I wish to take this opportunity to respond to the editorial appearing in the Friday, Sept. 27, 2013, issue of The Review. It seems the omniscient editorial writer, after "extensive" research into the situation, chose to pontificate as to wherein I, Richard Keith Wolf, had erred.
Had this expert on board of education policy chose to delve further, rather than "latch on" to what the perceive as sufficient information to condemn my actions, they would have come upon Board of Education Policy KL titled "Public Complaints."
Lo and behold, in the first paragraph it states, "Although no member of the community is denied the right to bring his/her complaints to the Board, he/she is referred to the proper administrative channels for solution before investigation or action by the Board."
In the second paragraph it states, "The proper channeling of complaints involving instruction, discipline or learning materials is employee, principal, Superintendent and then the board of Education."
Therein lies the non-existent "chain of command" which the editorial writer asserts was found nowhere in their "thorough" investigation of board policy.
In my 32 years of service on this board, we have, without exception, referred all complaints to appropriate administration channels prior to entertaining any discussion before the board. Taking note of the complaint and its ultimate administrative resolution further serves us in evaluating professional performance.
When Ms. Galeoti stated her concern regarding inadequate time for students to consume lunch, I rose to a "point of order," which, in accordance with parliamentary procedure, interrupts any and all action, discussion or speaker, pending a stating of the "point of order" to which the chair was then obliged to inquire as to what rule of order was I objecting.
However, when the president failed to recognize me, as is required when a "point of order" has been asserted, and the rest of the board members sat mute, I then asked Ms. Galeoti if she had brought the matter to the attention of the superintendent. When she stated she had not, I responded that until she has afforded the superintendent an opportunity to address her problem, the board was not at liberty to hear her complaint. All this is in keeping with the long-established procedure to exact compliance with Board Policy KL.
It was alleged that I considered Ms. Galeoti's complaint as "irrelevant," in an assertion by the editorial writer, which was made solely in the mind of this prejudice author in a manner of presumptive inane rationalization. Further, no one asked me if that were my intent during their exhaustive research into board policy and prior to authoring this self-serving sanctimonious condemnation.
To assert that Ms. Galeoti was "quickly brushed off" is without any semblance of truth and was maliciously conveyed by the editorial writer. Could it be that the editorial writer was actually the reporter who covered that meeting and chose to place her own typically distorted interpretation of what she saw and heard?
In either case, to confirm what actually transpired the editorial writer needed only to have asked to listen to the tape recorded minutes of that meeting to factually assess what occurred in this incident.
This failure to fully investigate is another attempt to castigate me, yet is typical of what I have come to expect from a newspaper which should be morally bound to objectivity. However, I have also come to realize that honorable people do not always occupy honorable positions. I shall continue to do what my conscience dictates regardless of how The Review wishes to portray me to the public.
In closing, I wish to recall a statement made years ago by then Columbiana County Commissioner John Wargo that is as true today as it was back then, to wit, The Review has created more problems than it has ever solved.
Richard Keith Wolf
(Editor's Note: The reporter covering the meeting did not pen the editorial, and is not a member of the The Review's editorial board.)