Kudos to the Monitor for doing a sensational job fueling, and documenting, one side of the contrived outrage surrounding the recent events at Pembroke Academy.
I get it. In our culture of immediacy, there’s not much of an appetite for reflective dialogue these days, and God knows the folks buying the barrels of ink at 1 Monitor Drive understand the value of a “Pembroke angst” headline at the top of their Sunday publication, as opposed to a sentiment more obscenely reasonable such as, “Pembroke community would like some time to consider what just happened.”
I get it.
Yet, there are those among us decidedly not so stirred up – who would, in fact, prefer to take that time to consider what just happened, then reflect. There are even those of us who were initially concerned about the lack of communication regarding the issue, asked a few questions of those in charge, then came to a less-than-outraged understanding. Go figure.
I know it’s boring, and it certainly doesn’t fit the apparently pre-determined and thus-far consistent Monitor narrative, so I get why there’s been more time spent chest-thumping about breaking the story than seeking out a moderate point of view. But dull as it may be, I’m hoping to share that point of view here.
I’m a parent of a freshman at Pembroke Academy, chairman of the Epsom School Board and, as such, a member of the SAU Board, and it was somewhere within those capacities that I received a call on April 1, off the record from a friend at the Monitor, asking if I’d heard about the dean of students being arrested. I hadn’t, and I was surprised that I hadn’t, so I called Superintendent of Schools Patty Sherman, genuinely ready to thump my own chest and find out how in the world an important guy like me could possibly not know. She took my call, and answered my questions candidly.
Since that conversation, I’ve had many more on the subject with parents, school board members, administrators, my children and others in the community. I’ve also been part of an Epsom school board meeting that discussed the subject, and an SAU board meeting which did as well. Here’s what I’ve concluded:
Sherman was in an incredibly difficult position with no prior parallel experience or roadmap to follow. She was provided with advice from trusted SAU legal counsel. She was convinced (as I am) that no one in the school community would be put at risk based on a lack of communication, and she made her decision.
So I didn’t get to know. Too bad for me.
Central to this whole conversation is that process, and I understand the rationale behind it evolving as it did. Sherman was faced with a delicate balancing act involving: a) what, if anything, she is compelled to divulge; b) what she is compelled not to divulge; and c) what she should divulge to ensure the health and safety of those at the school.
She appropriately sought legal guidance from an attorney, whose very job it is to minimize legal risk, and he unsurprisingly provided the advice that he did.
Whether or not Sherman should have pushed back on that advice – perhaps suggesting a generic letter to the community announcing the change of employment status while not overstepping the personnel privacy issues – is an honest policy dialogue that will be had, presumably in a more dispassionate environment than that in which we find ourselves now.
But whether that push-back should have occurred, potentially leading to more information for me and you, I’m still having a hard time grasping what greater purpose such an announcement would have served. Student safety? I’d strongly suggest that there’s more at stake when a superintendent makes his or her call on a would-be snow day than there was in this case.
Then again, Concord Monitor, why take a reasoned approach when there’s “angst” to be fueled? Why assume this was simply a matter of good people heeding risk-averse counsel when you can instead insert the much more compelling narrative of school leaders intentionally doing the easy, wrong thing? Why find a few folks who are being contemplative when three discontented voices, in a community of thousands, can drive an entire Sunday feature? Why include a fully revealing photo (or at the very least a written description) of the sparse attendance at two public meetings on the subject, when you can zoom your Nikon in tight and literally ignore the big picture – which would reveal, in fact, a considerable lack of anger?
I know why. Because that perspective is not very interesting.
Nor would have been, I suppose, a more thorough description of the SAU board meeting Thursday night, at which the board chairman made a significant exception to board policy in favor of allowing a Hooksett resident to speak, with television cameras rolling, and lodge a formal complaint against Sherman. Instead of noting that exception, which was granted in the spirit of transparency, reporter Nick Reid chose to spin it around (oddly, by quoting the Hooksett resident quoting the chairman, rather than correctly quoting the chairman first-hand) in a story clumsily littered with implications of secrecy.
Hey, another great Page 1 headline opportunity, though. “Parents: Officials dodging questions.”
I’d like to go on, in particular regarding this most recent example of selective reporting, but I won’t. I’m actually getting kind of frustrated.
So what’s next? The Epsom Board has been asked to submit a letter to the SAU, Pembroke Academy and the Pembroke School board expressing its interest in an examination of policies regarding future SAU communications in light of the recent events. I fully expect that examination to happen, just as I expect it would have without our request.
Regardless of what you may have read, these are good, well-intentioned people doing an incredibly hard job, making what they honestly believe to be the best possible decisions for their school community. Yes, good people. I know this as a fact. They will step back, reflect, assess and possibly make changes with an eye toward the next time.
And in the meantime, it’s okay not to be mad, even though you may have read otherwise.
(Dave Cummings is chairman of the Epsom School Board.)