The Vanguard reported on Sunday on a report from the Davis Enterprise that Davis High Principal Jacqui Moore told the paper she will not be returning as principal in the fall, citing “philosophical differences” between herself and the school board, but declining to elaborate further than that.
The Vanguard is now backing off that report. The Vanguard has learned that Jacqui Moore was sent an email that she interpreted to mean she had been terminated during last Thursday’s closed session.
However, that report now appears premature. It appears at this point that the board has not taken a formal vote on the matter. That the board will do on Thursday of this week, at which point in time, the board could very well vote to terminate the Davis High School Principal – however, at this point in time, that has not occurred.
The Vanguard not only had the information published in the Davis Enterprise directly quoting the principal, but also had a separate email from Ingrid Salim, a former DTA President, corroborating the story. Unfortunately, there was confusion in the email that Ms. Moore received that led to a faulty interpretation as to the timing of the dismissal.
A school board member told the Vanguard on Sunday that they cannot comment on this as it is a personnel matter. However, the district may publish a clarification of the process.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
This is unprofessional. Did she really believe that she would be fired by email? Then, rather than clarify, she goes to the media?
RK
[quote]This is unprofessional. Did she really believe that she would be fired by email? Then, rather than clarify, she goes to the media?[/quote]
At a time when many of us know personally people whose firing was accomplished by them showing up at work,
being told they were fired, given a very short time frame in which to collect their possessions and walked off the premises, I don’t think it is too far fetched to imagine that one might get one’s first notification by email.
However, my main point in writing is again to attempt to dissuade from making assumptions of someone being “unprofessional” based on such a paucity of information. Unless of course you know something we don’t ?
[quote]The Vanguard reported on Sunday on a report from the Davis Enterprise that Davis High Principal Jacqui Moore told the paper she will not be returning as principal in the fall, citing “philosophical differences” between herself and the school board, but declining to elaborate further than that. [/quote]
This sounds like she’s quitting her job, rather than having received an email that she interpreted as being fired. Once someone says publicly that they are leaving due to “philosophical differences,” how can she expect to stay, regardless of any vote by the Board? If she does stay, I would like to hear specifically what those differences are and how these differences are resolved.
“This sounds like she’s quitting her job”
No
This is one of the oddest retractions ever written. A “clarification”? “Backing off of that report”? “That report now appears premature”?
“Unfortunately, there was confusion in the email that Ms. Moore received that led to a faulty interpretation as to the timing of the dismissal.”
Such a short sentence to imply so much. What was the confusion? What does the letter say? Who was confused? Whose interpretation was faulty? Have you seen the letter in order to make the personal judgment that the email was “poorly worded,” as you reported.
The “unfortunate” thing here is that the Vanguard jumped to a conclusion based on speculation, a misinterpretation of the Enterprise story and Ms. Salim’s unverified, secondhand email claims and calls to public action. Blaming the school district’s email for this incorrect report is a stretch.
It’s understandable how the Vanguard could have made this mistake in an effort to do a story on a “Controversy Growing Over DHS Principal’s Dismissal.” After all, the principle was quoted as saying she wouldn’t be back as principal (but saying nothing about having been dismissed) and here comes Ms. Salim’s firebrand email obviously trying to gin up public controversy.
Still, it was obvious yesterday morning that there were problems with this report and in the allegations that Dr. Moore had been dismissed–since the school board hadn’t even met. Today, a simple “sorry, we got it wrong” would have been the more professional approach.
[quote]Today, a simple “sorry, we got it wrong” would have been the more professional approach. [/quote]
Maybe but I don’t think that would be accurate. It appears it will happen on Thursday, it just didn’t happen yet. Hence the report was premature.
Moreover, we attempted to report what we know at this time.
I feel like you are picking at nits.
RK: “This sounds like she’s quitting her job”
DG: “No.”
Yes.
And there is nothing in the Enterprise story that suggests otherwise. This illustrates a possible problem with being so right on top of an Enterprise online story or column.
I’m sometimes surprised to read the Vanguard take on something before I even get my local paper and see that it started with their reporting. Without a reference or a link, it’s hard to determine whether the two reports convey the same information, but it becomes obvious that one triggered the other.
I’m not suggesting that David try to verify Enterprise stories at 3 a.m., but it wouldn’t hurt the Vanguard reputation to spend a day filling out the Enterprise report with independent efforts to verify or get others’ opinions. Better correct than first.
Again, David deserves credit for assuring that Ms. Salim’s comments were on the record. (She took responsibility for being “premature” in yesterday’s Enterprise blog comments, something that she might not have felt so obligated to do if David had used her as anonymous source.)
To see the value in attributing quotes (direct and indirect), one only has to retread yesterday’s Vanguard story and subsequent notes. What started out as a clear, albeit misguided, report evolved into a mishmash of secret-source comments trying to justify Ms. Salim’s and Dr. Moore’s I’ll-advised actions. And, to justify the Vanguard’s incorrect report about a dismissal that didn’t happen.
Sad to say that those peddling this “premature” tale may have helped assure that their speculation will be borne out. “Philosophical differences,” Probably true. Poor judgment, definitely so.
Growth issue
03/04/13 – 09:39 AM
…
“Today, a simple ‘sorry, we got it wrong’ would have been the more professional approach.”
“Maybe but I don’t think that would be accurate. It appears it will happen on Thursday, it just didn’t happen yet. Hence the report was premature. Moreover, we attempted to report what we know at this time. I feel like you are picking at nits.”
David, is that really you posting as the anonymous “Growth Issue”!?
Assuming so, you must know that nit-picking about Vanguard professional standards is a labor of affection. I hope you value my observations; when you say “maybe,” I take it as a compliment.
On the other hand, I think you’re overlooking the large fact that your story about the principal being dismissed was just wrong because she hadn’t been fired and still hasn’t been.
It was a misunderstanding that you ran with. That happens. And, typically, such mistakes get honest retractions, sometimes with explanations but usually without attempts to justify. Reporting what you “know at this time” is all that you can do, well, except taking time to make sure that what you know is accurate.
If your story had claimed that she might be dismissed Thursday after the board meets, reviews her performance and decides to dismiss her, you could claim a scoop if it happens. If you had report why, that’s even a bigger accomplishment.
It’s not really “premature” if you incorrectly report that something has happened–leaving you praying that it might eventually happen next Thursday or next month or next year.
PS–You also should be complimented on one more sign that you’re becoming the go-to guy when people think they have a grievance against the local system, in this case, the school board and superintendent (where is he in this?).
PPS–What other issues do you have, Growrh Issue, with which I might help?
It’s clear that there is a serious dispute between the principal and the school board, but no information is given about the substance of the dispute. Doesn’t there exist at least one investigative reporter in Davis? It shouldn’t be that hard to find someone who would, maybe anonymously, tell what the problem really is.
Oops, was meeting with Growth Issue who will remain anonymous and failed to log him/ her out.
To address your core point, I can see your point that you make. From my standpoint, the clarification corrected the information and is now the most accurate I have. I really did not get the scoop on the story, I was following up the Enterprise’s story with a quote from the Principal. I thought that was fairly safe and felt that the rest needed to be aired in public. I can live with being wrong here.
Speculation, speculation, speculation. Nobody knows a damn thing except Jacqui Moore and the School Board. Someone with real information will have to reveal the facts before anyone can make a judgement. David, I hope your next post on this will be titled something like “The Actual Reasons for DHS Principal’s Dismissal” so we don’t have to wade through endless speculation.
davehart: “[i]David, I hope your next post on this will be titled something like “The Actual Reasons for DHS Principal’s Dismissal”…[/i]”
That should have been the first post, not the third one.
DG: [i]”That the board will do on Thursday of this week, [b]at which point in time[/b], the board could very well vote to terminate the Davis High School Principal – however, [b]at this point in time[/b], that has not occurred.”[/i]
At this point in time, I need a new Timex, to keep track of all the times you are reporting which point in time it is and is not at this point in time.
Steve Miller: [i]”Time keeps on slippin’ slippin’ slippin’ into the future; I want to fly like an eagle to the sea; Fly like an eagle; let my spirit carry me; Time keeps on slippin’ slippin’ slippin’ into the future.”[/i]
[img]http://www.viaxu.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Timex-watch.jpg[/img]
OMG, why are all of these clocks and watches set at 10:10?