Westwood MA
5-17-2023 1:26am

Repairing the Rift Between Westwood Public Schools and its Boosters (UPDATED)

Image by Gordon Johnson from Pixabay.

Updated 5/17/2023 at 12:22 p.m. Images of the letters from Westwood Public Schools and Westwood Boosters have been added to this article.

In an April 27th letter from Westwood Public Schools (WPS) to the WPS Community, WPS leaders announced that the school district was ending its affiliation with Westwood High Boosters, a non-profit fundraising organization, over differences in viewpoints regarding transgender people. However, the district left open the possibility of a renewed relationship, should its concerns be adequately addressed.

By way of a responsive letter dated May 8th, Westwood Boosters (Boosters) (apparently a new or abbreviated moniker for the fundraising organization) appears ready to move forward in a renewed relationship, although it criticizes the WPS response at the same time.

The WPS letter of April 27th was signed by Superintendent Emily Parks, Westwood High School Principal Amy Davenport, and WPS Athletic Director Matthew Gillis. It noted that a “Westwood High Boosters” Twitter account had “repeatedly endorsed viewpoints through its ‘likes’ regarding transgender people that are not aligned with the polices and core values of the Westwood Public Schools (WPS) and the Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association (MIAA).” The WPS letter stated that WPS would not accept financial support from the Boosters.

“To be clear, Westwood Public Schools unequivocally supports all students, including transgender students, and their right to access all programs within our District in accordance with applicable policies and the law,” the April letter declared.

WPS removed the Boosters’ webpage from the WPS website. It disabled the Boosters’ WPS-associated email account. WPS Athletic Director resigned as liaison to the Boosters. The WPS leaders stated that the Boosters had listed Mr. Gillis as one of its directors, which Mr. Gillis indicated was not authorized. The WPS leaders directed the Boosters’ board of directors to cease use of WPS logos, images or likeness.

However, WPS also left open a door, noting that “[i]n the event the Boosters take steps to adequately and thoroughly address our concerns, WPS will welcome a renewed relationship with the Boosters."

Source: Westwood Public Schools (WPS). Above is an image of the letter of April 27, 2023 from WPS to the WPS Community in which WPS states it will no longer be affiliated with Westwood High Boosters.

It appears the Boosters are attempting to walk through that door, though not without criticism about the way the situation has been handled.

In a copy of the Boosters letter dated May 8th to Superintendent Parks, the organization responds by stating that its Twitter account at issue was run by the organization’s president who has taken “full responsibility” for using the account to reflect his personal beliefs. Those beliefs are that “biological males should not compete against females in interscholastic sports because it is unfair and potentially dangerous to our female athletes.” The Boosters state that the organization is “disappointed” in WPS’ decision to end the affiliation via letter to the larger school community, which the Boosters call an “extreme reaction.” 

The Boosters describe the WPS decision to sever ties with the fundraising organization as rash. “In light of the current financial climate, turning away financial aid from the Boosters does not seem to make sense,” writes the organization. Rejection of the Boosters’ financial aid not only hurts young athletes but may become a burden the taxpayers who may need to “fill the financial gap,” say the Boosters.

The Boosters claim that the organization has raised close to $300,000 since 2007 to support athletes, including $16,000 in 2020 and $12,000 in 2022. It lists its contributions this year as purchasing a “state-of-the-art field camera for the girls’ lacrosse and field hockey programs,” contributing $1,000 to the lacrosse team for state championship apparel, and funding for the Paul Lila Annual Scholarship.

However, the Boosters note that it has made "appropriate changes and updates," including taking down the Twitter site at issue. It notes it is ready to work together with the superintendent “for the good of all students.” However, it adds a criticism that the current situation could have been handled differently with a meeting which it believes could have resolved the issues “within a matter of an hour.”

Despite the levelled criticisms from both sides, perhaps WPS and the Boosters will find enough common ground in their desire to support WPS athletes and students. It seems steps are being taken at least, to repair this relationship to serve that very end.

Source: Westwood Boosters. Above is the May 8th letter (2 pages) sent by Westwood Boosters in response to Westwood Public Schools' April 27th letter.

Thanks to Westwood Boosters for contributing information for this article.

You may also be interested in:

- Westwood School Committee Finalizes Contract with New WPS Superintendent

- Questions on DEI Answered by Candidates for Westwood School Committee, Select Board, and Library Trustees

- Westwood School Committee Offers WPS Superintendent Position to Billerica Superintendent Tim Piwowar (Updated)

2 37
I'm interested (3)
I disagree with this
This is unverified
Spam
Offensive

Replies

5-17-2023 11:15am

Reading the initial letter from the district (not linked in this article), it sounds as though the Boosters board was given the opportunity to make the requested changes, which they rejected. If the board had preferred a meeting to discuss the issues, why wasn’t that requested at that time? It seems that if the goal is to continue to support student athletes, they would have made that effort to promptly rectify the situation.

Regarding the social media activity, policy regarding transgender athletes is decided by MIAA and the district, not by the Boosters board. Reposting and liking hateful and demeaning memes is not an effective means of advocacy, and if their board prefers to continue to advocate against trans students, that should be made clear to their members and donors.

Additionally, based on other reports it seems as though the Boosters have violated federal 501c3 laws by supporting political candidates through their social media accounts. They also do not appear to have followed their own bylaws regarding membership. These are issues separate from the WPS school district and are actions that could result in the group’s nonprofit status being revoked. The Boosters board are responsible for ensuring that their organization is managed in a way that allows their organization to remain intact and for the funds that they hold to reach student athletes that can use them. Fortunately the Boosters funding appears to be only a small percentage of the overall athletics budget, and the WHS sports teams and student athletes do have their own revenue streams that allow the district and the community to provide financial support directly without additional burden on Westwood taxpayers.

I hope that the Boosters board will take their responsibilities seriously as a nonprofit organization and to the high school athletic community, bring themselves into compliance with the district and the MIAA, and avoid stepping into political culture wars that their membership may or may not agree with. It seems like this would be a good opportunity to embrace transparency, or to step aside for a new board.

Lastly, I am disappointed that this article was published with “contributed information” from the Boosters, effectively allowing them to share their letter of complaint anonymously. They have not even shared the letter to their own social media. Per the public information on the Boosters web page that was taken down, the board members are Chris Hancock, the WHS Athletic Director, Tina McCusker, PJ McGrail, Craig Foscaldo, and Tom Themistocles.

5
I disagree with this
This is unverified
Spam
Offensive
5-17-2023 12:47pm

Thanks for these thoughtful comments, which though offering criticism are respectfully stated. I hope community discussion can continue in this tone and vein, even where disagreements exist.

And noted on the criticism regarding my attribution of information in this article to the Westwood Boosters, rather than naming an individual. In this instance, I chose to name the organization (as I often do - just look at Westwood Minute articles with input from Inclusive Westwood, Animal Rescue League of Boston, Dedham-Westwood Water District, and so forth) because the letter was from an officer on behalf of the organization. Additionally, because I know the larger topic of DEI has been heated for many, and has in the past led to hurtful personal attacks (both ways -- no side is innocent on this), I wanted to keep any  discussion that followed away from the personal.

Thanks in any case for keeping your own comments civil and respectful, even while you have named the officers of the organization and disagree with their conduct. I hope other commenters will do the same.

Thanks for sharing. Also, because some questions came up that I think could be answered by reading the actual letters, I have updated the article with those images embedded.

I disagree with this
This is unverified
Spam
Offensive
5-17-2023 1:08pm

Thank you for the note. I would not have included the names if the group was not a publicly registered entity. As such it does not seem appropriate for their communications to be  anonymous. 

3
I disagree with this
This is unverified
Spam
Offensive
5-17-2023 1:42pm

The names of officers of a 501c3 public charity are public information - posted on both the MA Sec of State's website and the MA Atty General's charity database. The Boosters used their official organization name and letterhead for their letter- the Director's names are relevant and important.  It serves no purpose to hide their names.

4
I disagree with this
This is unverified
Spam
Offensive
5-19-2023 8:51am

Hi, Ken, thanks for the suggestion. I agree with you that it would be great if anyone who leaves a comment does so under their own name. The platform Westwood Minute uses asks for a registered name, which is up to the registrant to provide. I guess it can be anything. Maybe it's something to consider about adding to the policy for future commenting.

I disagree with this
This is unverified
Spam
Offensive
5-19-2023 9:07am

Yet - the Boosters' letter was not signed with the officers' names/titles and their contributions here were credited to the organization - not to the individual officer(s) who submitted - and thus were posted here anonymously.  Can the Editor and/or Ken explain why that is ok - but anonymous comments are not?  As of the most recent public information on the Sec of State's database, the Boosters' officers are: Chris Hancock, Thomas Themistocles, and Craig Foscaldo.

1
I disagree with this
This is unverified
Spam
Offensive
5-19-2023 12:09pm

This is not the full story.  There are very good reasons why the names of of the officers who wrote and submitted that Boosters' Letter should be identified clearly in their Letter and in any public discourse. The Letter presents as an official correspondence on behalf of the "Westwood Boosters".  While by law, the names of Directors and Officers of Public Charities are public information - those names may not be commonly known in the community (Boosters have not posted their Officer's names on their social media)- nor is the public information easily accessible, unless readers know exactly where to look and what to look for. 

The official legal name of the Public Charity that recently lost their affiliation with WPS is: The Westwood High School Boosters Inc.  Readers who want to find Officers names can search the MA Sec of State's corporation database and/or the Atty General's Charity Search function.  However - as noted by the editor, the Letter submitted b y the Boosters uses a different name on their letterhead and signature: The Westwood Boosters. Readers who search the state's public information sources for the Westwood Boosters, will turn up only legal documents related to The Westwood Boosters, Inc - a previous athletic boosters charity that dissolved in 1986.

Additionally - readers have good reason to question the identity of those responsible for the May 8 Boosters' letter.  This whole dispute centers around political posts and actions taken under the umbrella of the Boosters' official social media. Only after complaints were registered did the Boosters reply that the offending content represented the views of one Officer and not those of the Boosters organization. By distributing their letter anonymously -- and requesting the publication of their letter anonymously, the Boosters leave open to question - exactly who is authoring the letter?  Will this be another situation where  the Boosters' Board will disclaim responsibility?  It adds to distrust rather than rebuilding community trust.

Ken requests above that individual residents, who are simply offering reactions, identify themselves  - while not calling out for a similar requirement for the officers of a public charity who remained anonymous and published their official business letter using an unfamiliar and unclearly identified organization name.  This seems like hypocrisy to me.  

2
I disagree with this
This is unverified
Spam
Offensive
5-19-2023 11:22am

I agree that eliminating the option of anonymity may have some benefits. Perhaps the individuals who post not, to offer respectful and productive perspectives about the issues at hand, but to troll other commenters and denigrate and undermine their opinions and character, would exercise more restraint in the absence of anonymity. However, I doubt this benefit would outweigh the costs to the general community and this forum's journalistic integrity.
The ability to post comments anonymously in a public forum offers a myriad of important benefits...when not misused. Anonymity enables those who would not normally sound their voices and add their diverse perspectives, to contribute without fear of retribution or repercussions. This is particularly important for community members already vulnerable to oppressive silencing, harassment, and personal targeting. Overcoming barriers to participation invites a more inclusive range of perspectives, which in turn fortifies journalistic integrity and ultimately serves the public good.
I'm curious why the option of posting with anonymity is under reconsideration in the context of this thread, especially? Reading through the posted comments--including those that have been deleted more recently--I note that the majority of community members commenting anonymously have done so factually, respectfully, and with focus and emphasis on the issues at hand, not their fellow posters. There is one notable exception--also anonymous--who resorted to character judgments and offensive name-calling. Doesn't it make more sense to protect users who are utilizing the anonymity option legitimately and respectfully and target the actual problem (trolling, disrespectful, confrontational, counterproductive attacks and/or targeting commentary) directly? Specifically addressing the behavior and enforcing forum expectations consistently serves the public good more comprehensively than eliminating a beneficial option that many users utilize appropriately.

2
I disagree with this
This is unverified
Spam
Offensive
5-19-2023 9:02am

That would be an ideal scenario, but considering folks have been receiving emails threatening them to remain silent for speaking up about similar issues, it does not feel particularly safe in the current community climate. 

2
I disagree with this
This is unverified
Spam
Offensive
5-17-2023 12:50pm

I am writing to address misstatements by the Westwood Booster Club in the May 17th Westwood Minute article.

First, I reviewed the Club’s status on the Secretary of State website. Charitable organizations like the Club are barred from participating in or making statements of support for any political organization, campaign, or advocacy. A proper governance structure should include policies about social media and nondiscrimination. To help resolve this matter, the Club should promptly  implement best business practices that will address the disconnect with WPS.

This brings me to the Club’s dispute with WPS. We can certainly have an honest, thoughtful discussion about gender roles and transgender athletics. The posts that the Club reshared on its social media do not honor that laudable goal. The recent letter to the Westwood Minute leads the reader to believe that this dispute stems from a mere difference of political opinion. However, when one reads the actual posts that the Club shared on its social media, they are far more troubling. It is counterproductive for the Club to continue to understate the content of the offending posts. The posts are not innocuous political debate.

The Board contends that the criticism stems from nothing more than a Board member’s “personal view that biological males should not compete against females in interscholastic sports because it is unfair and potentially dangerous to our female athletes.” To the contrary, one of the posts makes meanspirited remarks about testicular cancer and transgender athletes. A photograph with this post is equally hurtful.

The Club also reposted a comment that falsely said the Covid vaccine is “poison.” In that same reposting, the comment made a hostile statement, “Many sleepers will awaken and they will be angry. It's going to get intense.” When the Club responded to the outcry about these posts, it mistakenly dismissed this ominous tone, undercutting its credibility.

Many people consider the posts to be contrary to the Club’s Articles of Organization which state the Club’s purpose is to promote pride in the school. I would like to think that upon further reflection, the Club will adopt a more thoughtful approach. The Board can do more than just remove the posts. In order to move forward, a sincere apology and adoption of the following best business practices can help.

  • Review helpful suggestions for the do’s and don’ts on the website for the Council of Nonprofits: councilfornonprofits.org
  • Develop a Code of Ethics to earn back trust. Put the Code of Ethics on the website.
  • Research best business practices for nonprofits. For example, the Massachusetts Nonprofit Network (MNN) has over 700 nonprofit members. The website contains good training tools for your situation, www.massnonprofitnet.org
  • Develop a nondiscrimination policy. Include the policy on the website.
6
I disagree with this
This is unverified
Spam
Offensive
5-17-2023 2:16pm

The Editor asks, “Are Boosters’ changes enough for WPS to renew affiliation?” Only WPS can speak directly to the requirements for affiliation; however, as a longtime Westwood resident, taxpayer, and parent of WHS alumni, my answer to this question is an emphatic NO!

I find it very concerning that the editor accepted input from the Boosters without verifying the veracity of any of their claims. It is also concerning that the Boosters circulated their response letter – without names or signatures. Is there any reason the Boosters do not want the community to know who is responsible for the claims made in their letter?

I want to address several inaccuracies in the Booster’s May 8 letter. First, rather than an extreme reaction to a single complaint from one person, WPS responded to complaints made by many concerned Westwood parents and other residents. Those concerns were about the extensive use of the Boosters official social media to promote and support demeaning, offensive, and at times, threatening memes and tweets targeting LGBTQ individuals and families, spreading false medical information about Covid vaccines, claims that Autism is caused by childhood vaccines, and followings for political figures, namely, Ron DeSantis, Lauren Boebert, Mike Pence, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Tucker Carlson, among others.

In addition to the Boosters’ Twitter content, the Boosters also used their official Facebook and Instagram accounts to support candidates in local Westwood elections. The Boosters used their social media to support Heather Morrison for School Committee in 2022 , and most recently to support Mike Walsh for Select Board in 2023.

The Boosters are registered with the IRS and MA Atty General as a Public Charity – and as such, are prohibited from making communications in support of political campaigns. It is not sufficient to claim the offending views were those of the Board President. Using the official media of a public charity to pursue a Board member’s personal political agenda is a misuse of that charity. And it does not absolve the other Directors who share a fiduciary responsibility to ensure the Boosters’ affairs are managed in compliance with federal and state regulations - and only to support the Boosters’ registered charitable purpose.

Others have noted the Boosters are not in compliance with their Articles of Organization and Bylaws – as filed with the MA Sec of State and Atty General’s office. Most notably, the Boosters appear to have failed to hold required annual elections - where WHS parents, who are Boosters members, vote for the Board Directors.

Given the Boosters’ violations, their misrepresentation of those violations in their response letter, their ongoing refusal to accept full responsibility, and their failure to comply with their own governance rules, it is my opinion that the Westwood community would not be well served by renewing the Boosters’ affiliation with WPS right now. The price of supplemental financial support for athletics should not be tolerating offensive and bullying communication on the part of the Boosters. Nor should the community accept the Boosters’ involvement in local or national political campaigns. Should the Boosters wish to repair their affiliation, they might start by getting into compliance with their governance requirement to ensure their Board and actions are representative of the Westwood community they serve and accountable to the legal regulations prohibiting political involvement by Public Charities.

5
I disagree with this
This is unverified
Spam
Offensive
5-17-2023 4:11pm

Thanks to everyone who has commented so thoughtfully and respectfully. While criticisms and concerns have been raised, all have been done so in a manner where even the criticized party (myself included) should be able to respond without feeling personally attacked. It's easy to quickly dash off an angry first reaction and post it without pausing -- thank you to all the commenters who have shown restraint from doing that. Your civility will allow this conversation to continue, and likely find a more receptive audience. If it is opposing viewpoints you want to change, I believe this is the best way to do it, rather than firing off an incensed reply. Thanks again.

2
I disagree with this
This is unverified
Spam
Offensive
5-18-2023 11:23am

Interesting question, CNM.  The Boosters are a separate organization  -independent of WPS and the High School.  The WHS Athletic Director does not have authority to direct the actions of the Boosters. In fact, the WPS letter states that the Boosters had designated the Athletic Directors' name as a Boosters' Director, without authorization, on official documents. These included official documents filed with the MA Secretary of State and Attorney General.  The Boosters' Board of Directors are solely responsible for their actions.

I disagree with this
This is unverified
Spam
Offensive
5-18-2023 12:13pm

I’m sure the doesn’t have authority to direct actions of Boosters, but I would optimistically think everyone wants to move forward so that the high school student athletes benefit from the Boosters distributing money for their sports, clubs and scholarships.  I think the Athletic Director Matt Gillis plays an important role here, no?  Also, on a whim I looked up the state filings which I could only find going back to 2014.  Matt Gillis is listed as a director of this organization every year since 2014 which makes it confusing that the district letter says he claimed this designation was never authorized.  Maybe the superintendent Emily Parks was not aware of this when she wrote that letter.  I’m not blaming the AD for the social media concerns, but if the Board of Directors are solely responsible for their actions as you say, he’s been on the Board of Directors longer than anyone else listed.  I think he should be part of the solution to sort this out regardless of his “authority.”  Also, I think it terms of concerns, it seems to be that the social media use is the heart of the concern and anger at the Boosters.  I disagree and agree with many social media opinions, but that is life, but I agree there should an understanding that Boosters stay away from politically divisive commentary regardless of their volunteers’ opinions.  I think the solution is pausing their use of social media until rules and best practices are established, which seems to be the case as I don’t see their twitter online anymore. I have child entering high school next year and know from my childhood how helpful having volunteer Booster clubs can be for the sports and clubs.  I hope this is sorted out very soon!

1
I disagree with this
This is unverified
Spam
Offensive
5-18-2023 12:49pm

Matt Gillis signed the WPS letter - along with the WHS principal and and the WPS superintendent.  So - it seems he would know if he gave authorization to be listed as a Director.  

Perhaps his listing as a Director goes back several years - initiated prior to the current Board?   Of note - the current Board had to file catch up filings - recreating Annual reports for the years 2010 - 2021, when they applied in 2021 to have their charter reinstated. Did that process introduce the error?  (The state had revoked the Booster's charter in 2012 - for failure to file required reports.)  The Westwood High School Boosters, Inc official filings are available on the MA Sec of State's corporation database now - going back to their founding Articles of Organization in 2005. 

I do agree that Booster and other volunteer support organizations can do a lot to enrich the experience of students - both in sports and other activities.  Many such organizations have existed and been affiliated with WPS over the years without these type of problems. Generous and committed parent volunteers who understand both the benefits they can provide and the legal and community responsibility that Board Directorship requires are key to sustaining these affiliations.

In addition to revised social media policies, a change in leadership,adding more parents to the Board of Directors who can more broadly represent the WHS community and accept the legal requirements of serving on the Board of a Public Charity might help ensure that the Boosters org is not used to further the political agenda of one or a few Directors.  

3
I disagree with this
This is unverified
Spam
Offensive
5-18-2023 2:26pm

I guess we won’t know the details for sure, but I thought the email from the district was accusatory of the Boosters in terms of the Matt Gillis “no authorization” statement if he had been in fact a Director for years prior to the current Boosters board.  I also have to imagine Matt Gillis and others were aware of the social media activity if, as someone noted, it was not one individual but many people expressing concerns on the social media activity.  This raises the attention around the curious timing of the district calling out the Boosters (it’s a fair point).  Why hadn’t our Athletic Director nipped this in the bud and resolved this already if these postings had been going on for some time?  I understand the Boosters is a separate entity and he doesn’t have authority over Boosters but he’s a Director and he’s the AD.  Shouldn’t he be sorting these things out before it becomes an embarrassment to the town?  Before it becomes yet another source of tension/suspicion around town elections?  The Boosters has taken down their Twitter page.  That’s a good interim step until there is agreement around social media behavior.  I think it could take some time to encourage rotating in more volunteers on the Boosters (another good idea mentioned by someone in a comment).  It could take some time implementing best practices and polices.  I try to remember these are volunteers too.  From experience volunteer coaching my daughter’s youth soccer team, I know these volunteer situations are often a thankless position.  I read a lot of the comments about what needs to change and I think in the volunteer environment, these changes will take time, and in the meantime the kids lose.  There are year end activities, banquets, awards, and scholarships that the Boosters has been a conduit of distributing generous donations for WHS students and their teams and clubs.  The Boosters have clearly made mistakes but they are volunteers and specific individuals have owned these mistakes and I think Darlene Cancell is making the right points that common ground and common sense is the best approach here.  Asking for a “sincere apology” and producing code of ethics and writing a non discrimination policy - to me these all seem unnecessary requirements for the district to renew its connection to the Boosters now.  I am hopeful though that the Boosters will develop these best practices in time, especially as new volunteers rotate in.  To those offended by one person’s social media activity, I would hold your breath on an apology and really who needs one, knowing that it would never be sincere.  Again, the Athletic Director is probably best person to sort all this out or else this will be dragged out for a longer time than necessary.

1
I disagree with this
This is unverified
Spam
Offensive
5-18-2023 4:05pm

Great points. I agree that we are used to seeing all kinds of activity on social media, but it’s unusual for that amount of political activity to occur on a charitable organization’s account (and there were many political posts that had nothing to do with athletics). My understanding about the timing was that people who weren’t familiar with the group checked it out after one of the school committee candidates made a point about being on the board, which led to the discovery of the social media activity that previously hadn’t been noticed.

3
I disagree with this
This is unverified
Spam
Offensive
5-18-2023 2:28pm

I'm noticing a lot of hypocrisy in this comment section.

1) Many people are criticizing the decision to include information from the Westwood Boosters. I don't see how this is wrong. In order to have a balanced discussion, both sides need to be considered. The letter from Ms. Parks was included, so it is only fair to let the Westwood Boosters make their case.

2) I acknowledge that it would make more sense to create a separate group advocating against transgender participation in athletics. However, it is unfair to criticize taxpaying parents for raising issues directly related to athletics. When people are deciding whether or not to contribute hard-earned money to a cause, they deserve to know what they are contributing to.

Many of the commenters seem to advocate for a fair and balanced discussion, yet when it happens, they want to drown out all opinions other than their own. 

I disagree with this
This is unverified
Spam
Offensive
5-18-2023 2:28pm

I'm noticing a lot of hypocrisy in this comment section.

1) Many people are criticizing the decision to include information from the Westwood Boosters. I don't see how this is wrong. In order to have a balanced discussion, both sides need to be considered. The letter from Ms. Parks was included, so it is only fair to let the Westwood Boosters make their case.

2) I acknowledge that it would make more sense to create a separate group advocating against transgender participation in athletics. However, it is unfair to criticize taxpaying parents for raising issues directly related to athletics. When people are deciding whether or not to contribute hard-earned money to a cause, they deserve to know what they are contributing to.

Many of the commenters seem to advocate for a fair and balanced discussion, yet when it happens, they want to drown out all opinions other than their own. 

1
I disagree with this
This is unverified
Spam
Offensive
5-18-2023 3:27pm

Prior to the editor’s update, the article did not include the school district letter, only the response that was contributed by the boosters. 

And I am in 100% agreement with you that if people are donating to a cause they deserve to know what they are contributing to. Unfortunately the politicization of this group did not come to light until recently. 

4
I disagree with this
This is unverified
Spam
Offensive
5-18-2023 4:00pm

This is incorrect. To be clear, the initial article only summarized both the school district and the Booster letters. Given the discussion, I then posted images of the letter at the same time. The district letter was uploaded first, just a few minutes ahead of the Booster letter.

I disagree with this
This is unverified
Spam
Offensive
5-18-2023 4:24pm

Perhaps I should make clear that when Westwood Minute credits something as "contributed" that is a personal connection with me as editor and Westwood Minute as an organization. As a reporter, I obtain much information through research, or through the grapevine, and that is not "contributed information" to Westwood Minute, but publicly available information or information that otherwise has become known to me.

The school district sent its letter to parents, and Westwood Minute did not receive a copy of its letter. I have the letter in my personal capacity as a parent. In contrast, the Boosters sent its letter to Westwood Minute, and therefore have made a knowing contribution to Westwood Minute. While the school district may assume it's letter would make its way into the news, it was not submitted to Westwood Minute, and therefore is not credited as a "contributor" but only a "source" of information. 

I disagree with this
This is unverified
Spam
Offensive
5-18-2023 4:41pm

Westwood Boosters asked Westwood Minute to print its letter, but I did not so at first, because thought an article presenting both sides would be more appropriate as news rather than serving as a mouthpiece for one side.

I had already planned to write article on the school district letter (before learning of the Boosters letter), but given limited resources, had not yet done so. After contact from the Boosters, it made sense to combine both sides for a more well-rounded picture and not serve as a mouthpiece for either side.

Then, when questions arose, I published both letters virtually simultaneously, so readers can make up their own minds and answer questions not addressed in the article.

I hope this clears up questions about Westwood Minute's intent to be unbiased. I'm afraid I don't have the time or resources to answer every question about my time management or editorial decisions, so I may not be able to answer further questions about my decision to write or publish this article. I hope this answers most or all of the questions that readers have.

1
I disagree with this
This is unverified
Spam
Offensive
5-18-2023 4:19pm

It might be helpful to understand the impetus for this article.  Did the Boosters initiate contact with the Editor to request an article and/or submit their content?  or - Did the Editor independently decide to write and post this article before contacting the Boosters to request their content?

1
I disagree with this
This is unverified
Spam
Offensive
5-18-2023 11:52pm

Using the numbers provided in the Boosters’ letter, their annual contribution is approximately 3/100 of a percent (.0003) of the total Westwood Schools’ 54 million dollar budget. It’s equal to less than 2% of the High School’s athletic budget. Additionally, teams are still able to fundraise under the non profit umbrella of WPS (which is regularly audited and much more closely monitored and managed) so there is really no reason to believe that student athletes will have to go without or that taxpayers will be on the hook for expenses due to the absence of Boosters funds.

The Boosters have been out of compliance with IRS requirements as they admit to in their letter. While supplemental financial support is a wonderful thing to do for our athletes it should be done in compliance with all applicable regulations and laws.  To do otherwise is unfair to donors and to the Westwood Athletics Programs, whose reputation is tarnished by this unwanted attention. It appears the Boosters are making rapid progress to get their house in order. Let them take the time needed to address these serious issues and improve their oversight so that they can get back to their original and true mission of supporting student athletes.

4
I disagree with this
This is unverified
Spam
Offensive
5-19-2023 12:03pm

Sorry, I missed the part of about the Boosters admitting to be out of compliance with the IRS.  Where do you get that Christina Martin?  I saw a previous post from “Concerned Neighbor” helpfully share detail that the State had revoked the charter in 2012 and the current Boosters did the work to sort out whatever needed to be done to have the charter reinstated.  This sounds like the Boosters did a lot of work, or at least more work than they should have had to do, to rectify the administrative missteps of prior Boosters’ officers.  I am appreciative of this volunteer work for our students, but what I am reading is accusations thrown at the Boosters - one for listing Matt Gillis as director without his authorization (he had been a director going back many years, so why are we blaming the current Boosters), another for admitting they’re out of compliance with the State (again, I don’t see where they admit to this or where they should be blamed for being out of compliance).  I think many people have an axe to grind with the Boosters for one person being vocal about his political beliefs via social media activity on the Boosters twitter page.  I agree with this social media concern and frustration (including any promotion of local election candidates) but I think all the “sincere apology” and taking the time to address these “serious issues” talk is just piling on at the expense of getting to a timely solution for supporting the students who participate in WHS teams and clubs.  The stats are interesting Christina Martin, but I think it minimizes the fact that these students will miss out (this spring and potentially longer) on donations made to the Boosters.

I disagree with this
This is unverified
Spam
Offensive
5-19-2023 1:32pm

I don't think there is a "rift" that can or should be repaired. Individuals from the existing organization made some mistakes, losing the community's trust. No amount of discussion will restore the organization's credibility. Start a new organization with a new name, find respected community leaders to be on that board who have not been involved in this situation and who don't have any agenda, and recommit to raising money to support school sports without getting into discussions of issues related to the policies of the schools or opinions of the board members.

6
I disagree with this
This is unverified
Spam
Offensive
5-25-2023 12:48pm

David Atkins, this rift should absolutely be repaired!   It’s late May and most WHS spring sports and clubs are wrapping up for the school  year.   These boys and girls benefit from a Boosters Club distributing along the generous donations from residents and businesses. There was one person that used poor judgement with their social media.   The social media has been taken down.   Why start a new organization  with a new name?   I think it would be good for the Boosters to gain  more volunteers and perhaps have  officer elections.   In  terms of losing the community’s  trust,  I think this is again an overkill statement  because  you and others seem to have an axe to grind over political or personal differences with volunteers  of the Boosters.   I have  spoken to several  neighbors and friends in town, WHS families who think the Boosters is great and this is  all motivated by these political and personal  differences.  These families also think, as I do, that poor judgement has been used with the social media.  Losing the community  trust would involve theft or  misappropriation of funds which is not the case.  There have been accusations of being out  of compliance (by Christina Martin in prior comment)  and of designating  the AD as a  director without his authority (by AD Matt Gillis himself). Both of these accusations appear to be false accusations.  The AD had been listed as a director for YEARS and the current Boosters had fixed the administrative mistakes of prior directors to ensure state compliance.  I agree local  election commentary by Boosters breaks rules and regulations and that  is a mistake along with social media judgement.  David Atkins I wholeheartedly agree with you that that  there should not  be discussions  of issues related to the policies of the schools or personal opinions of the board members.  Still I think many people commenting here against  Boosters are more focused on their personal animosity with current Boosters members  than with finding a  timely solution for WHS  students.   I hope the AD, WHS administration  and the Boosters is working together soon!

I disagree with this
This is unverified
Spam
Offensive