By Charles Loiacono     

The Scuttlebutt on Scapegoating

            There is a rumor floating around campus that’s not very pretty. I have heard it from several sources, but I have not sought confirmation from the person involved. If the rumor is true, it can only be described as scapegoating.

            I’ve thought long and hard about giving my opinion on an unconfirmed rumor that involves a personnel matter. The rumor could be false, or the victim might object to a public airing of the matter even if it were true.

            So why should I want to get involved with discussing a rumor? There are three good answers to that question: One, if true, a grave injustice is being done. Two, if true, the perpetrator of such an injustice should be called to task.  Three, if true, someone must put the lie to the alleged charge.

            Here is what I have been told:

A letter of reprimand was sent to a member of the administration, a copy of which was sent to every member of the Board of Trustees, holding that person responsible for losing the ELI case. If the rumor is true, that person has been made a scapegoat.

            Since I have no confirmation and since I have not seen the letter, I will not deal with the charge or the punishment that has been meted out. It seems the scapegoat has been accused, convicted by accusation, and sentenced. That’s the scuttlebutt.

            What I can do for the record is reveal the names of those truly responsible for the administration losing the ELI case. I can do that without involving myself in the rumor.

            Any understanding of the ELI debacle must begin with the administration’s decision to move ESL classes out of the college into adult education.

That decision rests in the hands of Jack Ostling and Sean Fanelli. The AFA filed a grievance. The grievance was settled by a Memorandum of Agreement negotiated by the Board of Trustees. It was undone when Fanelli and Ostling convinced the Board of Trustees to renege on the MOA. That set the stage for the ELI arbitration.

            John Gross, the administration’s attorney, argued the case before two separate arbitrators. He prepared several witnesses including Jack Ostling and Trustee John LeBoutillier. The witnesses gave extensive testimony. Gross prepared lengthy briefs and presented extensive documentation. In the end, his efforts were for naught because he misunderstood the meaning of the word jurisdiction.

            If one is in the marketplace for blame placing, the finger should point first at Fanelli and Ostling for the initial violation and then for convincing the trustees to violate the agreement they negotiated in the MOA. Then the finger should be pointed at Ostling and LeBoutillier as poor witnesses. Finally, the finger must be pointed at John Gross. He had the responsibility for arguing the case. He had ample opportunity to prepare. He was paid most handsomely for representing the administration and the Board of Trustees.

            To be sure, there is enough blame to go around. But to seek out a scapegoat to divert attention away from the actual players in this administrative disaster would be reprehensible if true. Indeed, if true, it would smack of the last resort of a scoundrel.

            Of course, the scuttlebutt may be just that—a scuttlebutt.