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:
Once again said "local blogger" is full of contradictions:
These are posts from her, located on her blog regarding this issue:
Michelle A. Monte said...
... Despite rumors and conspiracies, I have not talked with any BOE about any personnel matters. ...
I did contact Mr. Becker and Mr. Schneider and was told by both that they could not even answer my questions except to say that "personnel issues are protected under confidentiality and cannot be discussed." I did not ask, as I know the law, but both made a point of stating that they would not reveal anything that was discussed during executive session. ...
Mon May 05, 07:45:00 PM
AND
Michelle A. Monte said...
As far as the rumor, I called them to ask if they COULD tell me if the rumors were true or not. ...
I understand the options available to the Superintendent and the BOE and I do not agree with the one they chose. Such is my perrogative. ...
I prefer to call it being held accountable. ...
Wed May 07, 05:50:00 AM
So, which is it?
A) She has not talked with any BOE about any personnel matter...
OR B) she called Mr. Schneider and Mr. Becker and asked them if they could tell her if the rumors were true. (Isnt' that talking with a BOE about a personnel matter?)
According to her post, both gentlemen told her "personnel issues are protected under confidentiality and cannot be discussed."
She then states she knows the law so she did not ask... See above where she says she asked...
Which is it? She asked she didn't? She never talked with any BOE about personnel matters or she called to ask but was told it wouldn't be discussed with her?
She knows the law so wouldn't ask or the board should have told the public?
Full of contradictions which is typical and facts? None. But then she doesn't appear to like to deal in facts, rumors are what gets a big ole TV station to call you.
I for one would not be jealous that I was not involved in baseless rumors, she should be ashamed, not proud, but such is the nature of some.
One question, how is it accountability to ask board members to break the law? Two board members have already told her, discussing the issue was against the law... but I guess she must have some special law she follows.
Thanks for reminding us of Mrs. Monte's contradictory nature.
On a related note, I see that in his usual manner, Kent Monte has crawled out of the woodwork to cry “abuse” and publish excuses and defenses for his and his wife’s recent actions surrounding the Ron Heilmann situation. It’s so funny how the Montes can say and/or publish whatever they want about people and contribute to the ongoing besmirching of someone’s character even when investigations prove otherwise, and that is perfectly acceptable in their book. Yet when others point out problems with their “logic” or even just take a differing position than they, they cry foul, particularly when those challengers are people they do not like.
Among the nonsense Kent Monte wrote on his wife’s blog is that "Certain blog administrators choose to bury their heads in the sand or look the other way. Maybe they are jealous that they were not contacted by media and want others to believe that we are making this crap up. Certainly a good way to divert attention away from the person accused of an inappropriate act with a child and onto a concerned citizen that had nothing to do with any of it."
Get over yourself, Kent. No one buried their head in the sand. Some of us are just smarter than others and can see when there’s not a story (especially if no one is willing to come forward and go on the record); likewise some of us are more respectful of the process involved in situations such as this. I’ll have more on the so-called jealousy comment later.
But it seems to me that Kent may have stepped even more over the line than his wife did with her rants. After all, in the first place we don’t know that the alleged student victim ever even existed. It’s entirely possible that the entire incident, including that it involved a student, was manufactured. Second, suppose for the sake of argument, said student does exist. Who, besides Kent Monte said it was a child? There are students who are of majority age, you know. Third, if the student does exist and was a minor, how would the Montes know this? Is information being spoon-fed to them by people connected to the investigation? Certainly that is a question on the lips and minds of more than just a few people in the community. And finally, if said student does exist and this incident actually took place why was it not reported by the victim or the victim’s family to the authorities such as the DA’s office? I mean, really. If you are the victim of a crime, you’re not going to call the acting city manager, city attorney or Common Council, are you? Wouldn’t you file a report with the authorities and insist that an investigation be done and the person be brought to justice? The approach taken by whoever initially contacted the lawyer’s office is suspect in and of itself.
Kent also poses the following question: “Shouldn't a case like this be handled by the District Attorney or some other level of law enforcement agency (typically the DOJ)?” Communication between he and his wife must have broken down somewhere along the way; or are they having trouble keeping their stories straight? Michelle Monte wrote in one of her postings that the DOJ was conducting an investigation. And she is the only person I’ve seen who’s made such a statement. So, which is it Montes? Is the DOJ involved or not? And if such a DOJ investigation is going on, where did you get your information since it doesn’t seem to have been reported anywhere else?
For anyone who may have missed her May 3 comment about a DOJ investigation, here it is verbatim...
“I know what the ABC affiliate was researching, but since it is still rumor, I am not posting it here. What is verified is that there is an ongoing DOJ investigation and more than one teacher was questioned in association with it. In addition, there has been more than one Executive Session that included a note on the agenda something regarding possible legal action. Anything else, at this time, is conjecture. Anyone who has verified information can feel free to post their input. Warning: anything that I consider slander or libelous will be edited to protect identities or rejected.”
If there is an ongoing DOJ investigation, I doubt the matter would be so quickly dropped by either the Oshkosh or Eau Claire school boards as being unfounded or baseless. Moreover, if it was being investigated by the Department of Justice, I can’t imagine a school district or its attorney proceeding with their own investigation. It seems to me it would be out of their hands at that point. Furthermore, Mrs. Monte’s comments should make every one of us bristle at the thought of her ever being elected to the school board and having to deal with confidential information as board members so frequently do. In my opinion, she has shown sheer recklessness and utter disregard for privacy and confidentiality in this matter, thereby making it wise and justified to question whether she would handle other confidential matters any differently if elected. It almost strikes me that this couple likes to present themselves to people as being "in the know." That is a dangerous attribute for someone privy to confidential matters, I think.
Kent also blogs about that it must be news if so many different media outlets are picking up the story. He seems to have forgotten that it hadn’t been news before this. It apparently only became “news” in either late April or early May when some busybody contacted the media in Eau Claire. But it should be pointed out that just because someone thinks something is news, doesn’t make it so. With regard to the stories themselves, most of them strike me as trying to set the record straight about a decent man needlessly attacked over unsubstantiated rumors. I think the real story here is that of a man who was falsely accused of something, whose alleged accuser nor anyone else connected with the alleged incident would go on the record with their “story” and that those decision-makers involved in the process are satisfied there is nothing more to this than idle gossip and rumor-mongering, perhaps by someone with an axe to grind with Heilmann. But clearly the Montes want to keep the story and rumors going, as evidenced by their ongoing blog postings. And Kent can protest all day long about how he and Michelle would like to know who called the attorney’s office and “started this mess” or who contacted the media. His words seem to want to give the impression that they are upset by the fact that someone “started this mess,” but their actions say something quite different.
Mr. Monte also writes: “One thing is for sure, they do like talking about us. Too bad the person that left the comment on another blog isn't very smart either. They probably co-wrote the "article" to begin with. Neither one of them can stand us and love to take every opportunity to show it. I say go ahead...” It’s clear he’s talking about me and Teresa Thiel in this last paragraph. Do I like talking about them? No. Do I even like them? No again, but I certainly don’t take every opportunity to show it, as Kent would like to believe. If I did I’d be writing about them practically every other day because they make it so easy to challenge them, even on the tiniest of matters. But when their behavior is outrageous and so many of their comments prove wrong, contradictory or hypocritical, it needs to be addressed. And I can assure Mr. Monte I don’t need anyone to co-write anything for me, though I’m sure he’d like to think I need someone to help me write just like he seems to think his wife and friends need him to be their mouthpiece as he so often is.
Finally, to address that comment about my so-called jealousy, let’s review what Kent said: “Maybe they are jealous that they were not contacted by media and want others to believe that we are making this crap up.” I work in the media and have far more connections around the country and even other parts of the world than both Montes put together could ever hope to have. And I certainly am not jealous because some TV reporter in Eau Claire, Wisc. or anywhere else contacted one or both of them, even though I can’t for the life of me figure out why. The Montes remind me of Shultz from the classic TV series “Hogan’s Heroes.” They “know nothing” about this situation, and even if they did, likely couldn’t reveal it without getting someone else in trouble.
Still, the Montes do crave media attention and love mentioning whenever they get some. Just read some of the comments on Michelle’s blog in particular. She even boasted somewhere recently how she was invited to participate in the Oshkosh Northwestern’s new web site format/blog. Never mind the fact that that same email invitation went out to dozens of people, including yours truly. Jealous? Not a chance. But I do enjoy the comedic relief that comes from watching two people who so obviously want to be in positions of power or knowledge that they fall all over themselves to let everyone know they’ve gotten a nano-second of attention from someone. What’s even funnier is that, as was pointed out by another blogger, Mrs. Monte's "knowledge" of this incident was so insignificant that no Eau Claire media reports I saw ever mentioned her name or referenced her blog. But since she believes some in Eau Claire, including the media, are so enamored with her, maybe she should move there and run for school board. Quite frankly, her chances of getting elected might be better in a community where so many people don’t already have her number.
Post a Comment
<< Home