Member of the reality-based community of progressive (not anonymous) Massachusetts blogs
While Gerry Nutter is taking the cautious route, others are more forthright in claiming that Supt. Mary Jo Santoro’s claims of “gender harrassment” are not genuine.
I, by training, am very ‘process oriented.’ Thus, I tend to favor Nutter’s suggested approach. However, I have noted that Santoro’s claim, gives her a legal action timeline that directly overlays on top of the period in which her potential new contract negotiations would play out. However, if I was to just play along with the more blunt voices out there in the bubble, I would point this out.
Santoro ‘tried to walk the tightrope’ on GL Tech probe disclosure
1/21/12 - Evan Lips,
“I tried to walk the tightrope regarding the right to privacy and the people’s need to know,” Santoro said in an interview at the school Wednesday. “I probably would have encouraged individuals on the School Committee to more aggressively speak to the chairman (Mike Lenzi).”
Santoro said she was advised by legal counsel to only disclose the information to Lenzi.
Not once did Santoro refer to the employee by name, citing laws governing personnel records. She acknowledged that the circumstances made it appear to the public that the school was purposely hiding the employee’s identity, but added that she would treat “any other employee in this building with the same respect.”
“The people who spent the last six months getting a name published may very possibly have ruined her life,” Santoro said. “Whoever you got that name from, I hope that person doesn’t have to deal with a liability problem.”
[powered by WordPress.]