 |
| A noted author and authority |
We are a community that expects the exceptional from our leadership. We seek in our Principal an individual who does not simply understand our values, but who models those values in how he or she lives.
Unlike his predecessors who distinguished themselves in academic endeavours, Rawson returned to the Academy through a different route. There's one thing you can say about his decades practicing law. He appears to have been a standout in his profession (for those that missed it in my previous post, this remarkable moment in his career is captured in a must-see three minute video).
Is it even imaginable that the search advisory committee charged with clearing candidates last year failed to review his distinguished background? Then, presented with the committee's candidates, surely the Trustees reviewed their fellow alumnus and former colleagues' work history.
Besides Rawson, there are four JDs currently serving on the Academy's board, including the Trustee President. They must have done their duty to carry out the proper due dilly before appointing him interim, much less Principal, right?
His Chosen Work: Crucial & Controversial
Rawson's chosen field in law is crucial and controversial. His particular expertise, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), affects the health and wellbeing of everyone in the United States. His choice of clients? Now, that's a matter of some concern. Some jaundiced souls might get the impression that his services were in great demand by --- no, I won't even attempt to characterize them. I will leave it to you, gentle readers, to make your own unbiased determination. Let me know what you think.
First, it's well to note that what's publicly available only gives a glimpse of Rawson's professional work. Maybe what I've uncovered isn't a representative sample. But it makes one thing clear: we deserve to have an honest appraisal of how he spent his career in law. As yet, my request for information from Rawson and the Trustees has gone unanswered. So, let's give them the benefit of the doubt. It's a busy time of year.
While we're waiting for them to get back with their responses, let's review what's ready-to-hand.
Begin with CropLife America, formerly known as the National Agricultural Chemicals Association. It is "the national trade association that represents the manufacturers, formulators and distributors of pesticides."
In 2012, Rawson filed a 42-page amicus brief for them advocating against a federal ban on chlorpyrifos, a pesticide. What's chlorpyrifos?
According to the Pesticide Action Network:
Chlorpyrifos is an organophosphate pesticide known for its damaging effects on the human nervous system.... These neurological effects pose especially elevated risks for children as their brains and nervous systems develop...Humans can breathe or be exposed to dust from chlorpyrifos that drifts from nearby fields into homes and schools.
While Rawson's work on this is some year's past, the issue lives on. Efforts to address this pesticide continue, most recently with a state ban in California (click here for the Washington Post's reporting on the struggle between consumer advocates and industry).
Perhaps a Pattern
Next, consider Rawson's work for the American Chemistry Council (ACC) and the Toy Industry Association.
ACC is one of the largest trade organizations in the country with a $100 million dollar annual budget. You may have heard about their efforts against regulating greenhouse gasses that drive climate change 10 years ago. Now, they've shifted gears. Members are part of the solution to the problem, so they say. Oh, and they're a champion of sustainability, too! What's not to like?
 |
| Fated to encounter orthophthalates? |
Rawson advocated on ACC's behalf for the overturn of San Francisco's ban on phthalates. According to Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, these plastics softeners "are endocrine disruptors, and exposure to phthalates has been linked to breast cancer, developmental issues, decreased fertility, obesity and asthma."
The American Chemistry Council also figures in one of the most controversial public health debates since cigarettes - flame retardant chemicals used in home furnishings.
The controversy over these chemicals and the industry's efforts around them are the centerpiece of a compelling documentary, Merchants of Doubt. It details how the strategy and tactics used by Big Tobacco spawned an industry of spin and deception deployed for other problematic products. It has also been adapted by climate change deniers.
The controversy over flame retardants became a national topic of discussion in 2012 with the Chicago Tribune's expose Playing with Fire, revealing the vast apparatus of manufacturers, trade associations, lobbyists and whatever other instruments of influence they mustered for their cause.
For New Englanders, the story had a local face. Hannah Pingree, former speaker of the Maine House, raised awareness nationally about both the hazards of these chemicals and the industry machinery promoting their continued use. This opinion piece she co-authored, Hold chemical companies to account, gives a concise summation of the issue from her perspective.
Pingree appeared alongside Rawson at a U.S. Senate hearing that addressed flame retardants, also in 2012. As I mentioned in the last post ("Introducing William K. Rawson, Esq.) he was a minority witness. He represented Albemarle Corporation, a flame retardant manufacturer and ICL-IP, an Israeli importer of these chemicals. This recent profile of Albemarle in The Nation is a must-read:
Like other makers of dangerous chemicals, Albemarle has stayed one step ahead of the law and public outrage by perfecting a cynical version of the classic bait-and-switch scam. When regulators ban one flame retardant because of its undeniable health impacts, the manufacturers simply tweak a molecule here and there to produce a similar but legally distinct product. Then they give that product a new name and hustle it back onto the market.
There's a great deal more to be gleaned from the transcript and video of this hearing. Pingree had this to say, respectfully, about some of those at the table that day:
 |
| No Hollywood ending to our story |
I will be returning to look more closely at this hearing so we can come to understand it fully. It tells us a great deal about Attorney Rawson.
It's well to note, the controversy over flame retardant chemicals continues. This 2017 opinion piece in Maine's Bangor Daily News shows that the well-funded industry promoters are still at it.
SIDEBAR STORIES WITHOUT THE SIDEBAR
Chemicals, Cancer & Seacoast New Hampshire
In their eagerness to appoint Rawson, perhaps the Trustees were unaware of what seacoast residents cannot ignore: cancer clusters linked to toxic chemicals in the area.
Over the past five years, the issue of chemical contamination causing pediatric cancers in the region have been a top-of-mind issue for those in the region, home to a superfund cleanup site. There's extensive coverage of this in local media. It has received statewide-attention from the Governor's office on down.
So this matter of Rawson's past working with petrochemical and pesticide clients may have special meaning to seacoast residents. How appropriate is it to have a former attorney for such interests serve as a moral leader in this community?
Smart about ALEC
...corporate lobbyists and state legislators vote as equals on ‘model bills’ to change our rights that often benefit the corporations’ bottom line at public expense... Participating legislators, overwhelmingly conservative Republicans, then bring those proposals home and introduce them in statehouses across the land as their own brilliant ideas and important public policy innovations—without disclosing that corporations crafted and voted on the bills.
Here's a glimpse of ALEC's role here. The industry forces are powerful, and they can overwhelm local governance. So the strategy is to be sure to take these matters out from federal control. From there, ALEC and its allies introduce bills at state legislatures. The added element is typically a State Policy Network-affiliated "think tank." These pass along purportedly independent studies that are, in fact, public relations cover for the ALEC-authored legislation.
What's grotesque here is that often the rationale for taking things from federal jurisdiction is to promote local control. But the industry trade association/ALEC/think tank nexus operates on a national level. So this is, in fact, a loss of local governance. All this is largely driven by "dark" money. The think tanks are almost invariably 501(c)3 public charities. The tax-deductible donations made to them can be kept anonymous. As such, this subversion of our democracy is taxpayer-funded.
***
***
Afterwards - The Man Who Would Be Principal
Bill Rawson was hired as Interim for two years in the
Summer of 2018. Repeatedly, faculty expressed reservations about
this process. It was a time when the Academy was forced to address
its unfortunate history of operating without appropriate policy
and process. Many I spoke to both in and outside of the Academy community found there was little to be concerned with since he was only hired as an interim. This was a stopgap measure. A proper, formal search process would soon follow.
Rawson was asked how his role of interim differed. "In some sense, I am in the same position as any principal who intends to
retire in two years. I have some near-term goals, and I will also
initiate conversations that will extend well beyond my period of
service...my job is largely to pose questions, not to answer them."
Actually, much of his initial efforts were directed at making sure questions weren't asked.
That August saw the release of the "overview" of the "independent investigation" into sexual assault on campus. The "overview" was dumped late one Friday afternoon in August. Despite multimillionaire-dollar investments in both the "independent investigation" and a parallel non-independent one, none of their findings was on the agenda at Exeter Leadership Weekend just weeks after. I published something about it in the local newspaper to coincide with the alumni gathering.
Next, Rawson answered one of the gnarliest questions - what to do with Rev. "Bobbie" Thompson? Thompson had been on paid leave since 2016 following embarrassing revelations about his response to a campus sexual assault featured in the Boston Globe. Then, the school's "independent investigation" found that Thompson and his wife had "failed in their responsibilities to address alleged misconduct
impacting the health, safety and welfare of students in a proper
and effective manner." Before the end of October, Rawson closed this out "amicably." Thompson retired, but without emeritus status. Some of his supporters wondered how Thompson could have agreed to this. The actual extent of the sizable settlement wasn't disclosed - but you might say it was at least as big as a house.
Then, some six weeks later, before Rawson had even completed a single term of his two-year contract, the Trustees sent the General Alumni Association Directors new marching orders. One of the Directors summarized how they were directed:
Then, some six weeks later, before Rawson had even completed a single term of his two-year contract, the Trustees sent the General Alumni Association Directors new marching orders. One of the Directors summarized how they were directed:
"...the board asked the GAA members to speak to a 'circle of alumni' and ask them whether they were in favor of Bill Rawson becoming Principal. Keep in mind the request was given on December 14th with a two week deadline; not a great time to be asking for people's time, but I did reach out to ten classmates."
Rawson's unexpected promotion was announced on January 25th. Tony Downer, Trustee President, said that this decision followed "extensive outreach to discern the Exeter community's views." The school reported that he went on to say that "Trustees gathered alumni input through outreach undertaken by the 18 directors of the General Alumni Association who serve as representatives of the alumni body."
This is at odds with the GAA Director's information suggesting that this "extensive outreach" was actually rather limited - at least in regard to alumni. That director had contacted 10 alumni. Say that was average. So, under 200 alumni had been asked for their input. Given that the entire alumni community numbers around 21,000, that's under 1%. The Trustee President's claim of an "extensive outreach" seems, at best, a gross misrepresentation.
 |
| The Trustees' holiday gift for Bill Rawson |
The core question here is - why the rush to promote the Interim?
It would have been easy for the Trustees to gather input from
alumni and others for at least a month or so. The previous search for a Principal included extensive email outreach plus "alumni get-togethers," in-person gatherings in major cities across the United States. Why not at least send out an
email to alumni rather than task the GAA Directors? If the
process brought negative feedback, the Trustees could have started
a search committee by the end of the school year and still have
plenty of time. The previous full search, complete with "alumni get-togethers," took only
about seven months.
That same GAA Director went on to offer what
information he was able to gather to explain this sudden turn of
events:
"I'm learning of all this in real time too...there was a 'chorus' of strong support for Bill across the different groups polled (students, faculty, staff, alums) which made the board's decision easier. The
decision to act now to hire Bill was because 1) having him as a
candidate in a national search might impact the search, i.e.
discourage candidates from applying, 2) he has exceeded the school
community's expectations in every way imaginable, and 3) the
school community has been suffering for years from all the
misconduct issues (which are not entirely behind us) and there was
a collective anxiety to get on with a transition."
Given the problematic way alumni were "polled," how much confidence should their be that this same flawed methodology wasn't also used with the other groups?
###
Tips? Suggestions? Comments? Drop a line to: contact (at) ExeterUnafraid (dot) com
No comments:
Post a Comment