Go to the homepage for the Sylva Herald and Ruralite

Ruralite Cafe: Published 3/02/00

By Lynn Hotaling



Solutions begin with taking responsibility

 By Lynn Hotaling Associate Editor
Maybe I missed something in the very long statement issued by the school board Monday. If you find it, please let me know.

Surely in all those words there's the part where the board members acknowledge that, in the end, they are responsible for their decisions, and that this valedictorian thing is not anyone else's fault.

Somewhere in all those sentences must be the ones where school board members accept culpability for the controversy they set into motion when they struck their secret December deal that eliminated both a valedictorian and salutatorian from this year's Smoky Mountain graduation.

There those words are again. Secret deal. The board's statement takes issue with them. But they're just words, and we don't need to quibble over semantics when real issues need to be faced.

I doubt they'd be any happier if we'd used "confidential contract" or "under-the-table agreement." We could have said "illegal action," which is what voting on the elimination of commencement honors in closed session was, in the opinion of our attorney.

I'm reading that very lengthy statement again. And I'm still not finding that admission of ultimate responsibility. So far it's been SMHS Principal Ken Henke's fault for providing false information that none of them - not even Superintendent Frank Burrell, who has handed out diplomas for two years now or board member Ray Trine who has seen two of his daughters graduate in the last six years - questioned. We checked those commencement programs and found that every ceremony since 1994 has come complete with speeches by a designated valedictorian and a salutatorian.

In the course of the really long statement this newspaper is accused of "giving out a story" and maligned for the secret deal thing. Over on page 3 it is implied that the people are partially to blame for not attending meetings when given an opportunity to do so.

I've made it all the way to the end of the statement now, and it's just not there. Board members admit regret at being misled, express concern for the situation, reaffirm their commitment to honoring deserving students at graduation, tell us how they don't get paid (not true - the chairman gets $150 per month plus $20 per special meeting and the others get $100 per month plus $20 per special meeting), say they're not perfect people and wish this year's class a swell graduation.

But they don't say, "We blew it. We didn't check our facts, we messed up, we're really sorry about it, and we'll try to do better next time."

Tuesday morning on the radio, it became The Sylva Herald's fault for printing the information. What did they expect? We're a newspaper; it was news. It would be a disservice to our readers if we avoid publishing the facts as we know them.

Apparently, school board members don't get it. It's not personal. Our job is to be the community's watchdog, and we take that responsibility very seriously. While the school board might wish for more public participation, we here at the paper take it as a great compliment that people trust us to be their eyes and ears at public meetings.

We backed this current school board from day one. We wrote an editorial welcoming them. We praised them again in December after they finally buried the hatchet with county commissioners so school improvements could proceed. We waited and hoped for the good things that were bound to come when a majority of the school board actually had school-age children.

But this board took a detour and went about business even worse than usual, as witnessed by this latest furor. It's up to board members to question and evaluate all information provided to them. In the end, it's their job to know. As one caller asked, "Haven't they been to graduation?"

We never said board members should violate confidentiality laws. We only said they incorrectly made a graduation decision - whether or not to have a valedictorian and salutatorian - in closed session. No names needed to be attached to these honorary positions during discussion and voting. Who knows? Had that decision been made openly, someone present might have remembered valedictorians and salutatorians at recent SMHS graduations and saved everyone a lot of heartache.

We have rarely had a news story that engendered such a groundswell of community response. Two weeks ago it was 50 to 1 in favor of the paper. With regard to comments, email and letters received, it's now at least triple that. Add in our very unofficial online poll, and it's about 250 to 2 against the school board decision.

Accepting ultimate responsibility without casting about for someone else to blame could be this board's first step on what will be a long journey to restore the public's trust.

Only then can board members truly set about doing what's best for the children.

Back to School officials upset . . .

Back to Archive: 03/02/00.