Why restate this? I've received feedback expressing concern that my project here is about personalities, not principles. Let me dispel any such misapprehensions. Then, we've got some ground to cover.
Here's some factoids to include in any interpretation of my intentions.
After Rawson was hired last year, I reached out to congratulate him. I sent along the open letter I'd sent to the Principal and President of the Trustees back when the sexual abuse scandal hit in 2016. I posted it online. To my delight, I was informed that it had been read aloud at the Trustee meeting taking place to address the crisis:
A year ago, I sent this to Rawson both for his sake and mine. I thought it was a nice way to open the door to a productive relationship. I wanted to remember the sense of connection I had to Exeter and its leadership when the scandal hit. I sent him this before the start of classes:
...I am encouraged that your candidacy was put forward independently by faculty. I feel that faculty interests have been poorly represented for some time and so am pleased that you are seen by my former colleagues as an advocate for them. Also, I asked -------to share...impressions of you on the BoT. She said that you brought an independent, critical perspective. You were a standout, one of the very few who consistently asked tough questions and challenged assumptions and orthodoxy.
But there were questions, too. The essential one? "Are you a Churchill, the loyal opposition who somehow managed to take the reins to bring authentic, effective change?"
Why Rawson?
So my actual concern isn't so much Principal Rawson, per se. Rather, it's the systemic issues that provided for his installation.
It seems to me there are three plausible reasons why the Trustees installed him as interim, then promoted him to the permanent job. The first, suggested by a devoted and insightful alum, seems most likely:
- The school is well-overdue for a capital campaign. It's now been over a decade. Principal MacFarlane was supposed to launch one in 2016, but that was derailed by the scandal. If they followed through with the initial interim schedule, we'd be well along with the search process now, on track for a new Principal in a year's time. It would take the new Principal a year to get sorted before such a campaign could go forward in 2021. Here, Rawson should be set to hit the ground running with it later this year.
- The Trustees simply don't want to deal with conducting a real-deal full search. It's time-consuming and exhausting - and they just did one recently for MacFarlane.
- There's more troubling events that happened during Rawson and Downer's tenure as Trustees than we know about. The Choate/Hall report of the investigation into Trustee and administrative failings was perfunctory. It was tucked away under the headline-grabbing announcement naming faculty malefactors. Perhaps the investigation pointed to things that could prove troublesome if an outsider should take the reins. If so, it would be best for the legacy Trustees to install a colleague to delay and deflect as long as possible.
- Any combination of the above.
That's a bold assertion. Let's set that aside for a moment. We will return to it.
As far as the Trustee's desire to deal with a search? Who's to say. Tony Downer co-chaired the last full search. He certainly knows what's involved.
Now, what about as-yet undisclosed malfeasance in the Choate/Hall investigation or elsewhere?
When the "Interim Principal Advisory Committee" had rounded up its pool of candidates including Rawson, PATH (Phillips Exeter Alumni for Truth & Healing) sought to help with the process. They wanted to be sure that the candidates were properly briefed on the status of the sexual assault findings. Also, they wanted to submit questions to the candidates. Their attempts were rebuffed. The reason? If you allowed anyone to ask questions, everyone would want to do the samet. This would be unwieldy and impractical. So PATH published this request as a letter in The Exonian.
The questions for Rawson were simple:
You don’t give dates in your statement, but it seems you might have been a trustee during the first Schubart internal disclosures. If that is true, what was your position, or vote even, on disclosure to the community?
What experiences can you share that suggest that you are ready to lead the current Exeter, and not the Exeter of the past?
I seems entirely possible that Trustee Rawson was in the thick of things examined in the Choate/Hall investigation. I asked Rawson to confirm this in an email in August last year:
Now, what's problematic is that we have no idea what role you played in, for example,
the failures Choate/Hall investigated. Let's consider one connected matter in particular -
Tom Hassan's departure...what is especially troubling is a decision by
Trustees to alter Hassan's contract - I believe this was ratified at the last board meeting
you attended. Here is the relevant text from the Academy's IRS Form 990 for FY16:
SCHEDULE J, PART I, LINE 4B
IN CONNECTION WITH THE FORMER PRINCIPAL'S EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENT, THE PRINCIPAL WAS ENTITLED TO CONTINUATION OF HIS
ANNUAL BASE SALARY UPON TERMINATION OR EXPIRATION OF HIS
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING: (A)
UPON ATTAINING FIVE FULL YEARS OF SERVICE AS PRINCIPAL HE WAS
ENTITLED TO SIX MONTHS OF HIS ANNUAL BASE SALARY; AND (B) UPON
ATTAINING TEN FULL YEARS OF SERVICE HE WAS ENTITLED TO AN
ADDITIONAL SIX MONTHS OF HIS BASE SALARY. THE PRINCIPAL WAS NOT
ENTITLED TO PAYMENT IF HE IS TERMINATED FOR CAUSE.
EFFECTIVE JUNE 30, 2014, THE ACADEMY ENTERED INTO A REVISED
ARRANGEMENT WITH THE PRINCIPAL THAT SUPERSEDED THE ABOVE IN
CONNECTION WITH THE ADDITIONAL 6 MONTHS OF HIS BASE SALARY
UPON OBTAINING TEN FULL YEARS OF SERVICES. UNDER THE REVISED
AGREEMENT, SUCH PAYMENTS VESTED JUNE 30, 2015.
In other words, Hassan's employee retention bonus for ten-year's service was converted
into what appears to be a $200,000 farewell gift! This is especially problematic in that it
remains unclear whether or not he should have been terminated for cause instead.
As you can imagine, it should be a top priority to clarify what was driving this decision
and to be clear about who participated in it. This should come alongside a complete,
transparent publication of a report of the Choate/Hall investigation into Hassan's actions.
The current "report" fails to even mention his name!
I didn't get a reply to my email. After waiting two weeks, I sent it again. This time, an answer! He was somehow "under the mistaken impression that I had responded to your last communication – not sure how I made that mistake" and promised to follow up.
I will soon explain how that turned out....
Picking up a loose thread
Next, I want to close out a last few discoveries and observations about Rawson's professional background. We're going to be looking one last time at that Senate session to examine William K. Rawson, Esq. work as an "environmental attorney."
I think I've come up with a novel, unexpected perspective to see this fresh.
One challenge for having a Principal Instructor with no significant professional credentials in academia: what kind of instruction might he offer?
One challenge for having a Principal Instructor with no significant professional credentials in academia: what kind of instruction might he offer?
It would be a shame, however long Principal Rawson remains at PEA, if he doesn't teach or at least co-teach a class. How can you truly understand what's extraordinary about Harkness teaching without hands-on experience? This isn't just for his benefit, either. There's no better way to come to know students than to connect with them in the classroom.
Rawson, I will argue, is extraordinarily qualified to teach an interdisciplinary course on the interrelation between science, business, social activism, professional ethics, personal morality and politics. Also, do not underestimate his teaching experience. He may have grossly understated this when he candidated. It seems he's a seasoned lecturer.
###
Tips? Suggestions? Comments? Drop a line to: contact (at) ExeterUnafraid (dot) com
No comments:
Post a Comment