Will History Rhyme In Southbridge?

Ken O’Brien

Mark Twain observed, “History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme.”

I propose to put that observation to the test.

Last month an incident is alleged to have occurred at one of the Southbridge schools.

I will not discuss, nor allow speculation about, the nature of the incident in this forum.

The subject matter is too sensitive, the facts too obscure and the threat to personal reputations too severe for casual gossip.

Suffice it to say that the incident in question is undergoing proper review and will be adjudicated appropriately.

What I believe is a worthy topic for discussion is how the alleged incident was handled by the school administration, particularly in light of an analogous event in the recent past.

The handling of the supposed event is governed by the Code of Massachusetts Regulations (CMR).

Those Codes dictate that any "reasonable cause to believe" the kind of incident that has been alleged might have occurred require school authorities to report the allegation to designated authorities. The CMR in question is interpreted to designate a mere “suspicion” as “reasonable cause”.

However, the school administration did not follow this regulation. It chose to decide that the matter could be resolved “in house” in “a couple of days”.

Consequently, one of the parties involved took the matter to the local police. Our information is that the local police were not merely surprised that they were unaware of the allegation, but extremely upset as well that they were not informed.

The same complainant subsequently took the matter to higher authorities. As a result, what the Administration said would be resolved “in a couple of days” is still dragging on. Another individual is on “Paid Administrative Leave” with their career and reputation hanging in the balance. And, inevitably, the Southbridge rumor mill is conducting a trial in absentia based on innuendo and political bias.

What is, and should be, at issue here is the conduct of the School Administration.

This incident is a virtual mirror image of that which led to the firing of former SMHS Principal Tammy Perreault.

In December of 2012 The O’Zone reported as fact that Ms. Perreault had been put on leave as a result of failing to report an incident at the school as dictated by the CMR.

At that time The O’Zone was roundly criticized for spreading rumors, mostly by the same people who engage in the same unfounded allegations today. Five months later the “respectable” media, the Worcester Telegram, reported on May 4, 2013 in an article titled Controversial Southbridge principal reportedly fired, “Sources said Ms. Perreault's termination was the result of her handling of a student's alleged threat to shoot up the sixth grade in December.
Rather than immediately report the threat to authorities, which state law mandates, she allegedly opted to try to handle the threat as an in-school matter, the sources said.”

The supposed “rumors” that we reported to the public were vindicated as fact, just as we maintained in the face of those seeking to discredit us.

Similarly, now, The O’Zone is reporting a virtually identical case where the Administration has mis-handled the reporting of an alleged incident.

The nature of the incident or those involved is not a matter for the public. Those are matters that will be dealt with through an appropriate and well-defined process. Anyone who chooses to focus upon or emphasize that aspect of this situation are the petty rumor-mongers, fascinated by, and participants in, the politics of personal destruction.

The appropriate matter for public concern is whether the precedent of the past will apply in the present.

Will those who erred in the same way that Ms. Perreault did be held to the same level of accountability? Should they be held to an even higher standard given the recent nature of the penalty imposed on the former SMHS Principal? How high up the “chain of command” does the decision go to violate the clear mandate of the relevant CMR?

That last question is of special relevance. It would be all too easy to use the Principal of the school in question as the scapegoat. However, it is known that the matter was brought to the attention of Central Office administrators before the complainant brought the matter to the police and higher authorities. Those authorities had not been informed even while those higher up in the school department’s food chain were aware of the matter. The Superintendent is solely in charge of putting staff on immediate leave and should be held responsible for the decision to violate the clear mandate of the relevant CMR.  Any attempt to single out the lower level person is merely an effort to perpetuate a cover-up and exempt their superiors whose penchant for micro-management is well known.

Will history repeat itself, as it should? Will it even rhyme, as Twain suggested?

Or will we see clear evidence that justice is a not a function of what may or may not have been done, but who tried to cover up how it was handled?