Jonathan Dame and the TAB have obtained a less-redacted version of an outside investigator’s report of anti-Semitic graffiti incidents at Day Middle School.
Review the less redacted report here. Review the initial release of the report here.
Less-redacted report fills in some gaps about anti-Semitic incidents at Day Middle School
by Greg Reibman | Jan 23, 2017 | School Committee, Schools | 11 comments
Here’s something that struck me as ridiculous in Dame’s article:
Some School Committee members “couldn’t remember” if they read it?
For real?
I’m curious why school committee members would choose not to request it, given the seriousness of this incident and the fact that the School Department has been at odds with the city’s lawyers, mayor and state on this.
But it’s outrageous that one of more members would say they “couldn’t remember.” I hope Dame will publish a list of which of these members or member told him that.
“I didn’t inhale”.
So Turner was given a new job and it doesn’t seem like any action was taken for Turner, Harding, and Bono lying to the police. And most of the School Committee either didn’t ask to see the unredacted report or can’t remember seeing it?!
Time to vote the lot of them out (can’t believe I’m channeling Mike Striar!)
Forgot to add, I see no justification of paying an outside law firm to handle this request when the City of Newton has competent attorneys on city payroll. IMO, if the School Committee members are so anxious to use outside counsel, they should have to pay for it themselves unless they can provide compelling reasons why they had to go private.
Jonathan Dame has revealed who the School Committee member with amnesia is on Twitter and says he’s updated the story.
If the issue was so serious why wasn’t Principal Turner Fired rather than Promoted.
Move on folks – nothing to see here. Just costing the taxpayers more money.
Greg, I was wondering the same thing. The current School Committee doesn’t come away looking good. Can’t remember reading the Report? Are you serious? Time for a new group of School Committee Members to be elected.
I know people generally don’t like confrontational politics in Newton. But there’s a darn good reason I constantly refer to this School Committee as a group of pathetic losers. I know it’s a bit off topic, but I hope parents will remember that this SC’s inaction continues to jeopardize the well being of 3000 high school teens everyday by ignoring the health issues associated with early morning start times. These are the same folks who continue to send another group of teens to school in an old tin building called “The Shed.” Same folks who deliberately misled us all about the extent of lead in our schools drinking water. The term “pathetic losers” really doesn’t do them justice.
I thought “the shed” was closed? No?
If the shed has been closed, I apologize for that specific comment. The last news I read regarding the shed was here on V14, when the SC sought approval from the CC to make modifications as the school year approached.
Greg,
Last year I learned the facts of what happened at Day – anti-Semitic words and symbols where observed on multiple occasions in and around the school. Contrary to established policy the principal did not elevate this outside of Day by reporting them to the police or to NPS central staff; he later acknowledged a serious error in judgment and apologized to the community. An outside investigator was engaged by the City to review the details and ultimately reaffirmed the necessity of following our policies, procedures, and laws regarding discrimination, harassment, intolerance, and possible hate crimes. I was upset about what happened at Day and I wholeheartedly agree with the investigator.
When the investigator’s report was released and there were requests to make it public, our outside legal counsel (MBJ) determined that much of the report had information that constituted protected personnel records and that it should remain private. As a board the School Committee assigns responsibility to deal with private personnel matters to the Superintendent and his staff. Regardless our SC leadership saw the full report and did not identify any material that our committee needed to see outside of the unredacted material; I was quite comfortable deferring to their judgment as I respected the privacy concerns.
Incidentally, we routinely consult with both inside and outside counsel, and the reasoning is the same as why someone may confer with two different doctors – even if both are excellent they may draw on different bodies of experience.
And I think your suggestion that “…the School Department has been at odds with the city’s lawyers, mayor and state on this…” overstates the dynamic – as I noted on another thread, the state agrees with MBJ that much of the report is essentially protected personnel records. But sorting out what specific content deserves protection is not rote and is subject to interpretation. MBJ and the State are essentially working this through via the findings/response process.