Return to the Schools Crisis page.

Go to Washington World Section

Go to Home Page

Don Reeves' Statement

On Wednesday, July 2, 1997 the board of trustees, under the direction of its chair, Bruce MacLaury, took an action against me for presenting to the news media the names of the recently appointed personnel director and four leading candidates for the Chief Academic Officer position. This information was to be kept confidential. [See attachments] The action taken against me was also to be kept confidential.

I am revealing this information because:

1. My oath of office was for the citizens of the District of Columbia -- to faithfully represent their interests.

2. Bruce MacLaury presented a written document to the board of trustees censuring me. The board of trustees recently voted [6-2] not have a recorded record of its activities because such a record could be "discoverable." Minutes are either not taken or when taken are doctored to remove identities of speakers so that no one can be held accountable. Therefore, after consultation with lawyers, I am now objecting to a "discoverable record" being made by this board of trustees specifically aimed at harming me, the only elected person serving on the board.

3. There is no proof that my actions have harmed anything nor anyone, yet a record approved by 7 members of the board of trustees [one member absent, me voting not to censure me; 7-1] approves language that over reaches in its vagueness of the description of the breach and accuses me of specific harm which has not been proven. On its face I am being censured for not following an order from retired General Becton.

4. I did not honor the request for confidentiality because I regarded this information to be an inappropriate request of a public official. In the first instance, regarding the personnel officer, I was unaware of any competition for the position. In the instance of the Chief Academic Officer selection process, Mr. Julius Becton Jr. did not inform me that he was composing a screening panel to select candidates for this position until after he had composed the panel. He also did not advise me that he selected a school board member to serve on this panel, nor did the school board member advise me of her selection to this panel.

Further, the school board member failed to report on her activities on the screening panel. Both the appointed parent representative on the board of trustees as well as the appointed teacher representative failed to advise the community of the process. When I was advised that I would be interviewing the candidates for the Chief Academic Officer position, I was surprised to learn that no community input had taken place throughout the process and felt that it was detrimental to the community to continue a process that would simply present a selected individual. The Chief Academic Officer is supposed to become the Superintendent of Schools after Becton and the board of trustees leaves. I provided the names of the candidates solely for the public's benefit -- to give the public an opportunity to see and explore the candidates background and what they had to offer the District of Columbia. I did not reveal the names as an affront to Mr. Becton or the board of trustees. I believe that the schools are the public's business. It's my observation that the veil of secrecy maintained by Bruce MacLaury and others on the board of trustees is used to cover up more than ignorance of public school issues or to protect candidates who have not told their current employers that they are looking for a job with the school system.

5. I did not want to receive attribution for revealing the name of the candidates for Chief Academic Officer. However, I have accepted responsibility in light of being disclosed. At a meeting of the board of trustees on July 2, 1997, Bruce MacLaury, chair, presented a typed resolution of censure, that had already been discussed with members of the board of trustees. I was allowed to argue against the censure and presented the following points to avoid being censured:

a. It was inappropriate for Mr. Becton to make a request for confidentiality concerning candidates who could become the next Superintendent of Schools in the District of Columbia.

b. There have been numerous leaks from the board of trustees that have not resulted in any actions being taken against the known source (s) of these leaks. I am being singled out because I have challenged Becton and MacLaury.

c. There are no rules governing secrecy or penalties for breach in the by-laws or any laws governing the board of trustees -- notwithstanding my prior requests that such rules be expressly established if the trustees want to maintain this posture and mete out punishment for breaches.

d. The board of trustees have been dishonest with regard to my participation on the board in that it has: held meetings without notifying me of these meetings, publicized my absence from meetings which were missed because of my professorial duties, maligned my character to third parties -- specifically other board members to undermine my effectiveness both as school board President and as member of the board of trustees. Further, I have not been presented with all the documents distributed to other trustees and the trustees have engaged in making decisions without including me. One such instance was the unilateral diminution of the elected school board's budget.

Notwithstanding these efforts on my behalf, the board of trustees took a vote in a closed session to censure me. According to Bruce MacLaury, this was supposed to occur in public but he decided to keep it within the board of trustees. However, prior to attending this meeting, I was contacted by a board member and told that I was going to be censured at the meeting.

Since being censured, I have weighed my future situation on the board of trustees and elected school board. I refuse to be any less of a person than the one people voted into office.

Don Reeves