Chariho owes the Daigle family an apology (and answers to their questions)

On June 13th, the dad of a Chariho student marshaled the time and courage to bring his concern to the Chariho school committee. Mr. Daigle could not have imagined the effort to stifle his opportunity to speak. School Committee Chair, Catherine Guisti, tried to silence Mr. Daigle by rigorously enforcing the no-sign-up, no-speak policy that the school committee has outrageously enacted. The ham handed enforcement, confusion of two sign-up sheets, and determination of Mr. Daigle provided an opening for the school committee to hear the family’s concerns anyway.

And the concerns were horrifying: Compromising pictures of his son in the bathroom. Shared pictures on social media. Slowness in responding to the parents’ concerns. Failure to provide protection from the offender. Lack of ownership for the failures of the system.

But Mr. Daigle still had a meeting with the Superintendent scheduled. So, there was hope for some accountability. The school committee requested an executive session to review the incident; there was an additional school committee request to review all anti-bullying policies based on the lessons learned in executive session. So, there was some hope that the issue would receive some satisfactory resolution.

On July 11th, Mr. Daigle once again addressed the school committee. The meeting with the superintendent happened, but it did not seem to result in confidence that Chariho provides a safe environment where administration can quickly respond to parental concerns. Instead, the big takeaway seemed to be that the administration shifted all responsibility to a manager with the bus company. No review of the incident took place in executive session, so there was no way to intelligently adapt district policies.

On August 8th, Mr. Daigle, once again, made it clear that he was not satisfied with the outcome and he asked for an executive session to address the school committee. With amazing patience and self-control, he faced the dissembling, gas lighting, and obfuscation by the clerk and the superintendent. They used open meeting laws to confuse the situation by seeking perfectly crafted executive session agenda items. Mr. Daigle’s request could easily be accommodated by requesting a review of the investigation with the school committee. Alternatively, he could request a review of the superintendent’s performance related to the resolution of his concerns. The school committee has full responsibility for the performance of the superintendent and it is clearly within their purview.

Here are some questions that need to be answered:

• Was the original picture taken in the bathroom a violation of state law?
• If so, was the issue referred to the police?
• How quickly did the administration respond to the initial complaint?
• Did the response provide a reasonable amount of safety going forward?
• Did the review of the incident provide any insight for any beneficial reforms?
• How quickly was the superintendent notified?
• How would this issue be logged in the bullying metrics?
• How did the offender regain access to the victim?
• Was there a breakdown in procedures coordinating the care, custody, and control of both students involved?

Have we created a culture where the role of parents has been lost? The parents are not only the primary care-givers and teachers of their children, they are also the customers of the school district (and they are taxpayers too!). Because tuition is collected by a third-party (local, state, and federal governments), have we forgotten that the parents’ involvement is essential? Was there ever an apology? And once there is sincere contrition, do we have the strength of character to discuss and learn from each mistake? This is not a time for excuses. Every parent and taxpayer should be outraged with the way Mr. Daigle’s concerns were handled…or rather mishandled.

Clay Johnson

Richmond Resident