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