There is almost nothing I hate more than getting an email or a letter that carries the letterhead of a law firm.
When you do what I do for a living, that is never good news.
Every once in awhile they want to announce a new member of the firm, or that one of the partners has been named a "super lawyer."
Usually they are not nearly nearly as nice. They start by announcing who they are and who they represent, and proceed to lay out that person's beef with the paper.
This week I've been getting lots of them, as the drama has unfolded at Cardinal O'Hara High School over the ouster of Principal Marge Rogai.
First came the email from Daniel McElhatton. He's representing the fired Rogai. He points out she will not be making any public comment, but "stands by the comments made in her email to the O'Hara Community on Sunday, Nov. 16."
If you haven't read it, check it out in Tuesday's blog. It's a doozy.
She makes the case for why she believes she has been wrongly dismissed, building up to a fairly stunning statement at near the end of her missive. She alleges she was the victim of "unwelcome physical contact" by a male member of the O'Hara Advisory Board, the group that sought her ouster.
We used almost all of the content from her email in both our story and my blog - except for one thing. We did not name the man she accused of this contact.
On Wednesday I get another email, this time from attorney Gaeton J. Alfano. He wants me to know he represents the man accused by Rogai, and that he "denies any inappropriate conduct towards Ms. Rogai." The word any is underlined for emphasis. Then there is this final flourish. "We view her baseless allegations as libelous."
He includes a copy of the letter that he sent to the archdiocese in response to Rogai's email to the O'Hara community, in which he categorically denies any inappropriate contact with Ms. Rogai.
Which leaves me with an interesting dilemma.
Is this man, who clearly believes he has been wrongly accused and trashed by the outgoing principal, in effect going public with his denial?
I decided against it. We did not use his name again today. I actually think we could have, but I'm not sure it would have been especially fair, since no formal charge or allegation has been made against him, aside from those included in Rogai's email.
The letter that was included in his attorney's email was the one sent to the archdiocese to deny her allegation, not necessarily something he was releasing to the public.
I will admit at first I considered naming him, but then thought better of it. Welcome to my world. Those are the kinds of decisions I get to make every day.
Last night, the story heated up again, at a packed meeting of the O'Hara Home and School Association.
Parents are upset. I don't blame them a bit. They complained that the matter was handled "unprofessionally," and questioned why the move was not made last summer, rather than disrupting the school year, in particular a lot of kids' senior year.
They listened to Superintendent for Secondary Schools Dr. Carol Cary and Associate Superintendent Peter Balzano talk about the decision to terminate Rogai.
Cary stressed the move was made only after comments from all sides - the school community, students, parents, teachers, alumni.
I don't know what happened at O'Hara that led to the downfall of Marge Rogai.
I do know this. I know a lot of people are once again upset with me and the Daily Times for taking shots at O'Hara. They believe we never miss an opportunity to knock the school. It's all part of our anti-Catholic bias.
Which likely would comes as news to the good Sisters, Servants of the Immaculate Heart of Mary who taught me for eight years.
I stand by our coverage.
I've heard a lot of comments both pro and con when it comes to Rogai over the past few days.
I don't think any of it is going to make a difference.
Right now it looks like it's going to be a legal feeding frenzy.
That's what usually happens when people "lawyer up."
I'm hoping to stay in the middle. I'll talk to anyone who has something to say.
Even the lawyers.
Comments