 |
| Missed opportunities? |
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).
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...
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?
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....
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!
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 |
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
No comments:
Post a Comment