You have a right to an opinion, but you ignore the central issue to the editorial which is the conflict of interest. That's paragraph two, which you skipped over in your haste to defend Ghysels. It doesn't make much sense to skip that paragraph which provides the main theme.

"First, and most obvious, is the inherent conflict of Mizell reporting to Ghysels, and whether she would enjoy favored treatment at the expense of the district's other principals. Ghysels has attempted to remove that possibility by arranging to have Mizell report to Mary Lairon, the district's associate superintendent. But since Lairon reports to Ghysels, at least an indirect conflict remains."

I think both Steve and Hugh, in the other letter, left out comment on Para 2 in order to make their argument. If they had commented on Para 2 their focus would not be on what they believe the issue to be (purely a matter of personal relationships). They would have had to address the conflict of interest.

This whole "affair" has been characterized by rhetorical slight of hand on the part of Ghysels, the trustees, Goldman, and now Steve and even Hugh.

Honestly ask yourself this: If you the reader were involved in such activity as Ghysels and Mizell, what kind of sympathy, objectivity, and breaks would you really expect to get from everyone around you in your professional and personal lives? Yes, I too can already hear the whispering behind my back, the plates crashing, and feel the cold shoulders.

I thinks it time we all just call it unprofessional and disgraceful behavior and move on. This is getting old.

It is unavoidable that one or both administrators in this relationship has to move on to avoid conflict of interest.

But if the Board really would like to reform the culture and climate at MVWSD they should find someone other than that angry fossil Stephanie Totter to handle HR. The partiality, favoritism, and blind allegiance she has shown in bending rules and skirting ethics to accommodate her friends and higher ups is really astounding. I thought she'd be gone after padding Eleanor Yick's pension, but I guess she has done so much of the District's dirty work over the years they feel they must keep her on.

If we are ever going to be able to move forward from this latest lapse in judgment and personnel management we need someone new, who can meet the challenges of staffing a school district with an eye toward excellence, integrity and fairness. We don't have that now.