjunction with all seven of our towns.

In the spirit of this six-town community discussion, I offer five specific suggestions for your consideration:

1) Please! Read beyond the newspaper headlines and the Front Porch Forum chatter and engage your neighbors, your elected representatives, your school leaders, and your KIDS in this important school redesign conversation.

2) Please! Attend our HUUSD board meetings. You are enthusiastically invited. We have snacks. Drinks. Good ideas. Great conversation. And occasionally, jokes.

3) If you cannot attend our HUUSD board meetings, watch them gavel-to-gavel on MRV-TV (online at www.mrvtv.com, too, in new High Definition!)

4) If you cannot watch our HUUSD board meetings, read our board minutes at our HUUSD web site. Regularly. School board work is a moving target. Always has been, always will be.

5) If and when you have questions, concerns, or good ideas, please share them with your HUUSD trustees – in the spirit of generosity, collaboration, and good will. When you do, you will find us more than willing to listen and convey them back to the board table.

And above all else, I urge Civility, not Toxicity.

As we grapple with our educational challenges ahead, the only way out is forward. As my Fayston colleague Lorraine Wargo wisely reminds us, we can disagree without being disagreeable. And as an HUUSD board/SU leadership team, we would be grossly negligent (to both our students AND our taxpayers) if we do not aggressively explore ALL educational options and scenarios for our kids and communities moving forward, instead of just retreating back to the status quo or promoting options with which we are most comfortable.

Thank you for carefully reading and reflecting on my words here, and I hope to see you at our next board meeting.

Respectfully,

Rob Williams

HUUSD trustee; town of Waitsfield