Dear Editor,
Unfortunately, as I can judge by the tenor of the Letters to the Editor concerning the resignation of Superintendent Clamp, some citizens, based on their “assumptions,” are beginning to stoke the fires of a witch hunt in Williston. It appears that the stakes are to be placed, the wood ignited and the innocents burned on Election Day. Sadly, assumptions, or a play on assumptions, are difficult to overcome once the seed had been planted and nourished by their progenitors. In regards to the latter, no one knew this any better than Joseph Goebbels.
However, putting assumptions aside, I must say that it has been my experience over many years in education, that whenever a school board considers a mid-year dismissal of an employee, no matter the employee’s position, the decisions is made with just cause. I know of no cases when mid-year dismissals were undertaken simply to make a change or simply for the sake of “change,” or to satisfy a board member’s “political agenda.” I would add that the latter...a board member’s political agenda... is a preposterous suggestion to say the least.
Further, for one to simply assume that all members of a board would or must agree with dismissals are being considered...or else there is surely no basis for dismissal...is, just as stated, purely no more than an uninformed assumption.
In smaller school districts, quite often, when unanimous agreement is not forthcoming when a difficult decision must be made, some that refuse to support the majority are often bound through friendship and loyalty to the individual facing discharge; and unfortunately, some would even shirk their duties as trustees by demonstrating a willingness to turn a deaf ear to the charges that may have been leveled against the employee in question. In any case, simply refusing to side in favor of a call for an employee’s dismissal (no matter one’s judgement), gives a naysayer the cover of innocence; and, the political power to wage war on his colleagues in the aftermath of a board’s action.
I would offer, as a relevant point for my argument above, while Joe Paterno, at Penn State, was not a member of a governing board, he was a member and the unofficial leader of the Athletic Department at the University of Pennsylvania and by his failure to act appropriately in the matter involving a friend and colleague, he chose to ignore the magnitude of the situation. Obviously, by his improper reaction to the evidence presented, the best interests of the education institution he represented were irrevocably damaged. Mr. Paterno chose to be loyal to his own interests, and to a friend. Unfortunately, this is frequently a problem in athletics, education, professional organizations, and government. In public education, this is indeed a problem that surfaces more often than most outside the loop would even begin to understand.
On the issue of the Superintendent’s resignation it should be remembered that matters involving discussions and actions that could concern a school district employee’s dismissal are usually dealt with in executive session. Any member of the general public, having first hand unbiased information on the matter, could only have come by that information clandestinely since board members are bound by law to refrain from discussion matters dealt with and actions taken while the board is in executive session. Barring the access to clandestine information, any negative action by the general public...directed against any member of the school board...could only be based upon unverified assumptions.
Finally, I would bring to the reader’s attention that board member, Calvin Melton...when commenting to The People-Sentinel some time ago (11/30/11)...indictated that when Superintendent Clamp tendered her resignation she had chose the best option available to her. Apparently, judging from Mr. Melton’s statement to the press, there were other options available to Superintendent Clamp...options that would not have required her to tender her resignation.
With the above in mind, I would encourage the citizens of Williston to give considerable thought to this issue before rushing to cast the first match upon the fire. Remember, our distant ancestors, basing their actions on assumptions prevalent at the time, hung several witches in the  town of Salem. Today we know that those assumptions were false, and the so-called “witches” were actually innocent of the changes leveled against them.
J. Oliver Gordon,
Williston