For the record … the truth
From the President and Vice President of CHCA operations
Having read false statements and baseless accusations
in the Local for several months, we feel it is our turn to speak. We have
been reluctant to enter the fray in the belief that the outrageous statements
of an angry few were transparently false and that they would, in time,
fade. Some board members were reluctant to say anything for fear of fueling
the acrimony. We regret that many of the biggest lies refuse to die, so
we intend here, at the beginning of this new year, to set the record straight
— and move on.
The CHCF “Deficit”
In a letter to the Local of Dec. 29, statements made about the Chestnut
Hill Community Association are alarmist fabrications. The facts:
For the first time this year, 100% of the money raised during the Fund
Drive was allocated to grant recipients — and only the money in
hand was allocated. This allowed our accountant to issue checks in the
full amount granted to an agency at the beginning of this fiscal year
— with the exception of those with services to be performed and
the Senior Center, paid $19,000 of a $22,000 grant, the remainder to be
paid later.
The CHCA leadership has never budgeted any money toward a building purchase
— much less $1.5 million. The proposed hiring of a development officer
at $90,000 a year would be contingent upon that officer’s earning
at least $90,000 in annual income, the project to be monitored on a monthly
basis for results. Both the building purchase and public relations project
are in the earliest stages of board discussion. No decisions have been
made, and indeed, no action may ever be taken.
At the end of last year’s fiscal year, there was a $30,000 shortfall
because of rental problems with properties. The mortgage on 8431 Germantown
Ave. was increased to cover the shortfall and the properties. This year’s
financial picture is not yet complete. We are all working toward a positive
end.
There is another rumor frequently sited that the association somehow
“lost” a $10,000 grant in the past year. This is another falsehood.
The money was never lost, but files badly kept for the past two years
meant that the documentation on the grant had to be reapplied for, so
that the money can be spent as specifically granted.
The Editor of the Local Was NOT Fired
On Oct. 18, three fellow staff members at the Local/Association suggested
to editor Jim Sturdivant that he revise or not run a planned editorial
in that week’s edition of the paper. Jim disagreed and won the argument.
His editorial was printed exactly as he wrote it (as was the case with
all of his editorials during his Local tenure. No one, not board members
or staff members, has ever substantively edited or “killed”
a Sturdivant editorial.) Yet on Oct. l9, Jim sent a letter of resignation
to Community Manager Betty Brady, copied it to all board members and to
many in the community at large. CHCA President Maxine Dornemann was told
of the resignation on that day and asked that he wait for a hour before
sending the letter to the board — the amount of time it would take
her to get to the office and speak with him. He did not wait.
The tone of Jim’s resignation letter is irreconcilably angry. He
implies that board leaders engaged in secret attempts to undermine the
paper’s editorial independence, that those staff members who questioned
his editorial were acting as board surrogates. He mentions his “feeling
of disgust that has been acute since the August publisher’s committee
meeting” but does not cite specifics.
No Verification
Jim Sturdivant could offer no proof, just suspicion of board malfeasance.
This is because the assumptions stated in his letter of resignation are
simply wrong. At no time before filing his resignation and leveling his
charges did he question the officers of the board or members of the publisher’s
committee about his fears for editorial policy. Had he done so, the board
would have reiterated its long held policy of editorial independence,
as did the entire board, unanimously, at the Oct. 27, 2005 meeting.
His very public letter broke the first rule of responsible journalism:
VERIFY your facts. Suspicions, assumptions and “feelings of disgust”
are not verification. Sadly surprised by Jim’s lack of journalistic
judgment, the board was forced to consider the possibility that he might
treat the underlying facts in future stories just as carelessly.
A Clean Break
Faced with Jim’s clearly irreconcilable stance, his anger and “disgust,”
the full board voted to grant Jim’s wish to be gone. In a contentious
resignation situation, this is commonplace, common sense business practice.
Jim was paid up to his proposed departure date and asked to leave. One
normally does not ask the person who threw the hand grenade into the building
to stick around to clean it up.
A Crisis Made Worse
Jim was well liked by many of his colleagues, and despite the board’s
official reassurance that editorial independence remained the rule, morale
plummeted, the paper’s employees bitterly divided. Still, somehow
they managed to get the paper out against difficult odds. We are grateful
beyond measure for their perseverance.
Unfortunately, a persistent obstacle in the way of the staff’s
efforts to do their work and mend their fences was, and still is, the
habit of the same minority of board members who have repeatedly challenged
all activities of the board’s elected leadership since the last
election to take up a kind of “vigil” at the Local offices,
some spending more than four hours a day there. Their presence has served
to distract, to encourage continued division and real anxiety, especially
among some female employees.
Sabotage
At the community meeting held to discuss Jim Sturdivant’s departure,
CHCA board and publisher’s committee member George Parry asked dissident
board members by name if they, or any of their fellows, had encouraged
any Local staffers to resign. His question was met with a resounding denial
from all.
In fact, the CHCA has in its possession on its computer hard drive a
number of e-mails to Jim Sturdivant from one of those dissident board
members who is also on the publisher’s committee. One message in
particular, dated Oct. 20, the day after Jim resigned, rejoices in and
congratulates him on his resignation, and further states that he (the
board member) has: “counseled him (Mike Mishak) to quit calmly,
no matter the financial discomfort, before he quits in a rage or they
beat him to it and fire him.” Although associate editor Mishak was
given full support and editorial control for the transition period following
Jim’s resignation, he nevertheless also resigned on Oct. 28, throwing
the Local into even more turmoil.
It is the right of any board member to question the policies of the board.
But to work to convince a young man to quit a job and forego a paycheck
he needs to make a political point for someone else is heartless on its
face. To try to convince him that he will be fired by those in charge
is, in this case certainly, an unspeakable lie. And for a board member
with fiduciary responsibility for the health of the paper to urge its
staffers to abandon it in crisis is not principled dissent. It is sabotage.
Reasoned Discourse?
The above illustrates the painful and destructive symbiosis that sometimes
occurs when CHCA board members’ political agendas are joined with
employee matters. The e-mail mentioned above is just one of a large number
of pieces by the same author, sent to editor Sturdivant and other members
of the board in which the writer engages in libel, insult, character assassination
and fantasy. For months this virulence has been matched by others in public
discourse as well, in the paper and at meetings. Baseless rumors have
been expanded upon until highly visible targets, like officers on the
board, are presented as evildoers whose every word and action is suspect.
It is a not a frank and free exchange of ideas but a game of bullies and
smear tactics.
Some Opinions Are More Equal than Others
In an atmosphere of suspicion and attack, ideas have no room to breathe.
A case in point:
In August of 2005 George Parry put an op-ed piece in the Local that suggested
the CHCA sell the Local, (A Divorce Long Overdue).
The essay was provocative, an open attempt to challenge and provoke thought.
It offered an analysis of some of the practical difficulties of the marriage.
The essay got no editorial response from Jim Sturdivant; two or three
pieces from opponents of the idea. But George’s idea was greeted
with more than reasoned debate on its merits.
It is fair to say that at the August publisher’s committee meeting,
members of that same handful of minority board members jumped on it like
inquisitors on a heretic. Some said that his suggestion that personal
attacks in the paper could drive volunteers away from service in the association
was irrelevant. Some said that his open essay was evidence of a covert
attempt to take control of the Local — a contradiction in terms.
Some said he had no right to his own independent inquiry into the practical
meaning of such an idea. His motives were attacked. Some implied that
he had no right to bring the idea up at all. He was, in short, attacked
for expressing an opinion.
So Who, Exactly, Gets to Speak Freely Around Here, Anyway?
The board of the association is charged with protecting and nurturing
the Local so that it can effectively serve our community. In fact, the
CHCA is not a “quasi- government” as some have claimed, but
a for-profit corporation chartered in the State of Delaware. The “for
profit” part states clearly that the paper is meant to be a business,
and therefore the CHCA board’s first responsibility is fiduciary,
i.e. ,business responsibility for the paper and the community it serves.
It’s not the most practical arrangement, oversight of the very
serious and time-sensitive business of newspaper publishing by a 50 member
all volunteer board — 50 individuals with 50 individual opinions
on just about everything, who in turn must attempt to represent the wishes
of some 3,000 association members — but it has worked for 50 years,
and we are committed to continuing.
The board has a political responsibility as well. It must do its best
to represent the community in all issues that affect it, and any honest
observer must admit that such an enterprise can be daunting. It requires
a finely tuned ear and very thick skin. It must be remembered, too that
only staff members at the Association and Local are salaried. Everyone
else gives his time for no reward except, perhaps, a sense that he has
served the community well.
Trust Lost, Time Lost
Perhaps the most important requirement for success in this venture, for
success in “nurturing a sense of community” that is the primary
charge of the CHCA charter, is our ability to speak to each other freely,
honestly and peacefully. For nearly this entire year, we have had to deal
at every turn, with those who impugn the motives and attack the character
of those with whom they do not agree.
In a volunteer organization like ours, efficiency is important. Even
the most dedicated volunteer should not be expected to waste hours dealing
with prolonged personal attacks and voracious, time-consuming nitpicking.
If such attacks continue, they will destroy free expression, and the enthusiasm
for community service on which we so vitally depend.
We certainly don’t claim perfection, but putting out the fires
at the Local and dealing with the manufactured conflicts of this year,
we’ve had little time to spend on the basics of our operations,
including fundraising. And we’ve had little time to deal with some
very interesting new ideas and old and new challenges as well, among them:
• The construction of an endowment fund to preserve our parks,
concerts, other community activities and resources and their sources of
income in perpetuity.
• A possible community partnership to protect the future of the
Water Tower Recreation Center.
• The viability of purchasing Hiram Lodge as a resource and meeting
place for Chestnut Hill.
• The myriad public safety, neighborhood relationship and development
questions that are part of our changing lives here.
So far, for all the enormous amounts of energy they have expended this
year on personal attack, conspiracy theory and condemnation, not one member
of the minority of dissidents on the board has offered a positive suggestion
or idea in answer to any of our community’s problems or needs. Instead,
they appear committed to creating and polishing the CHCA’s newly
minted reputation as the neighborhood fight club.
Chestnut Hill deserves better.
|
