District communication with community lacking

Conflict and controversy are commonplace for those in power. Oftentimes, the defining aspect of conflict is not the event itself, but the responses from those in power. The Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD)  has faced its fair share of unfortunate events in the past year, and its response has consistently increased confusion, frustration and misinformation within the Palo Alto community.

For this reason, The Campanile thinks it is time our district learns to communicate in a transparent and effective way by being efficient and unified in times of crisis, such as sexual assault allegations, budget missteps, major resignations and other unforeseen events. As a student body and community, we can no longer continue to subsist on information comprised of an intermingling of contradictory statements and rumors. When we do, too much room is left for speculation, which results in a harshly-divided community.

Several instances in the recent past have called into question the administration’s ability to effectively lead. Former Superintendent Max McGee’s resignation has been shrouded in mystery and uncertainty and the handling of Paly’s student sexual assault allegations remains incredibly unclear, prompting some parents and community members to demand the resignation of Principal Kim Diorio and many community members to demand an increase of transparency.  A recently published report by an outside law firm on the handling of an alleged sexual assault incident at Paly last year points to a culture of communication that is inherently non-transparent. The so-called Cozen Report performed by the Cozen law firm affirmed that “based on training and practice, a common practice was to communicate by telephone or text message to avoid creating documentation that could potentially be publicly released.”

The report said there was a minimal effort to maintain centralized and consistent form documentation in cases involving possible violations of Title IX, a law intended to ban gender discrimination in schools. The incident shed light on the secretive conduct exhibited within inter-administration communication.

The Campanile spoke to Principal Kim Diorio, and it was clear  there was never malicious intent in administration’s preference for face-to-face meetings and text messaging. Regardless, matters which so heavily concern the public should be addressed in a publicly transparent method.

According to Diorio, both administrators and teachers are instructed in training sessions  to refrain from including sensitive information in emails, since these emails can later be released to the public.

The Campanile understands  this is a practice taught to administrators and teachers across the district.

“That was a part of our regular principal meetings, just to be careful about what was to be careful [with our emails],” Diorio said.

The Campanile thinks, though, if there had been an increased public understanding of the process required by each situation, it would have been easier for the public to make the most accurate assessment of the administration’s performance. In several instances, a more adequate practice of transparency could have led to better public understanding of the situation as well as better understanding of the administration’s response.

The deafening silence of the Paly administration after sexual assault allegations was a prime example of the district lacking communication and transparency, a pattern which continued after McGee’s resignation which had little to no explanation.

While it is likely the administration’s inclination towards face-to-face meetings, phone calls and text messages was without any malicious intent, it has created an inability to communicate with community members about pressing issues.

The Campanile acknowledges the administration’s efforts to address the given situations adequately, yet in order to be prepared for any unforeseen circumstances, we think increased transparency would help further the public’s understanding of pressing issues.

While many community members have jumped to conclusions about Principal Kim Diorio and other administrators, understanding the entirety of process would help validate or alter those conclusions. After all, we are all interested in the truth.

View Comments (4)
Donate to The Campanile
Our Goal

Your donation will support the student journalists of Palo Alto High School's newspaper

More to Discover
Donate to The Campanile
Our Goal

Comments (4)

All The Campanile Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • K

    Kathy JordanNov 11, 2017 at 2:55 pm

    Does the person delivering the message have anything to gain by how you choose to act on the information?

    This might be a good question Campanile staffers might want to ponder in the future.

  • K

    Kathy JordanNov 10, 2017 at 8:54 pm

    To the Campanile:
    regarding transparency –
    The Cozen final report says that Ms. Diorio and Ms. Kim never completed the site investigation regarding the Oct. 11, 2016 incident.

    The Cozen final report says that Ms. Diorio never came to a determination of what occurred in that incident, although sexual assault was alleged and EDC 48915 demands that a determination be made in the educational setting about what occurred.

    According to the Cozen final report, the perpetrator was disciplined for prior conduct toward the Oct. 11, 2016 victim, but not disciplined for the actual Oct. 11, 2016 incident itself.

    If sexual assault was attempted or committed in the incident, as determined by the principal, mandatory expulsion would have resulted. The principal never made a determination, according to the Cozen final report.

    According to the Cozen final report, Ms. Diorio and Ms. Kim created notes and records after the fact.

    According to the Cozen final report, after receiving notification from the juvenile justice department of the boy’s felony conviction for the same type of offense as was alleged in the Paly bathroom incident, Ms. Diorio and Ms. Kim did…nothing…..

    In my view, the Campanile has published what amounts to libel of the Oct. 11, 2016 victim by saying “The incident was subsequently deemed to be consensual.” This is untrue that anyone deemed it to be consensual and not what the victim alleged.

    According to the Cozen final report, Ms. Diorio never came to a determination of what occurred during the Oct. 11, 2016 incident.

    The juvenile records are sealed in the case. They are not public. And they are not relevant, as the standard of proof in a criminal case is different than what is required in the educational setting.

    According to the Revised Title IX Misconduct article, Ms. Diorio was the source of the information in the Campanile articles, which I contend is libelous.

  • K

    Kathy JordanNov 9, 2017 at 3:04 pm

    Thank you for your article in the latest edition of The Campanile.

    What Kim Diorio might have failed to mention was that any private or personal student information contained within school records and emails is redacted by the district’s legal team prior to being released to the public.

    There is no legitimate reason, legal or otherwise to not use PAUSD email as a method of communication even if it contains sensitive information. As the Cozen report states, that practice is used when one wants to avoid a lawsuit. It is NOT in the best interest of the students and serves to protect the administration and not the safety of the students. You are being misled if you believe that not using email was being done in the name of student privacy.

  • K

    Kathy JordanNov 9, 2017 at 2:56 pm

    Hi there:
    if you were interested in the truth, perhaps you might examine some statements more closely. Any sensitive information in District communications would always be redacted in any public records search. So there is no reason not to comply with the laws and keep appropriate and legally compliant documentation.

    And there is no excuse for not following the law and properly documenting all complaints received by District personnel from students.

    And perhaps a good question with regards to our interest in the truth would be to ask why Ms. Diorio and Ms Kim, according to the Cozen final report and with respect to the Oct. 11, 2016 incident’s handling, created personal notes and records after the fact and on their own personal devices.

    Wouldn’t that reflect on intent?