No Apologies, No Regrets

To contact us Click HERE

Ken O’Brien
I am simultaneously somewhat amused and chagrined bythe recent callfor me to apologize by Brent Abrahamson. His basis for this is my handlingof an exit letter by former SMHS assistant principal Sharon Goulet  publishedby The O’Zone.
His tortured logic and pious solemnizing demonstratenothing more than an attempt to justify his one-sided personal agenda in schoolrelated matters, his well-known contempt for Scott Lazo and to discredit mebecause, as he put it in a comment on my site, “…youhave chosen a side. You have been a supporter ever since you backed him forstate rep. years ago.”
Now, in the first place, I don’t recall havingactively supported Mr. Lazo for State Rep. although it is true that I havealways considered him a friend.  I amperfectly willing to admit being wrong on this if anybody can provide evidenceto the contrary. As I remember it, however, at the time I had returned toSouthbridge to care for both of my parents who were both terminally ill and Iwas far too consumed with that to be actively engaged in political activities.All of that aside, I’m sure if you asked him, Mr. Lazo would tell you thatthere is much that I have published that he would rather I had not. 
Directly addressing Mr. Abrahamson’s post, however, hequotes my reply to one commenter:Forthe record, yes, the letter I received was addressed to Mr. Lazo. At the time Ireceived it I was unaware that he had given copies to people at the schoolcommittee meeting. I blanked out his name to protect the name of the sourcethat provided it to me, not Mr. Lazo. Not knowing that it had been given to others I had to assume that onlymy source had it. I also blanked out Ms. Goulet’s phone number.  I am sure that there are those who will makeassumptions that I am somehow complicit in attempting to protect Mr. Lazo.  What I do know is that I told only one personthat I had blanked out his name.
He then goes on to comment:Ibelieve that this is a poor reason to use as justification for printing theexit letter.
This is his first logical lapse. That statement hadnothing to do with justifying publication of the letter. Rather, it was alegitimate explanation of why I had blanked out the addressee’s name.
Mr. Abrahamson then goes on to say, “The redactingof Mr. Lazo's name from the letter puts the entire document into question.  If things can be deleted, things can be addedas well.  Anyone in possession of that letter prior to its publication on Mr.O'Brien's site had the opportunity to alter it.”
This is both inaccurate and personally offensive. Ihave taken great pride in the accuracy of my reporting and his statementassumes that I did not seek verification of the letter’s validity beyond mymere possession of it. Further, there is an implicit accusation that I mighthave taken a hand in making substantive alterations in the letter’s content. Forthis alone, I, if anyone, am owed an apology.
Finally, and most egregious, is his closing remark:Sensationalismand a thirst to be first took precedence over ethics and fairness.
This is not only an unjustified assumption about my motivation;it is objectively and verifiably inaccurate.
The time stamp on the publication of my article is5:32 AM on Friday, October 26. The Telegramarticle about this matter appeared online at 4:30 AM on October 26.
That article, “InSouthbridge, former assistant principal blasts old boss”by Brian Lee, recounted in narrative form all the elements of the letter. Assuch, it constituted one more verification of the letter’s provenance prior tomy publication of it. In addition, any damage Mr. Abrahamson assumes that mighthave been done through my publication of the letter had already beenaccomplished by this article.
Having addressed the biases and inaccuracies in Mr.Abrahamson’s diatribe, I will return to one final point made in this scurrilousindictment.
Mr. Abrahamson remarked that, “While it doesestablish that Mr. Lazo distributed the letter to someone who leaked it to Mr.O'Brien, the publishing of this letter shows a reckless disregard for dueprocess and Ms. Perreault's right to defend herself before being found guiltyin the court of public opinion, with all members of this kangaroo court safelyshielded under the cover of anonymity.”
First, there is no proof that Mr. Lazo gave it to mysource; there may have been one or more intervening parties. Second, I amalways open to publishing a statement by anyone who feels that they have beenaggrieved by anything I have posted. Finally, I strongly suspect that Mr.Abrahamson’s righteous indignation would have been in short supply had asimilar letter surfaced in the past relating to the former principal ofSouthbridge High School.