Medford School Board: The Jim Horner problem.

     "It is shockingly bad behavior to divert attention from finger-flipping-rape-and pillage man by purposely misrepresenting the actions of a fellow board member."

           A reader comment on Jim Horner

Jim Horner

This blog draws fire.

Readers say it should not have described Horner as being clever and effective. They say it should have said he was being bad.

When Kevin Husted's Instagram photo and post about wishing to get away with rape and pillage went viral, Husted stopped his active campaign for Medford School Board, and apologized.  But something odd happened just prior to that announcement: School Board member Jim Horner defended Husted. He dismissed Husted's post as "unfortunate" and a "step backward" amid forward progress, and immediately switched to attack mode:

   "Kevin’s unfortunate image reminds me of the unfortunate image created when Kevin’s opponent, Karen Starchvick, then board chair, gathered a quorum of the board (not including Cynthia Wright and myself) at a local pub to imbibe alcoholic beverages and review the results of the CTE bond election."

Per Horner's request, this blog had published in its entirety his letter defending Husted with its attack on Starchvick. Here it is again:  Click.

At the time this blog described Horner's behavior as likely smart hardball political strategy. The blog did not focus on the fact that it was nasty and dishonest, but rather on the technique of political distraction. It judged effectiveness of political craft.

Horner knew full well his accusation of Starchvick was unfounded, since the social gathering of five School Board members was witnessed by a Tribune reporter, it had been reported on, and Starchvick's behavior was observed to be credit-worthy. She enforced the Public Meetings law; she didn't break it, as Horner knew. Here is how the Tribune answered Horner's complaint at the time: They told him he was wrong. Click.

But Horner made a useful lie, this blog wrote. With a false accusation of Starchvick, public attention might move from what the Husted Instagram post suggests about Husted's ability to be a role model. Horner was muddling the issue. It might give his political ally cover. 

My conclusion: Jim Horner was clever and strategic. 

Readers have taken me to task. 

They say this blog's attention to political craft causes it to miss the most important point. Campaigns reveal character. It isn't about Horner being smart. It is about Horner willingly being dishonest. That is the role model Horner is setting for the students and parents of the District.

 They wrote:

   1. A false accusation is immoral per se. ("Thou shall not bear false witness.") 

Husted apologizes for it. Horner defends it.

   
   2. It damages Horner's credibility in other matters, which means that in the long run it is not even useful for him. People will conclude that if he lies about this, he will lie about other things.
   
   3. It causes Horner to defend the indefensible. Even Husted agreed his Instagram post was incompatible with his campaign, but Horner is left owning it, rape, pillage, and middle finger.
   
   4. It damages Horner's ability to work with colleagues. He sits in a board room amid a colleague he misrepresented. That has to feel uncomfortable and stifle trust.


Comments have come by telephone, email, and comments to the blog. Here are excerpts:


Henrietta:  "Say what you will about Curt [Ankerberg], at least he doesn't pretend to be what he isn't. 

Mr. Horner, on the other hand, pretends to care about the school board and public education, yet undermines board decisions whenever he holds the short straw. He consistently demonstrates willful ignorance about how consensus works in a governing body. Further, it is one thing to disagree on policy, but shockingly bad behavior to try to divert attention from finger-flipping-rape-and-pillage man by purposely misrepresenting the actions of a fellow board member as he did by repeating his assertion that Starchvick broke the Public Meetings law. 

AND he did so knowing she not only obeyed the law but that she enforced it. How did he know? Because when he tattled to the press a year ago, the Tribune carefully laid out the law for him. 

Glen Gann will at least serve as a member without an ax to grind and bring real-life experience that matters to the Horner-held seat."




Rick:  "Yes, the "what about?" defense is intriguing. Sure, overt attacks get a lot of attention but it's just as insidious to gloss over questionable issues by claiming that somehow another's actions are worse. Just because it's not hyperbolic and dramatic doesn't mean it's inconsequential.


At best it claims an equivalence that may or may not be valid, but at worst it's an effort distract and mislead those who are making a judgement. It's actually kind of silly on the face of it. No responsible court of law would accept "What about?" as a defense, indeed, it smacks of a grade schooler complaining to a parent about a sibling's behavior."



Dave: "In my years on our board I learned the importance of members' having the ability to work together through many issues respectfully. I shudder to think how working with the likes of Mr. Horner will be, now that he has publicly entered into a confrontation with his Board Chair."


Update, 7:45 a.m.:  Karen Starchvick emailed me saying that she saw this blog post, says she does not welcome this, and wishes I write nothing regarding Horner.  

Noted.