Heilmann hoopla a disgrace; participants shameful and embarrassing
By now anyone who has read, seen or listened to the news, is aware that earlier this year Oshkosh Area School District Superintendent Ron Heilmann was the subject of an investigation. That investigation was conducted after an anonymous tip was given to the school district’s law firm. I am not going to further damage this man’s reputation as some have seen fit to do by repeating what the allegation was, but suffice it to say, at the conclusion of the investigation it was determined there was nothing to the so-called tip and the school board put the issue to rest. Furthermore, I’m told that because it was a personnel matter taken up in closed session, specifics of that investigation were unable, under the law, to be discussed by board members or revealed to the public or media.
In the last week or so, the rumor mill has been working overtime, seemingly having started in Eau Claire – not so coincidentally the location of Heilmann’s new job beginning next month – and then reverting back here, I suspect by design. Such an uproar this gossip and unsubstantiated innuendo started that Heilmann made an emergency trip to Eau Claire yesterday to talk to the school board there and conduct a press conference afterward. Bottom line: The Eau Claire school board is satisfied that there is nothing to these rumors and Heilmann’s job offer there remains intact. One could say: All’s well that ends well, but that’s hardly the case. This “story” has problems far beyond its original allegations and they have to do, in my opinion, with busybodies who are apparently filled with such contempt and hatred toward a man who has done nothing to them that they have to blog about it and call his character – and that of the school board for not disclosing the matter to the public – into question. One of those who’s done a lot of blogging about it is a three-time school board candidate whose “facts” frequently have mud on them and whose motives I most always find questionable at best, and despicable at worst. But she is not alone in this particular flurry of busybody activity.
First, one should ask themselves this question: How many people in the general public with only an average interest in school district matters would really know who the district’s law firm is to give a “tip” to them? It seems that only those connected to the district in one way or another, or those paying very close attention for some reason would know that. I also wonder if the same person who tipped off the local law firm also tipped off the Eau Claire media. It makes me more than just a little suspicious about the motives of such individuals.
Next, I have to question some of the Eau Claire media for its coverage of this situation. Most of what I saw provided no quotes from anyone with any first-hand knowledge of the investigation at all. They took the approach that the school board was concerned because it didn’t know about the investigation. But if there was nothing to it, what was there for them to know? And why have something unfounded or unsubstantiated clouding other issues of importance?
Another curious observation: The three-time school board candidate says the Eau Claire media contacted her. I doubt the media contacted her in quite the way she says it happened; there’s probably more to the story than we know. But that is really irrelevant when compared to why the media would bother calling her anyway. She claims it’s because of her blog. So what? She hadn’t blogged about this issue before; she did not serve on the school board at the time the alleged incident took place; she did not serve on the school board when the investigation was conducted; she does not serve on the school board now (and with any luck, she never will). So what credible information could she possibly have to offer any responsible news organization?
Then she uses her blog to post items which call Heilmann’s character into question by writing, the following, among other things: “Some people, myself included, who heard the rumors questioned if they should be concerned about their own children and questioned Dr. Heilmann's character.”
Why the concern? If there had been something inappropriate going on, I feel certain Heilmann would have been disciplined. And if it rose to the level of something criminal, he would have been charged. Even if some would be inclined to cover up criminal activity, as some may suggest, others in the community would push for charges being filed. After all, look how much they carried on when there was nothing to the gossip and rumors. And it’s interesting that the Eau Claire school district’s “exoneration” of Dr. Heilmann after speaking with him satisfies some people, but an actual investigation conducted by people in his own district or community didn’t. That shows nothing more than bias on some people’s parts.
The school board member wannabe also writes: “Some on the BOE thought keeping silent would save Dr. Heilmann suspicion and embarrassment. Keeping silent also allows rumors to spread and grow if left on their own with no comment from those with the answers. In this instance, the secret OASD investigation that was to save Dr. Heilmann humiliation, caused suspicion and almost cost him his job.”
What makes her think anyone on the BOE thought keeping silent would save him suspicion and embarrassment? Does she have proof of that? Or is it just that some are more inclined to respect confidentiality laws than others? And here’s a newsflash: The investigation was completed in March; this is now May. There didn’t seem to be any rumors spreading until a few things started showing up on blogs. She even says the Eau Claire media contacted her “because of” her blog and goes on to say: “I can also show you emails from people in Eau Claire who state that they contacted me because they googled Heilmann and found my blog. They contacted me despite nothing appearing about an OASD investigation, any rumors, or any other type of investigate on my blog.” If that last sentence is true, then again, why would they bother calling? Math was never my strong suit, but even I can see that some things just don’t add up. Furthermore, there didn’t seem to be humiliation nor did Heilmann’s new job seem to be in jeopardy until the rumor mill and tabloid blogging started. It seems to me that the most embarrassing stuff and damage was done by busybodies and wannabes, not by a board following the law about executive sessions and personnel matters.
Jonathan Krause has blogged about this issue as well, and you can find his very reasonable explanation for why this was probably not covered by the Oshkosh media here.
In closing, in her most recent rant, the three-time board candidate and local blogger offers this “advice” to the school board, just in case similar situations occur in the future: “Most certainly do what you need to do, but realize that there is a way to communicate with your community what did or did not happen without humiliating either accuser or accused and without violating confidentiality and Executive Session laws.” Wow, I wonder how she would meet all those conditions. At the end of the day, school board members usually can’t say anything about such matters, and even if they can say just a little, it will only be enough to whet someone’s whistle and people like her will still scream there’s a cover-up and they need to know more. I don’t believe people like that will ever be satisfied, unless they can destroy those they abhor for one reason or another.
In the last week or so, the rumor mill has been working overtime, seemingly having started in Eau Claire – not so coincidentally the location of Heilmann’s new job beginning next month – and then reverting back here, I suspect by design. Such an uproar this gossip and unsubstantiated innuendo started that Heilmann made an emergency trip to Eau Claire yesterday to talk to the school board there and conduct a press conference afterward. Bottom line: The Eau Claire school board is satisfied that there is nothing to these rumors and Heilmann’s job offer there remains intact. One could say: All’s well that ends well, but that’s hardly the case. This “story” has problems far beyond its original allegations and they have to do, in my opinion, with busybodies who are apparently filled with such contempt and hatred toward a man who has done nothing to them that they have to blog about it and call his character – and that of the school board for not disclosing the matter to the public – into question. One of those who’s done a lot of blogging about it is a three-time school board candidate whose “facts” frequently have mud on them and whose motives I most always find questionable at best, and despicable at worst. But she is not alone in this particular flurry of busybody activity.
First, one should ask themselves this question: How many people in the general public with only an average interest in school district matters would really know who the district’s law firm is to give a “tip” to them? It seems that only those connected to the district in one way or another, or those paying very close attention for some reason would know that. I also wonder if the same person who tipped off the local law firm also tipped off the Eau Claire media. It makes me more than just a little suspicious about the motives of such individuals.
Next, I have to question some of the Eau Claire media for its coverage of this situation. Most of what I saw provided no quotes from anyone with any first-hand knowledge of the investigation at all. They took the approach that the school board was concerned because it didn’t know about the investigation. But if there was nothing to it, what was there for them to know? And why have something unfounded or unsubstantiated clouding other issues of importance?
Another curious observation: The three-time school board candidate says the Eau Claire media contacted her. I doubt the media contacted her in quite the way she says it happened; there’s probably more to the story than we know. But that is really irrelevant when compared to why the media would bother calling her anyway. She claims it’s because of her blog. So what? She hadn’t blogged about this issue before; she did not serve on the school board at the time the alleged incident took place; she did not serve on the school board when the investigation was conducted; she does not serve on the school board now (and with any luck, she never will). So what credible information could she possibly have to offer any responsible news organization?
Then she uses her blog to post items which call Heilmann’s character into question by writing, the following, among other things: “Some people, myself included, who heard the rumors questioned if they should be concerned about their own children and questioned Dr. Heilmann's character.”
Why the concern? If there had been something inappropriate going on, I feel certain Heilmann would have been disciplined. And if it rose to the level of something criminal, he would have been charged. Even if some would be inclined to cover up criminal activity, as some may suggest, others in the community would push for charges being filed. After all, look how much they carried on when there was nothing to the gossip and rumors. And it’s interesting that the Eau Claire school district’s “exoneration” of Dr. Heilmann after speaking with him satisfies some people, but an actual investigation conducted by people in his own district or community didn’t. That shows nothing more than bias on some people’s parts.
The school board member wannabe also writes: “Some on the BOE thought keeping silent would save Dr. Heilmann suspicion and embarrassment. Keeping silent also allows rumors to spread and grow if left on their own with no comment from those with the answers. In this instance, the secret OASD investigation that was to save Dr. Heilmann humiliation, caused suspicion and almost cost him his job.”
What makes her think anyone on the BOE thought keeping silent would save him suspicion and embarrassment? Does she have proof of that? Or is it just that some are more inclined to respect confidentiality laws than others? And here’s a newsflash: The investigation was completed in March; this is now May. There didn’t seem to be any rumors spreading until a few things started showing up on blogs. She even says the Eau Claire media contacted her “because of” her blog and goes on to say: “I can also show you emails from people in Eau Claire who state that they contacted me because they googled Heilmann and found my blog. They contacted me despite nothing appearing about an OASD investigation, any rumors, or any other type of investigate on my blog.” If that last sentence is true, then again, why would they bother calling? Math was never my strong suit, but even I can see that some things just don’t add up. Furthermore, there didn’t seem to be humiliation nor did Heilmann’s new job seem to be in jeopardy until the rumor mill and tabloid blogging started. It seems to me that the most embarrassing stuff and damage was done by busybodies and wannabes, not by a board following the law about executive sessions and personnel matters.
Jonathan Krause has blogged about this issue as well, and you can find his very reasonable explanation for why this was probably not covered by the Oshkosh media here.
In closing, in her most recent rant, the three-time board candidate and local blogger offers this “advice” to the school board, just in case similar situations occur in the future: “Most certainly do what you need to do, but realize that there is a way to communicate with your community what did or did not happen without humiliating either accuser or accused and without violating confidentiality and Executive Session laws.” Wow, I wonder how she would meet all those conditions. At the end of the day, school board members usually can’t say anything about such matters, and even if they can say just a little, it will only be enough to whet someone’s whistle and people like her will still scream there’s a cover-up and they need to know more. I don’t believe people like that will ever be satisfied, unless they can destroy those they abhor for one reason or another.
posted by Cheryl Hentz at 12:26 PM
2 comments
