The report by attorney Christine Chinni was not a good one. It skirted the main issue. It put the fault on the lack of student reporting incidents and resolved the issue by offering in-service. Case closed.

The main issue in this case was the lack of supervision and evaluation in the high school and the athletics department. They write a letter　of concern, but they would only act if another incident was reported. The responsibility for oversight falls to the students. What is the administration's affirmative role and responsibility? At the end, they all agreed the offending teacher had to go but were appropriately told there was no record, they had no case.

How could his actions go unknown by his supervisors if they were doing their job? I can understand they had to buy him out due to their　lack of supervision. What I do not understand and what is not in the report is why did they agree to a nondisclosure clause? This omission allows him to continue to vie for teaching positions and continue his misdeeds in another school.

This report is a whitewash of poor administration and supervision.

Matthew Borrelli

East Lyme