|
To read MacIsaac's letter
to The Post Star, click
here
|
Truth and
Consequences
Since the last Heidcamp Report, I received a
telephone call from school board member Mike
MacIsaac. He complained that I had written that a
letter he had composed contained lies—and he
was angry about my use of the word "cowardly" in
the Report as well. He contends that he did not lie
and pretty much demanded that I retract my
statement about it.
I tried to explain that the information in his
original draft clearly contained false statements
and if the entire board had signed that letter as
written (and each member was slated to sign
individually) and then published it, it certainly
would have constituted an untruthful statement. As
such, each would have been implicated as culpable.
As I’ve been told, that was the reason certain
board members (including then vice-president Mike
Brennan) refused to sign it. In fact, during a
telephone conversation with me, Brennan confirmed
that "certain language" had indeed been omitted
from the original draft before being signed.
Although MacIsaac had claimed in a Letter to the
Editor that he had personally reviewed Rhau’s
expenditures, the board as a whole had not. For the
board to have signed a letter declaring that they
had looked into the claims and found no wrongdoing
before even having investigated or reviewed all the
facts, would be absolutely untrue. But then,
perhaps MacIsaac’s conception of what
constitutes a lie or a false statement is different
from that of the rest of us. Actually, as you will
undoubtedly recall, Brennan wholeheartedly agreed
that the information that had been made public
about Rhau was factual. He also indicated his
displeasure about some of what had happened and
assured me that "down the road" he wants to do an
investigation about the allegations against Rhau
but that I would have to "have patience." Of
course, as far as I know, they haven’t
investigated any allegations yet. In fact, at this
time, more than 84-days after an "official"
request, the board has yet to give me any kind of
answer.
I explained to MacIsaac that I believe
everything I’ve written to be true and
factual, and that I have copies of both the
original and revised drafts of the subject letter
to back me up. He then insisted that I reveal who
had given them to me, but I dismissed the demand,
stating that it doesn’t matter who gave them
to me, what matters is whether or not it is true.
He refused to respond.
Let’s face it, if MacIsaac’s claim
that he did not lie is true, then, why didn’t
the board sign the original draft as written, and
why then was certain language omitted before they
would sign it? It seems obvious–at least to
me–that MacIsaac made a patently false
statement in his letter; that is why the board
refused to sign it; and that is precisely why the
statement was dropped in the final draft. So far,
MacIsaac refuses to make the "original draft"
public, and that prevents the public from judging,
firsthand, whether the letter contained any false
statements. Of course, all of this would have been
avoided in the first place if these issues had been
discussed out in the open, where it belongs,
instead of in Executive Session, where it
doesn’t.
George D Heidcamp, Sr
10-12-06
|