Questions for 11/5/20 Webinar

1. Compliance overseer

- Mr. Maher's resignation letter mentions being berated, a threatened lawsuit against him, SPS requiring him to report anyone whom he met with and reasons for leaving "not named herein". Does SPS dispute that he was berated, that a lawsuit is/was threatened by someone in the SPS administration, or that SPS insisted he report whom he has met with? If not, could you please provide more detail for each, and if so, is it SPS's position that these details were fabricated by Mr. Maher? Were any of these related to any actual or alleged claims of sexual abuse? In what ways, direct or indirect, has SPS discouraged, or supported, this threatened lawsuit against Mr. Maher? What other reasons known to SPS would he have for leaving that were left unspoken?
- We have been told that SPS considers Mr. Maher's actions as having overstepped by acting in an investigatory manner. What was he investigating?
- A recent letter from Kathy and Archie states that SPS has complied with the terms of the agreement. As one alum stated, "I want to be proud of my alma mater and feel like there is at least an attempt to go above and beyond the legal standard". Has SPS in any meaningful way gone beyond the minimum requirements of the agreement?
- The New Hampshire Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence wrote on 10/20: "St. Paul's believes it is above the law and does not have to comply with the terms of the settlement" and that "continues to prioritize it's status over the well-being of its students", among other highly critical comments. The resignation letter also suggests that SPS is resisting its obligations under the settlement obligation. In addition, CCCNH, a third-party whom SPS is directed in the agreement to work with, has publicly voiced its agreement with Mr. Maher's view. We understand SPS disagrees with this and will not dispute that to be the case. That said, SPS must have some knowledge as to why these perceptions exist.
- Is SPS concerned about the perception that it is not in compliance and is not truly taking these matters to heart?
- Has SPS identified specific circumstances or conditions that have led to this perception, and is SPS taking any actions to address them?
- Is SPS concerned that the criminal investigation that created Mr. Maher's oversight role could now be revived?

2. Legacy

"... it is only through transparency that we can learn from our past". These words were written by Archibald Cox and Mike Hirshfeld, when the Casner & Edwards report was published.
Three years later, Lacy's book revealed significant previously-undisclosed misconduct (including information that could have disclosed without violating privacy concerns) on the part of multiple SPS actors acting in concert.
As one alum wrote: "Dear SPS, what else have you not told us?"
- If nothing, how do we trust that to be true, when SPS has previously stated that it was being fully transparent, which now appears not to have been the case?
- Otherwise, what steps is SPS taking steps to review its records, act on its promise of transparency to the SPS community, and provide disclosure of misconduct beyond what it has been compelled to reveal? How do we trust that problems have been fixed, if no one has compiled a complete view of what the problems were?

3. Culture, industry practices and best practices-- whether/how SPS is benchmarking its performance

Many issues related to the settlement agreement can be viewed as being connected with culture in general. By some measures, other boarding schools appear to have done more to address culture than SPS.
- How is SPS measuring its performance related to matters of student culture, abuse and/or misconduct? If so how, and where can we find this information? Are these metrics benchmarked relative to the performance of other boarding schools?
- The recent letter from Kathy & Archie states that SPS has worked with RAINN to develop a webpage. While this seems like a positive step forward, it also is limited. Has SPS's work with RAINN gone beyond the creation of a web page? For example, other boarding schools, such as Hotchkiss, have engaged RAINN to conduct an audit of prevention and response policies and to manage survivor funds, hotlines and other resources. SPS does not appear to work with any third parties in such capacities. Is that the case and if so, is there any plan at SPS to change this?
- Andover's student newspaper has conducted campus climate surveys for several years in a row now, and they publish the results with myriad graphics and analytics (https://sota.phillipian.net). SPS declined to participate (https://phillipian.net/2019/01/25/state-eight-schools-association/), and by some accounts, has actively disallowed students from conducting and/or publishing such a survey. Why?
- Other schools have full-time counselors of color. While SPS's June 25 letter states that they will hire a counselor of color, our understanding is that the position has been filled only for a part-time (~10 hours / week) role. Is that the case and is that expected to remain?
- Other schools have publicly committed to very specific action items and timelines for initiatives such as climate assessment, DEI training, staffing and other objectively measurable tasks. We understand SPS has created a new website to help address such issues, but will SPS be making further commitments to the level that other schools do?

4. Policies & procedures.

- Legal counsel and "terrible advice". Lacy's book states that SPS counsel (Chapman) had a role in advising SPS to act in a manner that was unethical and illegal. SPS seems to agree with this; in an email to an alum (shared with permission), Archie Cox stated that SPS's lawyers gave the Rector "terrible advice".
- If SPS were to receive "terrible advice" from its present legal counsel, what mechanism exist today, that did not exist then, to ensure that the advice of counsel would be disregarded? How does SPS differentiate between advice it should follow and advice it should not? If these change exist, where are they evidenced in written policies and procedures?
- Does SPS still retain the same legal counsel or law firm, or the law firm that Chapman now practices with? Does SPS still consult with legal counsel before determining how it responds, or during its response to, assault allegations?

5. Trustee vetting procedures.

Do they exist? Do they include an evaluation of whether the prospective trustee's past and present conduct is consistent with SPS's stated values? If so, can SPS offer any visible evidence to alum these procedures are working? Regardless of whether a Trustee is elected by form representatives or by other means, what mechanism is there in place to ensure that such Trustee represents SPS values? If there is none, should there not be? It seems inconsistent with SPS values and stated goals to add a new Trustee who has a close relationship with a person named in the Casner & Edwards report and who moreover published an article in Forbes entitled "Why Men Don't Promote Women More" which concludes "it is mostly women's fault"?

6. Reporting.

- Is SPS concerned that in some cases, even if all procedures work as designed, the post-reporting experience could be more stressful and burdensome to a student than the triggering incident, effectively creating a process that discourages reporting? How does SPS address this concern in how it designs the process?- Other schools have partnered with third parties (such as https://www.exeter.edu/about-us/governance/ethicspoint) to establish best practices and provide a third-party means for safe reporting and other information gathering. The use of a third party may be advantageous to avoid actual or perceived conflicts of interest, to establish trust, and to provide an alternative reporting channel that is not otherwise available. Has SPS considered following this practice? If not, why not, and if so, why was this approach not pursued?

7. Financial Impact

SPS donations appear to have significantly dropped in recent years-- by nearly 50%-- and much more so than experienced by peer schools who have also had legacy/culture issue. Has SPS investigated whether this drop might be related to its handling of school culture, and if so, has SPS solicited current or former donors for feedback?

8. Current SPS administration

Have there been any single or multiple recent allegations against any current member of the SPS staff or administration? If so, was the compliance overseer contemporaneously made aware of these and/or the process / procedure by which these were handled?- Would it not be inappropriate for an SPS deal to publicly, or privately (other than pursuant to the resolution process), express support for either a survivor or alleged perpetrator in any matter of dispute? Does that not undermine the perception of impartiality? Assuming that would be inappropriate, what is the response if such a policy is not followed?