Good morning.
Friday in Whitewater will be rainy with a high of 45. Sunrise is 6:16 and sunset 5:54 for 11h 38m 12s of daytime. The moon is a waning crescent with 5.1 percent of its visible disk illuminated.
On this day in 1775, an anonymous writer, thought by some to be Thomas Paine, publishes “African Slavery in America,” an article in the American colonies calling for the emancipation of slaves and the abolition of slavery
No principled person, having observed over these recent months the conduct of the Whitewater School Board and its superintendent, could remain unconcerned.
Since 2007, when FREE WHITEWATER first began publishing, no official in this city has advanced action through counsel against a resident, whether a private party or government official, to restrain free speech & debate1. For this superintendent to have done so was a grave mistake. Since 2007, when FREE WHITEWATER first began publishing, no official in this city has sought refuge in closed sessions, so obviously to conceal error, as this board president and some other boardmembers have done.
Since 2007, no official in this city has suggested, as this school board president has done, that a board member might be liable to censure for lawful speech. Principled men and women in Whitewater should not tolerate — must not tolerate — efforts to stifle speech through threats of censure.
The particular compensation awarded to an employee is less important than the method of the award by whom awarded and to whom awarded (especially if through a procurement policy). Everyone who works in the Whitewater Unified School District works as an employee of a public institution paid at public expense. No employee of the Whitewater Unified School District has a private contract with a private employer. They have public contracts with a public employer.
Those in this district who wish to work as private employees should — and must — seek private employment. There can be no private exceptions for anyone working for the public Whitewater Unified School District.
-
This superintendent must abandon any legal action against the free speech rights of either boardmembers or residents. Failure to abandon action against speech rights should be disqualifying from public employment in the Whitewater Unified School District. It is impossible for a principled person committed to free expression to hold otherwise.
-
This board president and any other board members must abandon the threat of censure against another board member over this matter. Failure to abandon the threat of censure should be disqualifying from membership on the Whitewater Unified School District Board.
-
The Whitewater Unified School District Board meets in regular session on Monday, March 18th. That regular session must offer an open dialogue between this superintendent and the residents of the community, other than a mere public comment period, to answer residents’ questions fully to the reasonable satisfaction of those residents. That regular session must offer an open dialogue between this school board and the residents of the community, other than a mere public comment period, to answer residents’ questions fully to the reasonable satisfaction of those residents.
-
The decision of this board president, other board members, and this superintendent to engage in dialogue is the right path forward to reconciliation. It is fair for all parties. Failure to take this opportunity should be disqualifying from employment or board membership in this district.
-
There is time, but only a little time, left for this board, this board president, these board members, and this superintendent to speak candidly to Whitewater. Principled men and women in Whitewater should not tolerate — must not tolerate — concealment through closed sessions, cease-and-desist actions, and threats of censure.
Americans, including those of us in Whitewater, are inclined to kindness. Many of us these last few months have been restrained, and through this restraint, shown respect and kindness. Franklin Roosevelt was right, when speaking of our people, that no one should mistake our kindness for weakness.
True in his time, and true in ours.
1. Someone once did worse, but then his career in this city later came to a deservedly ignominious end.
wow a strong stand for dialogue against legal action and closed meetings
there are things that i like and others that i don’t like about this district but this is all about real open dialogue
if they’d stop silencing and start talking openly you’d be satisfied?
also yeah, in case anyone doubted, you’ve still got it mr. adams
Reconciliation for public official requires public dialogue. Dialogue requires interaction with residents. That’s an open conversation. Public officials speaking with candor in response to the public demonstrates a commitment to constituents. Officials who make that effort should be supported and encouraged; those who do not aren’t serving the public good.
If the table is set, then it’s up to others to decide if they’d like to dine or leave the establishment.
A meal & proper wine, so to speak, should await those who’d care to come to table. Calm, composed, conversational: the offer I’ve suggested is hospitably made.
Right on, Adams!
Anyone who’s been around Whitewater could have guessed you would take a pro-speech position. You have been quiet on this but tyat was not going to last considering case-and-desist and closed session hiding. No surprise there.
Some of the lines are classic for your outlook: “Failure to abandon action against speech rights should be disqualifying from public employment in the Whitewater Unified School District. It is impossible for a principled person committed to free expression to hold otherwise” plus “no official in this city has sought refuge in closed sessions, so obviously to conceal error, as this board president and some other boardmembers have done.”
They think it’s about policy but they don’t see it as speech rights and open info. Glad you do.
Good afternoon, John.
Gotta ask, what did you think of the lawyer’s letters to Maryann?
I’ll answer this briefly now, but in detail (if necessary) after the 18th.
On the law: a weak claim, presented with multiple tactical errors, and awkwardly expressed. It’s an understatement to say that approach is counter-productive for a client. As I’ve mentioned, a grave mistake that only makes reconciliation harder to achieve.