Cambridge Public Schools superintendent Victoria Greer quietly announced to a group of parents on Jan. 5 that the district had hired a law firm to investigate two issues: her administration’s July 2022 “hiring process” for Graham & Parks principal Kathleen Smith and “concerns related to school climate and a toxic work environment” at the school under Smith.
As reported widely, the investigation’s launch followed the revelation that Newton Public Schools had found that Smith created a toxic working environment as principal of the Underwood Elementary School, combined with reports from Graham & Parks teachers that she was engaged in similar conduct locally. It appears that CPS leadership is overseeing an investigation into its own hiring conduct, which raises serious concerns as to whether the investigation’s findings will be handled appropriately and whether appropriate remedial steps will be taken. Because Greer is implicated in the investigation, Cambridge’s School Committee – our elected representatives – must assert supervisory authority over the investigation, including determining what remedial steps will be taken when the investigation concludes.
Impartiality – in fact and in its appearance – is the touchstone of any investigation. To achieve impartiality, an investigation must be structured appropriately, including removing the subject of the investigation from any role in managing the investigation. This principle serves an important purpose: It protects against the incentive that any subject has to downplay the investigation or try to influence its outcome. Subjects of an investigation should not be in a position to limit or direct the investigation or to decide what remedial steps should be taken. That would be true of any executive; it is not specific to Greer.
When the organization’s highest-level employee is implicated in an investigation, a higher-level authority who is not implicated must assume responsibility for managing the investigation to avoid a conflict of interest and appearance of bias. At a private company, that usually means the board of directors. For the school district, it means the School Committee.
The district’s public treatment of the investigation into Greer and Smith violates these basic principles and erodes trust in its commitment to an impartial fact-finding process.
Greer’s hiring of Smith specifically and the district’s hiring practices in general are a focus of the investigation. Nevertheless, Greer has maintained an active role in the investigation, including – critically – responsibility for making public statements about the investigation and its progress.
Although Greer said the law firm “was retained by the city solicitor” and was reporting to the district’s legal department and city Law Department, they have not had any public role in managing the investigation – and attorneys are generally advisers, not decision-makers.
In short, based on their public statements, Greer and those who report to her appear to be responsible for overseeing an investigation in which they have a direct stake in the outcome.
Greer will benefit from an investigation that clears her of wrongdoing and conversely will suffer – perhaps including losing her job – if the investigation finds she violated district policy or failed to exercise due diligence when she hired Smith despite the red flags in Smith’s past. This arrangement is unacceptable.
There is mounting evidence showing why the ongoing involvement of Greer and her subordinates in the investigation raises ethical concerns. Of most concern, Greer and her leadership team have repeatedly downplayed the investigation by dismissing people who raised concerns about Smith as “small, yet vocal.” As Greer knows, the district did not commission an expensive outside investigation because a group of parents was “vocal.” They did it because parents submitted anonymous teacher complaints that expose CPS to potential legal liability, especially in light of Smith’s history.
Greer’s press office has nonetheless undermined the investigation’s gravity by dismissing it as the concern of a few angry parents. Those statements could discourage district employees from participating in the investigation given the Greer administration’s apparent low opinion of it.
Moreover, Greer waited seven weeks to tell the full G&P community about the existence of the investigation on Feb. 29. That seven-week lag delayed community participation in the investigation and likely prolonged it significantly. Further, waiting seven weeks to tell the community that retaliation would not be permitted for participating in the investigation is inexplicable.
It also appears that Greer’s leadership team has been deployed to tamp down open discussion of the investigation and the school climate at G&P, raising serious First Amendment concerns.
On March 1, just a day after a Graham & Parks parent used a class email list to share information about the investigation in light of Greer’s email of Feb. 29, the district’s chief of academics and schools admonished the school’s community not to use class lists for anything other than supporting a classroom teacher. Given that parents opted in to the class lists, the instruction seems designed to restrict open communication between parents. In addition, director of family and community engagement Ray Porch accused a parent of “bullying” simply because she contacted a member of the G&P School Council – an elected public official – to discuss the environment at the school. The district also routinely sends numerous officials to school meetings where caregivers are permitted to speak directly to Smith and raise concerns about her leadership, an intimidating tactic given the seeming absence of district officials in meetings at other schools.
It is possible that the law firm hired to conduct the investigation is taking its assignment seriously and pursuing it zealously. But that is only half the story. When the investigation concludes, who will receive the report and who will be tasked with implementing remedial measures based on its findings? In the absence of any clear message of leadership from the School Committee, Cambridge voters are right to question whether the investigation will be taken seriously or whether its findings will be ignored, minimized or buried.
Given that Greer is the public face of the investigation, is she receiving regular reports about the investigation? Has she tried to influence the investigation beyond her known public attempts to diminish its legitimacy? Does she have an ongoing attorney-client relationship with the law firm conducting the investigation? Does she have control or influence over decisions to send legal work (funded by taxpayers) to the law firm investigating her? Does she have a role in deciding the investigation’s scope? Who will get the investigator’s report? Who will decide which actions are appropriate in light of the investigation’s findings? Who will decide whether the report is released to the public?
The solution to this mess is simple. The School Committee, an elected body of representatives with oversight authority over the district, must do what any corporate board of directors would do: Assume direct control over the investigation and prohibit Greer or any district employees who report to her from commenting about it. As possible subjects of the investigation, they cannot be managing it.
The committee should also ensure that any attorneys managing or working on the investigation – including district counsel Maureen Macfarlane – do not report to Greer about the investigation. In addition, given the public interest in the investigation and its outcome, the committee should promise to release the investigator’s report (redacted as necessary) to the public. Finally, the committee should retain the ultimate authority to decide what consequences may follow in light of the investigation’s report – including with respect to Greer, Smith and anyone else who may have contributed to the crisis at G&P.
Cambridge voters have been assured that the problems at Graham & Parks are being addressed through an external investigation. Given the ambiguity as to who is actually overseeing the investigation, that is not sufficient. Staff, parents, students and Cambridge voters must have confidence that when it has concluded, the investigation’s findings will be treated seriously and will be acted on appropriately. The School Committee alone is positioned to do that, and the voters who elected them deserve no less.
Francis Bingham is an employment attorney who trains legal and human resources departments on how to conduct lawful internal investigations. He is also a parent of children at Graham & Parks School.
A stronger
Please consider making a financial contribution to maintain, expand and improve Cambridge Day.
We are now a 501(c)3 nonprofit and all donations are tax deductible.
Please consider a recurring contribution.
Historically external review at cpsd have been disastrous and made a challenging situation a total crisis. I expect that this one will continue that tradition.
Fascinating that one of the most substantive letters every posted here gets one comment and it is to discourage outside intervention. No matter what, this scenario will end up in court. No matter what.