First-hand knowledge or not, this matter is now inconsequential. You have provided a plausible explanation. Had some of the other information you have provided in these exchanges been known previously, this would have been a non-issue. It does appear to me more likely that Mr. Martin emailed it to CSA, who faxed it to Tyus, but that doesn’t matter. It is plausible.

This, at least to me, remains a little “unclear”, but for the sake of expediency I will try to work around it. (I am sure that I have already taken too much of your time. I hope it will be worth it to all concerned in the end.)

Now I have to ask a favor of you. I have to ask you to forget for a short while, all of the exchanges we have made in this forum. I have to ask you to please go back and look at what transpired as many Middletonians saw it. I have to ask you to try to consider the events not as you know them, but within the framework of the only information which we had available to us. Whether that information was in fact or in error and regardless of whether it came directly from the BoE or from the media, it was what it was. Please try to remember both the chronology and the paucity of the information available to us, the general public. Then think about what you were asked to believe. Think about it not from your viewpoint, but from the viewpoint of those of us already skeptical (for whatever reasons and whether justified or unjustified) and possessing only dribs and drabs of information, some of which you, yourself, feel was misrepresented by the press.

I cannot speak for all who use this forum, although I know from one-on-one conversations that some saw things exactly as I did. Here is what I saw, and what I thought I was being asked to believe:

I was being asked to believe that a professional consultant, who specializes in the recruitment of educational professionals, gathered 80+ resumes from people interested in becoming the next superintendent of the MCSD, and that the consultant narrowed the applicants down to 30 qualified people who he felt were the best “fit” for the MCSD. This consultant then came to Middletown to present these applicants (on paper) to the BoE. Rev. Tyus, the other four BoE members, and possibly other District employees all gathered around the consultant and studied each of the thirty resumes, one-by-one. The BoE chose eight highly qualified applicants that they actually wanted to interview, based solely on these resumes that they studied as a group, gathered around the single copy of each that the consultant brought from Boston. The consultant said “OK!”, packed up all of the resumes, confiscated all of the notes taken by anyone present, and trotted back to Boston to arrange the interviews, all to be scheduled over one single weekend. As The Journal put it: “At its Nov. 21 meeting, the board claimed that the consultant's representative brought all information about approximately 30 applicants into the meeting in a box and then took all documents - including board members' notes! - with him.”

That is what we were told. That is the only information that was made available to us. That is what we were asked to believe.

Next, these eight ladies and gentlemen come to Middletown, and we guess that the consultant returns, too. That seemed only reasonable, didn’t it? And he must have brought with him the resumes of these eight applicants. To not have done so would be absurd, wouldn’t it? Especially since, according to The Journal: “Board members Monday night, Dec. 7 said they have not received from their consultant the names of the candidates they will interview” beginning in just four more days! That is what we were told. That is the only information that was made available to us. That is what we were asked to believe.

Then, on December 16, we read Rev. Tyus’s letter. His letter verifies some (granted, not all) of the information previously reported by The Journal, but refuted NONE! (What might a reasonable person infer from this? Remember, you are looking at this from the common citizen‘s point of view.)

Next, in January, finally armed with at least the names of the three finalists, concerned citizens go to work and find some connection between Rev. Tyus (the now former president of the BoE) and one of the finalists, Mr. Martin. Perhaps they even recall a couple of years back, when, as part of the Middletown Ministerial Alliance, he appeared before city council and demanded that the replacement for Kip Moore’s council seat be based with race as the primary criterion. Could it be only coincidence that Mr. Martin happened to be Afro-American and had prior dealings with Rev. Tyus, some people wondered. Then one of the three finalists, a local man, coincidently dropped out to accept a position that had been “drooped into his lap” about the same time the three finalists had been announced. And the other non-Afro-American candidate made the eight person short-list on the strength of a one-page resume! That is what we were told. That is the only information that was made available to us. That is what we were asked to believe. Is it possible for reasonable people aware of the way things work in Middletown to start thinking something seems “fishy”?

Suddenly, Mr. Martin drops out of the race “for the kids” (a phrase that many citizens feel was less than forthrightly used during levy campaigns).

It was at this point, Ms. Andrew, that I honestly did try to come up with any reasonable explanation for what had occurred that was upright, forthcoming, plausible, and did not involve at least one miracle, BASED ON: what we were told, the only information that was made available to us, and what we were asked to believe!

Simply stated, I could find none. I believe that if you will review the situation, through our eyes, considering only what we were told, armed only with the information that was available to us, you will likewise find none. What we were asked to believe was flat out unbelievable.

Please understand that I am not blaming you. I am not blaming anyone. I am asking you to simply understand. I realize that you have not been on the BoE forever. I realize that you were not the President when this started. I understand your situation. I ask you to understand ours.

You seem to be an intelligent, reasonable woman who is capable of logic. If I came to you and told you only what the general public was told, and the only information available to you was the information available to us, and you did due diligence, and I still asked you to believe it, I daresay you would be insulted. If you then expressed your opinion on the matter, and someone suggested that by expressing your opinions, based on mainstream information, was akin to spreading “rumors”, you would might be doubly insulted. But don’t worry about that. This is not about me, and my feelings aren’t easily hurt. The point I am trying to put forth is for you to see the public’s point, from their viewpoint!

If the public’s viewpoint is in error, that does not make it your fault, or even your responsibility to correct. But if the public’s viewpoint is in error, but is based on what they are told and the only information available to them, and they then reached a reasonable (but incorrect) conclusion, it is NOT the fault of the public!

You were privy to the exact same information as the public. It appears, at least to me, that the BoE expected the public to process that information (some of which was confirmed and none of which was called to doubt by Rev. Tyus’s letter), to believe it, and to reach some irrational conclusions. You were also privy to additional information. You may have known that the conclusions actually were not irrational, but the public could not know that.

Let me put forth a few opinions. You don’t have to agree--we are all entitled to our own opinions. These opinions might also include some interpretations of the law with which you disagree. That’s fine, too. Reasonable people often disagree.

Starting at the beginning, first let me agree. Using a consultant is one of many perfectly acceptable ways to find a superintendent (or any other employee). Some may say that it is not the best way, but that is opinion and there is never any way to foretell which is “best”.  All methods sometimes yield a good result, and sometimes a poor result.

I believe that the BoE erred in their method of meeting with the consultant, and with the applicants. It is my opinion that ANYTIME a public body has a “prearranged discussion of public business by a majority of its members”, that is a public meeting of that body. I believe that the BoE should have scheduled single-purpose special meetings; notified the public of each of them; stated in the notification that upon opening the meeting, the board would go into executive session and that upon ending the executive session, the meeting would be adjourned; and stated the ONE (not a “laundry list” as city council does) allowable subject--e. g. the employment of a public employee--for going into executive session. The names of any candidates need not be included. I believe that individual notes taken during executive sessions are not part of the public record. Strictly speaking, applications and resumes may be, but you say that the BoE never kept any of those anyway.  I don’t know that for certain. I’ve heard that you are an attorney. It should be a simple matter to look it up. The TRUTH is always your friend. If it had been handled this way, wiseacres like me would be defending public bodies, saying that they are acting properly, rather than railing about the misuse of the public trust.

Actually, I will plead guilty here. I did, indeed, notice the quotes and took the phrase as you say it was intended at first. My apologies.

I can’t speak for the entire member list regarding hostility. As for myself, I generally try to do unto others as they do to me. That being said, please remember that at least half this city is boiling over with frustration, and has been for some time. Most of the regulars here really do have a good sense of humor, but it oftentimes seems FROM OUR VIEWPOINT, that that there is unnecessary roughness and piling on (to use football terms) from the “enemy camp” . (Not on this board, but in their official capacities.)

Oftentimes other “occasional government posters” come here and have been either hostile or condescending, or have handed us “BS” that is insulting to expect us to believe. Some of them speak to us as if we were all grade school drop-outs who have never held a job or succeeded at anything in our lives. I assure you that this is not the case.

Let me again thank you for your time and interest, and in closing, let me assure that, at least with me, you will pretty much “get what you give” (bearing in mind that I am not perfect!)