The city council’s “Executive Summary” of the investigative report on the Newburyport Public Library has drawn quick reactions both in print and in conversation around town. A few folks seem determined to discredit the report with claims that are plainly false, or which verge on a condition akin to Catch-22.
For example, they object that the NPL director, who resigned after less than a year in office, was ignored — a complaint made by Mayor Sean Reardon as soon as the summary was released.
Fact: She was invited but declined to be interviewed or to answer questions via phone or email. Does anyone honestly think that by refusing to answer questions, someone at the center of a controversy can render any investigation of it “invalid” or “inconclusive”?
Also, detractors of the report complain that it included just 11 interviews, and that it is skewed because the volunteers dominated the interviews.
Fact: The mayor’s replacement for the director who resigned, and the long-time director who preceded her, were among the 11 interviewees. As were the mayor and two of his staff, plus two ranking members of the NPL staff and one “Labor Counsel,” as she is labelled in the report.
That’s eight of the 11 who either sided with staffers or were, at best, neutral, leaving the archivist who was forced out, a historian who frequented the Archival Center, and exactly one volunteer.
Furthermore, the investigator exchanged emails with numerous staffers and volunteers. When she asked the staffers for evidence, they submitted emails they received from volunteers that merely asked questions or requested information. Then, according to the report, they called the requests repetitive, leaving out the fact that they didn’t answer the initial questions or requests—hence, the repetition.
Critics also object that the volunteers were “eager” to talk and had a lot to say while the staffers were reticent. Well, yes, it was the volunteers who sought the investigation to clear their names while the mayor and his top officers called it unnecessary.
Something topsy-turvy about this last objection: Where I come from, a willingness to answer questions indicates people who want to reveal the truth. Reluctance to do so is indicative of those who would rather it stay hidden.
Some, including the mayor, object to the $12,000 allocated for the investigation of defamation of character by city employees. There’s no bottom-line answer for a question that begs a counter-question: Just what is the price tag you put on your reputation?
Some staffers sent the investigator links of letters to the editor and op-ed columns that supported the volunteers and the Archival Center without any criticism of NPL staff. In a long paragraph soon after the timeline, you can almost hear the investigator’s amazement at having to explain that praise of someone does not constitute disrespect of someone else.
To be fair to those quick to discredit the report—and in at least one case to turn it into a finding against the volunteers—they haven’t seen the full document. Without such a foundation, any house is a house of cards. Moreover, their complaints suggest that the report ignores what actually transpired that led to the volunteers being dismissed. Not only is that not true, but it distorts the original intent of the investigation.
An outside, independent investigator was assigned to determine how the dispute in the library was handled by City Hall. The 20+ page, small-font report—especially items 30 to 49 in the timeline—makes very clear reasons for the blame placed on the mayor, his former chief-of-staff, and the director of human resources.
Most comprehensively, it illustrates how City Hall’s “failure,” as it says in the conclusion, has allowed this “to drag out, in the arena of public opinion, at the expense of all involved, including the library staff…”
That last phrase may be surprising. May sound impossible. But if you cannot believe that the staffers themselves were harmed by the “action and inaction” of City Hall, you may want to go directly to item 34 in the timeline.
To do that, you need the full report. And given the lesson of discussing the report with those who have read just a summary, I’m ready and willing to send it to anyone who asks. If you would like to read the full 20+ page report, please email me at: hammlynn@gmail.com.