I have been thinking about the recent Board of Education meeting and the decision to have students and parents speak publicly about a personnel matter involving Anthony Williams.

I understand that people can be disappointed, upset, or even angry when someone they respect is no longer serving in a position. Students may have developed relationships with an administrator. Parents may have appreciated his work. People have every right to express that they valued his presence.

But I have a fundamental question:

Why has an individual personnel matter suddenly become the public’s business?

If this were any one of us in our own workplace and our employer decided that we were no longer going to remain in our position, would we expect our employer to stand before the public and explain why? Would we want our personnel record, performance concerns, disagreements with colleagues, supervisory evaluations, or employment history discussed at a public meeting?

Probably not.

Most of us would expect some measure of privacy and dignity.

And yet, when it comes to school district employees, there seems to be a growing expectation that taxpayers are entitled to know every detail whenever an employee is removed, reassigned, disciplined, or terminated.

We are not.

Taxpayers have a right to accountability concerning how public funds are spent and whether the district is following appropriate policies and procedures. That does not automatically give the public a right to know the private details of an individual’s employment situation.

Why the Double Standard?

What makes this even more difficult to understand is the apparent inconsistency in how personnel decisions are treated.
Last year, there was an acting superintendent who made significant personnel decisions involving administrators, including terminations and removals. The Board majority did not appear to demand that every personnel circumstance be publicly litigated or explained to taxpayers.

So why is the standard different now?

If personnel decisions are appropriately private when they involve one administrator, they should be appropriately private when they involve another.

We cannot decide that confidentiality is important only when it is convenient.

If You Choose to Make It Public, Then People Will Have Questions

There is another side to this.
When students, parents, and supporters are brought before the Board of Education to publicly advocate around an individual’s employment situation, the matter is no longer simply being handled quietly as an internal personnel issue. It becomes part of the public conversation.

And once the public conversation begins, people naturally start asking questions.

If we are going to publicly debate why someone should or should not remain employed by the district, then taxpayers will reasonably wonder about the individual’s professional background, prior employment, experience, relationships with colleagues, performance history, and other information that may have been considered when the district made its decision.
That is precisely why personnel matters are generally better handled through appropriate employment and governance processes rather than through public campaigns.

I am not suggesting that unverified allegations about Mr. Williams should be repeated as fact. If there are questions about his previous employment, any prior litigation, or his professional relationships with other institutions, those questions should be answered through reliable documentation and appropriate channels—not through rumors, social media, or public speculation.

But I do believe the larger principle deserves attention:
If we expect the public to respect an employee’s privacy, then we should not turn that employee’s personnel situation into a public campaign.

What About the Students?
I also think we need to be careful about placing students in the middle of adult employment matters.

Students should absolutely have a voice in their educational experiences. They should be able to tell the Board what programs, relationships, and supports matter to them.

But asking students to publicly advocate regarding whether an adult employee should be terminated or retained raises a different question.

Are we asking children to carry an adult personnel dispute that should be resolved by adults?

Students should not have to understand employment contracts, personnel evaluations, supervisory concerns, labor law, district policy, or the totality of circumstances that may have led to an employment decision in order to defend someone they like.

A student can genuinely care about an administrator and still not know everything that occurred behind the scenes.

The Taxpayer’s Role
As a taxpayer, I want to know that the district is making sound decisions.

I want to know that public money is being spent responsibly.

I want to know that employees are being treated fairly.

I want to know that district leadership is following policy, contracts, and the law.

I want to know that the Board is exercising appropriate oversight.

But I don’t believe I am entitled to know every private detail of an employee’s personnel situation simply because my tax dollars help pay that person’s salary.
And that standard should apply equally to everyone.

Let’s Stop Turning Personnel Decisions Into Public Trials
There is a troubling tendency in public education to turn personnel disagreements into public battles.

Someone leaves a position, and suddenly there are petitions.

There are public comments.

There are social media posts.

There are students and parents being asked to speak.

There are accusations and counter-accusations.

And before long, the actual educational mission of the district gets buried underneath an adult personnel dispute.

That is not healthy governance.

A Board of Education should not be a courtroom of public opinion. It should be a governing body.

If a personnel decision was improper, there are appropriate processes to challenge it. If an employee believes they were wrongfully terminated, there are appropriate legal and contractual remedies. If the district violated policy, the Board should address it.

But we should not confuse the right to challenge a personnel decision with the right to make every private detail of that personnel decision public.

And we certainly should not assume that because someone has supporters willing to speak at a Board meeting, the Board is obligated to reverse or publicly justify a personnel decision.

The Bigger Question for Newburgh
Perhaps the most important issue here isn’t Anthony Williams at all.

It is whether we are going to establish a consistent standard for how the Newburgh Enlarged City School District handles personnel matters.

If privacy matters, it must matter for everyone.

If due process matters, it must matter for everyone.

If Board oversight matters, it must matter for everyone.

And if we believe that personnel decisions should be made based on the facts available to those responsible for supervising and governing the district—not based upon who can mobilize the most people to speak at a Board meeting—then we need to stand by that principle consistently.

Public education is about students. Board governance is about stewardship. Employment matters are often private. We should be able to respect all three at the same time.

And if we truly care about protecting the dignity of employees, students, and the institution itself, perhaps the best thing we can do is stop turning private personnel matters into public spectacles.