The following is courtesy of Today’s Lowell Sun, it is a letter to the editor from Mayor Jim Milanazzo in defense of last Friday’s Sun Editorial attacking the School Committee.
On Feb. 18, The Sun, through its editorial board, published the latest in a series of articles regarding the past contract negotiations between Dr. Chris Scott and the Lowell School Committee. Despite the criticism aimed at the committee, members chose not to reply to the perceived preferential treatment The Sun has shown through its many editorials toward the superintendent’s position. The committee adopted this measured response because its members believed that it was best for the district and for all parties. This message was also extended nearly a month ago to the superintendent through her attorney, advising that: “there is still much serious work to be done by both the committee and the superintendent (and) … it is perhaps in the best interest of both (parties) if (the attorneys) step aside and let the superintendent and the committee take up their important work without the distraction of further letters or public messages.”
Yet, despite the superintendent’s public message that it was time to “move on” and the committee’s acceptance of her The most recent editorial by The Sun is, at its best, an exercise in irresponsible and puerile name-calling and, at its worst, accuses committee members of engaging in illegal acts. In so doing, the newspaper has attempted, without foundation or facts, to harm the integrity and reputation of the city’s school district, its committee members and its processes. For that reason, on behalf of the committee, I wish to respond to The Sun’s “Message of Malfeasance” and its overall lack of journalistic integrity in handling this important matter.
The editorial claims, for example, that the minutes contain just a “few passages” and that they have been “heavily redacted of any meaningful detail.” In general, under Massachusetts law, the minutes must state the date, time and place of the meeting, a list of the members present, the votes taken and a brief summary of subjects discussed. In the present case, the public should know that the “few passages” released were in actuality well over a dozen pages of minutes and notes. These minutes also include actual discussions by individual committee members, details that go well beyond what is required by the Open Meeting Law.
Moreover, what the minutes show is not “a lack of leadership,” but rather a committee that entered into negotiations in good faith and, despite certain obstacles, showed a willingness to continue to negotiate. The committee revised the superintendent’s evaluation tool, drafted a proposed contract offer, and, when certain members of the committee could no longer commit to a three-year contract, they began exploring other contract options. Most significantly, what the minutes show is that contrary to what has been editorialized, the committee was still actively exploring contract options when the superintendent chose to cancel two planned negotiation sessions and end discussions altogether. If the situation became a “public embarrassment” and “a debacle to the public-school system,” the newspaper and, in particular, its editor, have played no small role in creating such results.
Throughout the negotiations and following their conclusion, the committee approached its work with the proper standards of professionalism. Despite claims to the contrary, the committee timely responded to the superintendent’s notice to renew her contract within the 60 days specified by her contract and agreed to by both parties. The committee then began timely deliberations in mid-November as to the terms and conditions of a possible successor contract. Moreover, the planned negotiation session on Jan. 10 was never canceled, but was rescheduled by agreement of the parties to Jan. 19. Ultimately, that meeting was canceled, but it was by the superintendent. And, despite all assertions that the superintendent was told there was never going to be any offer of any kind, the minutes and scheduled negotiation sessions of the committee prove otherwise.
Despite the standards of ethics in journalism as they relate to principles of “detachment” and avoidance of partiality when dealing with matters involving personal relationships or friendships with various newsmakers, such principles do not appear to have met here. It would be difficult to argue by any standard that the committee has been treated fairly and respectfully. When the committee issued two brief public statements, in each instance, The Sun’s editors provided readers with only excerpts. By contrast, when counsel for the superintendent issued public statements, they were printed in full. Moreover, when the committee issued its public statements, both the superintendent and her counsel were contacted for comment prior to publication. Again, by contrast, neither the committee nor its counsel (with one minor exception) were ever provided with such an opportunity.
Perhaps the most disturbing instance of disparate treatment has been The Sun’s efforts in perpetuating a position favorable to the superintendent, which it knows to be false: the timing and circumstances surrounding the release of the superintendent’s public message. Unbeknownst, at the time, to committee members, the superintendent and her counsel met with Sun staff members on the morning of Jan. 18, 2011. During that meeting, the superintendent and her counsel relayed her reasons for ending negotiations as later set forth in her “public message.” Despite statements by the superintendent’s counsel to the contrary, committee members learned of the superintendent’s public message after the press — a fact that The Sun has been well aware of throughout the coverage on this story. Such actions stray far from the scrupulous practices of disclosures or recusals readers should expect from their newspaper and its editors.
In the weeks ahead, the committee, along with the assistance of its blue-ribbon panel, will continue the serious work of selecting a new superintendent of schools. In recognition of the critical role our School Department plays in the lives of its students and the betterment it brings to our community, it is hopeful that the newspaper will support the committee in its efforts to move forward.
MAYOR JAMES L. MILINAZZO
0.000000
0.000000
