VANITY & VEXATION: QUESTIONS FOR BILL RAWSON AT EXETER LEADERSHIP WORKSHOP

Not featured at this year's APV

So much for Exeter Leadership Weekend!  This year, the gathering for the most devoted in the Academy community is quite different.

In the past, this has been a three-day event running from Friday night through midday Sunday. This change isn’t just due to the pandemic. Last year’s Zoom-based gathering was far more extensive than this year’s truncated two-hour “workshop" for alumni plus another two hours for parents. Of particular interest is how the “town hall” element is eviscerated. The hour or more Q&A for the CFO and Principal has been cut to 25 minutes. 

Perhaps a better name for this dog-and-pony show would be the Academy Potemkin Village.

So intrepid participants wanting some glimmer of truth in this bit of performance art will have to work hard to get the right questions in. I have my own question – an unexpected one which I’ll get to presently.

But first, let’s consider what’s on the minds of many Exonians - Principal Rawson’s unflattering portrait in the current Vanity Fair.  One alumna asked me if there was going to be a session dedicated to discussing this. The Academy’s leadership has known this was coming for months. The alumni volunteers should be briefed on how to answer questions this will raise for prospective students and their families. Unfortunately, there’s nothing scheduled.

How to account for such an unfortunate oversight? Or is it by design? 

I’m having a strong sense of Déjà vu. This seems to be a repeat performance from three years ago when the results of the long-awaited “independent investigation” into campus sexual assault hit. After some 30 months had passed since it was initially announced (these typically run 8-10 months at peer institutions), the “overview” of the findings was dropped at the end of the day on a late August Friday. There was nothing scheduled for Exeter Leadership Weekend that September. Was tossing this into the Memory Hole (then Interim) Principal Rawson’s first big coup?

The odds of there being any real opportunity to put Principal Rawson on-the-spot for his unwelcome national exposure are slim-to-none. 

At heart, alumna Nancy Jo Sales’ heartrending story is a memoir of being traumatized by the Academy’s ham-handed treatment. She was collateral damage in a dubious effort that ended in the destruction of the reputation of “a hard-working, beloved teacher who cared about kids,” as one colleague described Dave Weber. What’s revealed? “It's clear that school doesn't care about its faculty, students, or alums. They only care about the ‘brand’.” I’d add that this is pretty much what you should expect by having a petrochemical and pesticide industry attorney as Principal. 

For me, what’s portrayed is a sad end to the idealism I started with five years ago. I had hopes that the then-Principal and President of the Trustees would pioneer a new, healthy model for prep schools. This devastating account is a rude awakening. The dream for "a fresh attitude and understanding" has become a nightmare.

“Mr. Weber’s Confession” is also an expose. What it reveals raises critical questions that Principal Rawson really needs to answer. The new information raises fundamental issues with the Academy’s “independent” investigation into campus sexual assault.

Let’s go back to what was promised. According to The Exonian:

To ensure a truly impartial investigation into cases dating back to the 1940s, Exeter and Holland & Knight established several protocols to guide their relationship. First, Holland & Knight checked their records to make sure that they had no previous relationship with Exeter, and Exeter did the same. The school also signed a document promising not to hire Holland & Knight for five years after the conclusion of the investigation, preventing the investigation from being conducted from a point of self interest.

Since H&K’s investigation apparently concluded some three years ago, it is troubling that the firm is front-and-center for the misadventures portrayed in Vanity Fair. Here is the question I posed to Attorney Catanzano yesterday – as yet, no reply from him or the Trustees copied.

 

Attorney/Principal Rawson, too, should have to answer this as well as address ancillary issues. Rather than put him on-the-spot at the Town Hall, I am being so kind as to provide my questions ahead of time so he’s got a day to ponder his response to these:

How is it that H&K is still working for PEA? Doesn’t that mean that the school has violated its agreement NOT to hire them for five years after concluding its investigation? Perhaps, instead, the investigation is unending. If so, that is certainly different than what was originally understood. How and when was that change decided, and by whom?  

Perhaps this is all some kind of mistake. I'm all ears.

Now, if things are as they appear, how do Principal Rawson and the Trustees intent to mend this breach of trust with those (like myself) interviewed by H&K, and also the larger community? Why should current students and their families have any confidence given what would appear to be a gross lack of institutional integrity? Why should alumni continue to support this financially or by their volunteerism?

BONUS – a question for CFO Marijka Beauchesne:

How much, exactly, was spent on H&K and also on Nixon-Peabody’s work in the wake of the 2016 scandal? The Academy’s tax returns indicate that somewhere from $3 - $5 million was paid to Nixon-Peabody. Does that include H&K’s fees? Also, how do the sums spent for the law firms compare to those spent to settle claims by those harmed at the Academy? 

###

Tips? Suggestions? Comments?  Drop a line to: contact (at) ExeterUnafraid (dot) com

Twitter @EUnafraid.

A SAMPLE WHILE ON SABBATICAL

A shadow darkens the Academy

Thank you for visiting Exeter Unafraid!  

The mission of my blog has been to press for reforms that will restore the integrity of my alma mater, Phillips Exeter Academy.  This is currently on hiatus as I rethink and reformulate how to achieve these goals.  

I've taken much of the material offline now. This was always intended to be a first draft for something more substantive. I leave a few of the most popular and informative postings for those interested.  

Begin with a sketch of the Academy's current Principal. His unusual background and experience is a good place to begin to understand the current crisis in the institution.  This is offered in two parts:

Introducing William K. Rawson, Esq.

Rawson: Guilt by Trade Association

Then, a trio of postings substantiate whatever claim to credibility I may have as an observer and critic of the school. This goes back to my days serving on the faculty.

Begin with The Phenomenology of Exoniensis Narcississma. It chronicles my call for a code of conduct for faculty and administrators in the 1990's.  Twenty-two years later, this was finally instituted -- in the wake of countless students unnecessarily harmed and an entirely avoidable scandal. 

Next, Steampunk Ahab's Parting Shot details the discovery of a flaw in governance that hampered effective oversight.    

Finally, Flawed Governance Exposed - and Suppressed - in 1994 describes my vain attempts to communicate this vital information. The failure to address this problem would continue to plague the school for decades.  

***

As serious as these matters are, Exeter Unafraid includes a lighter element. That may seem incongruous. But my purpose is simple. "To show the affection and admiration I have for this great institution, I offer Gaudeamus Igitur. I trust you will find these anecdotes and adventures from both my student and faculty days enlightening, entertaining, and entirely Exonian."  

                                                 

Getting silly in Cilley

Consider these tidbits of Academy lore:

The Midnight Scream of 1992

The Golden Shovel Award, 1978

The Great Tremallo 

Till next time, a closing thought to consider:

"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason.” 

                                                                                - Thomas Paine, Common Sense

###

Tips? Suggestions? Comments? Drop a line to: contact (at) ExeterUnafraid (dot) com

BLACK & WHITE QUESTIONS FOR PRINCIPAL RAWSON

Tonight's Exeter Leadership Week's (ELW) closing town hall meeting features Academy Principal Bill Rawson and CFO Marrijka Beauchesne! 

My questions for tonight are based on a loose end from last year. Then, Principal Rawson had yet to make good on the "outstanding IOU" he gave to the sexual assault survivor community some months before. As he pledged in his letter to PATH on July 8, 2019:

"We are working hard to complete our process of reviewing administrator actions in response to past cases. We expect to complete the work this summer, and when we do, we will report back to you with a further description of our work." 

Finally last November, he made good. Well, sort of, anyway. 

After the new information found in the affidavit for the recently arrested former faculty, this requires a radical redo. Let's see why by first examining this curious document on its own terms.

In it, Principal Rawson, along with then-Trustee President Tony Downer, provide the results of the Trustees' "ad hoc committee composed of the assistant principal, the dean of faculty and director of human resources, with the academy's general counsel, who served in a non-voting advisory role."

Let's set aside issues with the composition of the committee for a moment.
 

The "report" is a masterpiece of obfuscation and obnubilation. It opens with "The committee's findings included..." But what of the findings not included here? You can drive a truck through that loophole. 

Setting that aside, let's look at the findings provided, followed with the problems they present. The committee: 

• "did not find evidence of conscious or intentional efforts to evade the obligation to make a legally mandated report to authorities."

This begs the question: were all the legally mandated reports made? The determination as to whether this was intentional or otherwise is a separate matter.

• "did not find evidence of any individual engaging in a pattern of failure to make legally mandated reports."

Evasive language begs the question. Did numerous individuals fail to make legally mandated reports?

• "did not find evidence that any individual consciously intended to cause secondary harm to students or otherwise act against the best interests of students."

You can cause students to suffer secondary harm or otherwise act against their best interests and still get a pass here.

• "found that in those instances in which employment and related actions have been taken in the past and adverse consequences imposed, those actions and consequences have been appropriate. The Academy, as do most employers, considers such personnel matters personal and confidential."

In other words, "you just have to take our word here."  That's that. 

• "found no evidence that it considered sufficient in any case to support public consequences for alleged failures to report or other failures or omissions."

Move along - nothing to see here!!!

In short, there's more than a few howls in this dog. 

Assistant Principal Lassey's Fatal Conflict of Interest

Arresting reading

  Fortunately/unfortunately, a few things have come to light since last November.

A close look at the Kaminski arrest affidavit, the latest unfolding of the sexual assault scandal, brings to light manifold failures. This includes Assistant Principal Karen Lassey's conduct. When Lassey waded into this morass of mismanagement she "was concerned about the situation" where both the student and teacher had defied direct orders and the explanation "didn't make sense to her." It was clear to her "that there were pretty clear boundary violations." So what did she do about it?

Before we even go there, we need to throw out the work of the Trustees' ad hoc committee above. It was improperly constituted. AP Lassey, it seems clear, participated in the mismanagement she was assessing.

That's a fatal flaw.

So let's have a look at the affidavit and what it says about Lassey's conduct alongside the others she and the committee gave a free pass.

First, we need to backtrack to gather the pieces of this jigsaw puzzle.

In the 2018 Holland & Knight "overview" (still waiting for the actual report) of its "independent investigation" into campus sexual assaults, it includes an interesting aside:

"...two matters involved allegations that PEA and certain of its employees failed to respond properly to certain events on campus, some involving sexual assault, and some involving other student health and safety issues."

The findings?

"(In these) two investigations that did not involve allegations of sexual misconduct by faculty or employees, Holland & Knight determined that in a number of situations PEA employees failed in their responsibilities to address alleged misconduct impacting the health, safety, and welfare of students in a proper and effective manner."

Who were these PEA employees? How did the Academy respond to this determination of the Trustee's "independent investigation?"

H&K's determination was largely based on the 10,000-word report I filed with then Principal MacFarlane and then President of the Trustees Panetta in 2016. "A Sexual Predator at Exeter: Context & Consequences" focused on two episodes. The first was the response to a sexual assault on campus during the Martin Luther King Jr. observance in 1993. The other concerned a series of assaults that took place during the same weekend remembrance in 1995. The same faculty member was involved in both, with their spouse working alongside as the Dean on Duty for the later.

The H&K summary also says that "Among the issues investigated in those two matters were whether PEA and certain of its employees met their obligations to report certain issues internally at PEA and/or externally..."

During the 1995 spree, the assailant harmed at least five students. According to an Academy official cited in a news report of the incident, "although academy administrators did not immediately notify campus security or Exeter police - they were notified two days after the attacks - steps were promptly taken to identify the culprit and expel him from campus..."

Those "steps" included sequestering the "culprit" overnight at the Dean and her spouses' faculty apartment, then driving him out of state the following morning. 

The Boston Globe's Spotlight team had a look at this, providing an independent, journalistic perspective. I am not aware of anyone involved who disputes this account.  

An unchanging reality

The mismanagement of the incident reverberated on campus with one of the survivors speaking out in The Exonian. She mentions that the faculty member involved here (and also in the 1993 incident) told her "there was some discussion in Faculty Meetings about this specific incident..." which means that then-Principal Kendra O'Donnell must have been aware of what had happened. It would also seem that she signed off on keeping faculty who (as H&K determined) had failed in their "obligations to report...(and) their responsibilities to address alleged misconduct impacting the health, safety, and welfare of students in a proper and effective manner."

Now, let's fast-forward 21 years to 2016.

For all the "crumbs cast upon the current" over this period - the Internet revolution, 9/11 and what Gore Vidal (PEA '43) described as the "caper in Mesopotamia" that followed, a financial collapse and the election (and reelection) of a Black President of the United States - in this ever-changing world, one thing remained constant: PEA leadership's refusal to adopt a code of conduct for faculty, administrators and Trustees.

In other words, the faculty and administrative failures described in the Kaminski affidavit occurred in this code of conduct-free free-fire zone.

I won't recount it all. The Exonian did a solid job focusing on the accused teacher's actions. 

A Dishonest Act or a Cry for Help?

Here's the highlights with a focus on the school's failures: 

Just before the "grooming" crossed into criminality, the student gave what might have been a last, desperate cry for help that brought them before the discipline committee for a major offence: "Dishonest acts of any kind, including academic dishonesty."

One teacher found the student's explanation there "not believable or honest."

It seems that obvious dishonesty in responding to an accusation of dishonesty should bring severe consequences. Instead, it seems the committee accepted dubious claims at face value.

Worse, the affidavit indicates that the accused teacher leveraged this occasion to sexually assault the student before, then to gain the parent's confidence after.

The first criminal acts allegedly took place as Kaminski met with the student supposedly to prepare for being a "faculty friend." A "faculty friend" is a teacher who speaks on behalf of the student in discipline proceedings. At the discipline committee, the student's former advisor described the "faculty friend's" statement in support as "very long and weird."

This was a crucial moment. Almost any outcome was preferable to what occurred. The committee was apparently content to not get to the bottom of the matter. The parents credited the "faculty friend" with saving their child from being expelled. They would later defend him despite disturbing signs. 

The Rank & File do their Duty

 After being put on probation for dishonesty, the students was caught in numerous dishonest acts by faculty, staff and dorm proctors who did their jobs dutifully. They observed troubling behavior and reported them. For example, the student wasn't "forthright in (their out of town) slips." "...Paperwork for out of town travel...stated by train...but (the student) had ridden with him (Kaminski)." In the dorm, "there were persistent instances of (the student) being tough to track down." They "...started accumulating minor rule violations such as not checking in at the right time and saying (they) were in the library when (they) were not." The student was specifically forbidden to go to Kaminski's house again, and was observed doing so anyway.

In some instances, these reports were made to deans who specifically requested that such violations be reported to them. After repeatedly, demonstrably being dishonest, none of the deans apparently sat the student down and demanded the truth.

At the same time, Kaminski had been called to account repeatedly. Even so, he disobeyed direct orders to not have the student at his residence again.

Remember Assistant Principal Karen Lassey? At the time, she was dean of academic affairs. She waded into this morass of mismanagement apparently on at least two separate occasions. The first was when Dean Melissa Mischke "expressed concerns about (the student's) relationship with Kaminski..." apparently with the student present. Another time, she was called in as the student and the student's advisor had a chat. The student had just been caught defying the order to not go to Kaminski's house. Lassey "was concerned about the situation" and the explanation "didn't make sense to her." It was clear to her "that there were pretty clear boundary violations." 

It would seem that then-Dean Lassey was very much involved in this situation and likely others in what appears to have been a close-knit office. Her participation in the ad-hoc committee considering anything involving this crew would be outrageous.   

But what about her actions? She's there to participate in resolving this situation. What did she do about it? Where did the buck stop?

It didn't. You have to wonder - what would it have taken to inspire the deans to send the errant student back for another go at the discipline committee? 

As far as Kaminski...now, let's think this through with a little role-play.

Say you're the dean of faculty. You've got a teacher who has defied direct orders that indicate he may be victimizing a student. This is a child you are charged to care for as a parent would care for their own.

Do you:

a.) fire the teacher on the spot;

b.) pass him off to the police.

Well, the dean of faculty punted here. He referred this to the Exeter police who were unlikely to do much better getting to the bottom of this - which is exactly what happened. It is fair to ask if the only real purpose for going to the police was to cover for the deans and the school should this blow up. If so, that's a far cry from providing parental protection.

In my humble opinion, if a teacher is so off-the-mark that you think the police should be involved, that person has NO BUSINESS serving on the faculty of the Phillips Exeter Academy.  

Questions for Principal Rawson

Now, let's get to the upshot here - which is racism. The school website now proudly proclaims "Exeter condemns anti-Black racism in all its forms." 

Really?

I'll be damned if I stand silent while my effort for accountability for sexual assault victims is perverted by the Academy's institutional racism.

What?

What became of the "PEA employees (who) failed in their responsibilities to address alleged misconduct impacting the health, safety, and welfare of students in a proper and effective manner..."

As I wrote to then-President of the Trustees Tony Downer on September 7, 2017:

"Though my whistle blowing focused on Rev. Thompson's apparent covering for a sexual predator on campus in 1993, I find it troubling that he seems to be the only non-perp faculty member or administrator facing censure. In fact, this is deeply disturbing given the long history of African American males being singled out for punishment in our society. If he is to be held accountable, others should be, too. If you are providing blanket immunity to non-perps in the apparent absence of policy and process, then it would seem necessary for you to restore him to full faculty status - if you are to be consistent."

It seems that all of the deans involved in 2016's morass of mismanagement have apparently been allowed to go their merry way - Mischke, Cosgrove, Shapiro and Kim. Those leaving for other schools likely did so with positive references from PEA.

And what of Principal O'Donnell who signed-off on the failures in 1993 and 1995? She is afforded extraordinary privilege. Principal Rawson publicly lauds her as his friend and mentor.

Meanwhile, the only one publicly held to account is African American. He has been put out to pasture after decades of service to the institution and denied emeritus status.

So...all this boils do to a simple series of related question for Principal Rawson:

• How is it that emeriti Principal O'Donnell gets feted on stage during Opening Assembly while Rev. Thompson is denied this status?

• How is it that we punish an African American man for his failures while honoring the white woman who signed off on them. What of Assistant Principal Lassey and her former colleagues?  

• Does Exeter truly condemn anti-Black racism in all its forms while it metes out such injustice?

Finally, a simple "yes" or "no" question here for the Principal and the Trustees:

Given the fatal flaws of your ad hoc committee, are we going to get a truly independent, transparent investigation into these matters???

###

Tips? Suggestions? Comments?  Drop a line to: contact (at) ExeterUnafraid (dot) com

Twitter @EUnafraid

THE OPEN SOCIETY AFFIRMED!

A shrine to the Open Society

From GAA President/ex-officio Trustee Janney Wilson:

"The administration reviewed your concerns and the Academy Archives Policy. Following further consideration of the Policy, the restriction on searching and accessing The Exonian in the online archives will be lifted."

The speedy attention is most appreciated!

I am gratified by the alumni communities' strong affirmation of our commitment to open, unfettered inquiry. 

This is an occasion for our appreciation of our shared values despite differences.

I'll have more to say about all this in time. But I wanted to immediately acknowledge the administration's response.

I have also reached out to Academy Librarian Gail Scanlon and Magee Lawhorn, Head of Archives & Special Collections, to see about moving forward with the project I mentioned - gathering the stories behind the stories at The Exonian. I look forward to joining fellow alumni Exonian writers, editors and photographers to remember our efforts.

Finally, from the April 27, 1979 Exonian - my very first opinion piece. After a lifetime of writing such things both under my own byline and as a hired gun ghosting for others, I'm amazed to see how I haven't changed a bit. 

Here, I am chastened by my own youthful counsel. As Nietzsche observes, “Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster. For when you gaze long into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.”

***

PS: Somewhere, I have a lovely, handwritten note from Principal Steve Kurtz responding to this. That is just the sort of ephemera that needs to be preserved in The Exonian archives! 

###

Tips? Suggestions? Comments?  Drop a line to: contact (at) ExeterUnafraid (dot) com

Twitter @EUnafraid

AN ASSAULT ON OUR OPEN SOCIETY

A Temple for the Open Society

EDITORIAL NOTE: this is adapted from an email sent to the General Alumni Association Directors on the eve of the start of "virtual" Exeter Leadership Week. 

***

Louis Kahn's design concept for the Academy  library is radical. The "open stacks" are truly open.The grand staircase at the entrance lacks a security chokepoint. This free access is a fundamental departure from other libraries. It serves as a symbol of what we treasure most: an expression of our fearless, courageous insistence that freedom of inquiry is the best "defense of the open society against its enemies."

In the transition to digital, Exeter had been demonstrating leadership in carrying this profound belief forward. Three years ago, the newly digitized archives of The Exonian, the "oldest continuous preparatory school newspaper in America," went online. The school afforded "free browsing access to the entire archive" with minimal restrictions.  

Now, alumni have been locked out. What's happening here? 

The Fall 2017 library newsletter focused on this extraordinary asset for the community:

The Exonian is an invaluable historical resource for the history of our school, and indeed for the history of secondary education. Until now, access to back issues has been limited to fragile bound volumes in the Academy Archives, but we are now happy to announce that the entire run of the newspaper, back to volume 1, issue 1 of April 6, 1878, is available online at archive.theexonian.com!

Visitors to the site will be able to search and browse the entire historical archive of the newspaper, and clip and save articles as images or text. We invite you to explore the length and breadth of Academy history from the student’s perspective...

Since the launch, many have utilized the archive. You can find numerous alumni postings on social media that link to it (for example, this posting in the "Exonians" Facebook group). The Exonian archive should have been recognized as a signal success in the emerging digital paradigm. While some wonder if the Internet has made the library an expensive anachronism, this created opportunities and occasions for community engagement.

Now, alumni have been locked out.  What's happening here?    

The Digital Scholia

From the beginning, I wondered about ways to take advantage of this digital reboot. After conversations with Peter Nelson, the now-departed Academy Archivist, I realized how we could use the new capabilities to capture informal knowledge/social history.  

I should mention that during the Dot Com era, I wrote extensively about the "New Media" for numerous "old" media trade publications." The first flowering of the World Wide Web gave me the chance to rethink human communication. The digitization of the Exonian archives was an opportunity to put this experience to use.

There's really nothing completely new about "New Media." Email, for example, is simply the oldest electronic medium, telegraphy, grafted onto the IP-infrastructure. Of course, that sparked a revolution. What inspired me here is the phenomena of "scholia" in ancient literature. These are the marginal notes that explain arcane, obscure details that explain the text. This came to mind as I discovered the notation capabilities the digital service provider built into their newspaper system.   

The idea - that Peter's departure left unfulfilled - was for a project that could engage every alumni Exonian editor, writer and photographer. There's a treasure trove of Academy history ungathered in the memories of anyone who has worked on The Exonian.  We could gather alumni Exonian staff online to add their recollections to the collection. We could preserve the stories behind the stories.  

As the archive went online in 2017, I tested the waters. But we never managed to properly organize it.  Still, it should be easy to network through the alumni editors to create an occasion/event to gather alumni. It would be like the Wikipedia "edit-a-thon" the library hosted not long ago.  

A Roadblock on the Digital Superhighway

Locked out of our own property

Suddenly, this is no longer possible. 

 Last week, I went to the archive to look for a news item. I discovered that alumni are now "outsiders" locked out of content less than 75 years old. You can see for yourself with this link to the graduation issue my senior year.

I immediately contacted those in charge to ask what was the situation. My email exchange with the Academy's new Head of Archives and Special Collections and the Academy's Librarian is troubling. They seemed hesitant to acknowledge what has happened. Instead, they insisted that "this 75 year restriction has been in place since the Trustees made it so in the 1980’s." 

After pressing the point, they still would not acknowledge there's been a change. However, there is a process for gaining limited access at their discretion. "If there is a specific article that you wrote or that any other alum has written that they cannot get access to they can submit the request through the online request tool and we can help them get access to it."

So much for the dream of the internet creating broad-based engagement.  

Oh, and these new restrictions extend beyond the digital archive. We are now locked out of the microfilm and print copies that used to be "open stack" in the library basement.

What makes this even more troubling is that the Academy does not own the copyright on these materials. The alumni who created them do. So we are now locked out from our own property and must ask permission to (hopefully) be allowed access.  

Appropriate Access - Insiders vs. Outsiders

That being said, I also fully understand and appreciate a serious evaluation of the privacy issues. I was on the faculty during the arrest and conviction of a colleague in '92. I vividly remember the change in access to PEANs. Prior, they were open access in the reference section of the library. But as reporters began to snoop around, the yearbooks were moved into the library offices where they remain now - available by request.

Nothing changes till you change it

The original policy for these digital archives (which was still posted - and immediately changed once I sent the link to library staff) seemed inadequate. Anyone, anywhere could access. Only the search function was disabled for content newer than 75 years. Now, this limitation has been extended so that there's a wall that excludes alumni. 

The proper boundary, I would suggest, is that alumni be allowed unfettered access while limiting outsiders to the community. That should be easy to implement. The security system for the alumni database is the obvious model to follow. If you are allowed access to that, you should be able to access The Exonian archives - and other such content.

Finally, let's be clear about one thing. I have no desire to put the library staff serving my alma mater on-the-spot. These are professionals normally committed to expanding access. It seems obvious that they have received directives counter to that. They are not the problem. 

An Academy Principal lacking academic principles?  

The reason for shutting out alumni isn't too hard to guess.

We await a public trial following the recent arrest of a former faculty member for crimes allegedly committed on campus. Likewise, the ongoing struggle to achieve truth and reconciliation in the school's mismanagement of campus sexual assault threatens to boil over.

In short, the Academy's current leadership is under duress. Their response? Violate a core value of our academic community.  

How is that possible?

For the first time in the modern era, Exeter's Principal Instructor has no significant professional academic credentials. Is it any surprise that he operates under other values?  

All this leaves us with a few questions:

What is hidden in the archives that would motivate the current leadership to sacrifice our core commitment to open inquiry? What do they want to keep under wraps?

What does this example teach our students at a critical moment in our democracy?

Finally, if this is about image and reputation, then there's a more fundamental question. Is this an academic institution, or has it become a prosperity cult? 

The current leadership's focus on material success and maintaining appearances is telling. Who are the role models offered?  It has been a long time since new buildings on campus were named for educators who devoted their lives to the institution. Why don't we have the B. Rodney Marriott Performing Arts Center?  Because we now glorify those who have amassed significant fortunes instead. Are their donations a testament to a commitment to Non Sibi selflessness, or are they building monuments to mark their self-full success (while receiving a hefty tax-deduction)?   

Larry David, the preeminent philosopher of our times, has reflected deeply on this:

###

 Tips? Suggestions? Comments?  Drop a line to: contact (at) ExeterUnafraid (dot) com

Twitter @EUnafraid.

UNANSWERED QUESTIONS FROM EXETER LEADERSHIP WEEKEND - PART I: FUZZY ACCOUNTING

Missed opportunities?

Exeter Leadership Weekend (ELW) for 2019 has come and gone! Unfortunately, I was not able to be on hand this year. I live 12,500km away from Exeter. As yet, the Academy does not provide the telepresence options that have become common elsewhere. So it is challenging for me to drop in for the session.

The morning assembly is an extraordinary opportunity for alumni and parents. Typically, they can put their questions to the Principal, President of the Trustees and Chief Financial Officer in an open "town hall" setting. Often, there are more questions than the 90-minute session permits. So, until leadership deems it important to make sure to allow questions from all quarters, it's important to do your homework. Then, if you grab a front seat, you might get a chance to pierce the veil that shrouds the opaque leadership.

 Also, understanding that many become swept away in the conviviality of the festivities, often including the dinner with the senior class the night before, being properly prepared for the session may be a challenge for some.

That seems to have been the case with this year's lackluster participation. Nothing too probing or challenging, from what I've heard. That's a shame given how many problematic things are percolating. Out of sight, out of mind does not mean out of trouble.

So how can we improve this? What if we altered the format to foster better communications? One possibility: make the focus  a probling one-on-one interview before the audience, then open it to questions.

Now, cast into the role of inquisitive, informed interviewer, let's explore the questions I'd pose. In fact, some have been sent to leadership before. Inexplicably, they have gone unanswered. The importance of getting their responses, I trust, will be self-evident.

I see that Tony Downer, the President of the Trustees, wasn't on the schedule this year. Pity. So, let's start out with a question first sent last year to CFO Marijka Beauchesne (see full email exchange here).

Question 1: 

In his Deed of Gift, John Phillips stipulated full, complete financial transparency as an essential element of Academy governance. It provides one of the few checks on the Trustee's otherwise carte blanche authority. As such, it is essential for ensuring accountability.

As he states clearly and unequivocally:

...(the Clerk) shall keep a fair record of every donation, with the name of each benefactor; of the purpose, if expressed, to which it is constitutionally appropriated, and of all expenditures of them; and a true copy of the whole shall be taken and kept in the Academy, to be open for the perusal of all...

John Phillips: a visionary for financial transparency & accountability

For some time, the Trustees have abandoned this. Instead of providing access to "all expenditures," this has been restricted to broad categories of disclosure. With this, the requisite accountability is missing.

Of course, standard accounting procedures are guided by "materiality." You don't include the pencil count in a multimillion-dollar budget. That may apply to other institutions. But this is Exeter, and the Deed of Gift is specific. More important, details material to providing accountability for the school's leadership are now apparently absent.

So, please describe the process and procedure where you determine the level of "granularity" you afford for our perusal?

Question 2: 

As a follow-up for Principal Rawson or any of the Trustees present:

Is the Academy to have the transparent accounting stipulated by John Phillips in the Deed of Gift, or the fuzzy accounting that seems to be the current practice? 

***

Let me further explain why this point is so essential. The Trustees are already protected from any
personal liability by a provision in the bylaws. So their only exposure?  Embarrassment for their mismanagement. What their fuzzy accounting provides is the ability to ensure that never happens. They can grossly mismanage and when those harmed come calling? They have the Academy's money to buy silence. Since no one get to look closely at the books, there's no consequence - for the trustees, anyway. What the victims suffer, well....

His vision in the shadow 

Recently, the place of NDAs (non-disclosure agreements) in systematically enabling sexual abuse has come clear.  With Exeter, a key provision in the various settlements I've seen is that they require the recipient to NEVER disclose the amounts. They're not silenced altogether - just kept from disclosing the amount of money spent to settle it out-of-court. So why should this be the Academy's #1 concern?  I suspect that if the larger community were to know, we'd see senior administrators and trustees held to account for their mismanagement. 

In other words, it would confirm John Phillips' wisdom in stipulating complete financial transparency.

Once you read the Deed of Gift closely to understand how the dynamics of the school's governance was intended - and has been distorted - the desperate need for governance reform is unmistakable. This is just the kind of thing that an authentic, intentional Interim Principal might have accomplished. What are the possibilities for this with the current regime?

We will explore that soon - but first some more questions that would have made for a more memorable ELW!

 ###

Tips? Suggestions? Comments?  Drop a line to: contact (at) ExeterUnafraid (dot) com

Twitter @EUnafraid.

OUTSTANDING IOUs - PART I: RAWSON'S REPORT

Change of season coming to campus

It seems incredible. It's three years since the scandal over faculty misconduct erupted. Now, we seem
to be moving away from, not towards, resolution. 

The school year ended with a student protest about the school's handling of sexual assault. Meanwhile, the Rawson Administration's relationship with PATH, the school's officially sanctioned alumni sexual assault survivor group, has collapsed. Why? A "betrayal of good faith."

So where does that leave us now on the eve of Opening Assembly?

Over the summer, Principal Rawson attempted to come to some resolution with PATH. In the process, he gave an IOU that casts a shadow over tomorrow's event, what should be an occasion of unqualified celebration. Here's his as-yet unfulfilled promise made in his letter to PATH on July 8:

We are working hard to complete our process of reviewing administrator actions in response to past cases. We expect to complete the work this summer, and when we do, we will report back to you with a further description of our work.

While we continue to wait, can we at least be clear about what it is we're waiting for? 

Unfortunately, Rawson's signature style leaves uncertainty over what, exactly, he's promised. Will senior administrators - including past Principals - be held accountable? What of trustees who may have signed off on misconduct and mismanagement? Most immediately, as a practical matter, should all the emeriti faculty who gather on stage for Opening Assembly be allowed the honor? 

That there's any question at this late date over such basic things says a great deal about the Academy's current leadership.

(Editorial note:  a bit of explanation for non-Exonian readers. Opening Assembly, marking the start of classes, is the occasion to introduce new faculty and to honor the retired. One of the responses to faculty connected to problematic conduct has been to remove their emeriti status and so to bar them from participating in Opening Assembly.)

Delays & Doubts 

Let's look more closely at what Rawson promised while putting it in the context of previous actions.

Rawson admits "... we have not moved as quickly as we had hoped to complete this important work (of reviewing administrator conduct)." But, he says, this is reasonable:

We have purposefully taken a principled and deliberate approach to this review of past actions. As we have previously stated, we believe it is appropriate to distinguish between situations where the fault, if any, lies primarily with the individual, and where the fault lies at an institutional level because of a failure to have clear policies and protocols or a failure to provide proper guidance or training.

That being said, he suggests it's best to have minimal expectations for when they "complete this important work":

We have also noted that we do not ordinarily share publicly individual employee disciplinary decisions, and so cannot commit to transparency at that level. Those disciplinary decisions, when appropriate, must be determined in light of an employee’s entire performance, including past handling of any other incidents of sexual misconduct. 

So, doing this right takes time. Rawson tries to make it seem like this task was just handed to him. But now with three years gone since the scandal broke, it's hard to believe that no one has considered this till recently.

At what point is this "principled and deliberate approach" shown to be something else? A close look at the record of my communications with senior Academy leadership is instructive.

Administrative accountability was top-of-mind in my communications with leadership in 2016. First, in private communications, then publicly in the piece I had published in the Portsmouth Herald on September 22, 2016, the eve of Exeter Leadership Weekend:

But what of dealing with past misdeeds? What of clearing the demoralizing culture that tacitly condones misconduct? What of restoring the institution’s integrity?

These require truth and reconciliation.

For truth, too often the “independent” investigations conducted at these schools are fundamentally flawed. The leadership coming under scrutiny hires the investigators. They also get to decide what findings are released. This makes it easy to get tough on a few bad apples while ignoring endemic structural problems. In this arrangement, a day of reckoning for trustees and administrators who tolerated malfeasance seems unlikely. 

I had hoped for something better from PEA. I sent this to Principal MacFarlane and other leadership. No reply.

That was nearly three years ago. And leadership is still "reviewing administrator actions"?

Let's call this strike one.

Downer: a swing and a miss

Tony Downer, the soon-to-be-departing President of the Trustees had the next go at-bat. Beginning in August, 2017, I engaged him in a lengthy email exchange on administrative accountability in general - and Principals Kendra O'Donnell and Tom Hassan in particular. Much of what seemed scandalous in 2016 was known - or should have been known - nearly 25 years earlier. Why wasn't all this  cleaned up after the last sex scandal?

Should this portrait remain on display?

Downer valiantly avoided dealing with "administrator actions in regard to past cases." Instead, he offered his excitement over recently implemented changes. So I pressed him:

It may be the position of the Academy that administrators and trustees past and present will not be held accountable for malfeasance under any circumstances. If that is the case here, please say so explicitly. If it is not so, please detail the process to determine responsibility and bring accountability for O'Donnell, Hassan and possibly others. 

I reiterated the urgency of my request. An important decision was necessary:

Once again, these former Principals may be honored at opening assembly this week. Is this appropriate at this time?

Downer failed to either admit that leadership gets a free pass, or to say that they didn't.

Strike two.

Rawson steps up to the plate 

Then, on August 21st, 2018, I gave Interim Principal Rawson a chance to establish his leadership here. With Opening Assembly two weeks away, I directed him to my previous correspondence:

I raised the issue in some detail with Tony Downer a year ago. As a practical matter, should Kendra O'Donnell and Tom Hassan be allowed to be honored as emeriti faculty at the upcoming opening assembly?

(note: this was one of three areas of concern in my communication. The other two were over Rawson's still-undisclosed actions as trustee and issues with what were the soon-to-be-forthcoming disclosures from Holland & Knight)

How did Rawson respond?

He didn't.

So I followed up, resending the email on Tuesday, September 4th, along with the documents referenced. His same-day response was - interesting:

What exactly did he say? Maybe he responded and, somehow, it got lost along the way? If so, easy enough for him to resend, right?

But that isn't what he said. He didn't respond - he only, mysteriously, thought he had. Somehow, he was so confused as to think that he had answered a lengthy, pointed inquiry about himself and other Academy leaders.  

Apparently, it was not possible for him to respond before Opening Assembly. There, I got what seemed to be a clear answer as to whether Principal O'Donnell would be held accountable. This short clip spells it out: 

I was set to make a special trip from my home in South Africa to attend Exeter Leadership Weekend soon after. But witnessing the spectacle of Opening Assembly, I cancelled my flights. 

The week after, Rawson finally responded to my email. 

Sort of. 

He asserted that he'd read the documentation sent (including the previous correspondence with Downer). Rather than send a written reply as he'd been under the "mistaken impression" he'd done before, he invited me in to meet with him during Exeter Leadership Weekend.

My response?

Dear Bill,

I was surprised to receive your email. Quite honestly, I thought you had already communicated a clear, concise and unequivocal response to my concerns at Opening Assembly (link to video above).

I'm not sure I can adequately express how I felt witnessing this spectacle. As to whether the Academy will be holding faculty, administrators and Trustees accountable for enabling abuse - forgive me for saying so, but you may as well have brought Bobbie Thompson on stage to give an opening prayer.

I do want to thank you for your significant investment reviewing the materials sent and for your generous offer to find an opportunity to meet during ELW. I hope you can appreciate why it is appropriate for me to decline your offer at this time. Instead, it is necessary that we have a larger discussion that engages the full board.

For that reason, I have copied them here... 

In my note to the trustees, I simply asked them to either endorse or reject the actions of previous leadership. I received no reply whatsoever from any trustee. Whatever discussion of accountability that may have happened - if any - did not include me.

I sent that email to Rawson on September 15 last year. And the current administration is still "reviewing administrator actions."

Again, at what point is Rawson's "principled and deliberate approach" shown to be something else?

 

***

Next up - another outstanding IOU from the trustee's Committee on Trustees. 

After the Choate/Hall investigation in March, 2017 revealed flawed governance as a root cause for the Schubart scandal, they were tasked with reviewing governance. Their first missive on this came out in May, 2018. Guess what? No significant problems here!

Still, they had a few things outstanding to fulfill the earlier promise. What remains? A look at "the role that the trustees play within Exeter's system of governance and the relationship between trustees, administrators, and faculty." They issued that IOU some 15 months ago.

###

Tips? Suggestions? Comments?  Drop a line to: contact (at) ExeterUnafraid (dot) com

Twitter @EUnafraid