We were tremendously happy to have been able last week to report that former Supt. John Q. Porter was completely exonerated by the district attorney after an exhaustive investigation of the so-called 21 allegations that had been trumped up in what was clearly an effort by the then school board chairman to soil the superintendent’s good name.
Just as clearly was it true that Cliff Hudson (the board chairman who has also resigned) engaged the services of a hatchet man in the form of a former federal prosecutor to do his dirty work; all with the clear objective of throwing as much crap as they could manufacture, and throw all of it against the wall of integrity and decency Mr. Porter has managed to accumulate throughout his distinguished career….All of this was done with the hope that some of that crap would stick.
The goal, of course, was to attempt forcing Supt. Porter to throw up his hands and to simply walk away, just because Cliff Hudson is a control freak who has a propensity for micro-managing.
Well, Oklahoma County District Attorney David Prater made it crystal clear with his 258-page report that Supt. Porter has been mistreated, and Mr. Hudson ought to be ashamed of himself (as well as should the school board members who played an active role in this travesty of justice).
What we thought to be most instructive was the district attorney’s finding that, at all times, the school board and Mr. Hudson and Hatchet Man Robert McCampbell had available to themselves documents, etc., that exculpated Supt. Porter of most of the 21 allegations. The question becomes, “Why didn’t you, Mr. McCampbell, and you, Mr. Hudson, go forward with the silly allegations knowing there was no substance to them?”
A news reporter asked what was tantamount to that question at a news conference held by Mr. McCampbell and a public relations spokesman for the school board.
Mr. McCampbell, understandably, did not answer, and the board spokesman said she did not know the answer.
We know the answer.
Mr. McCampbell’s and Mr. Hudson’s investigation was a sham, and it appears as if Mr. Hudson instructed his hatchet man to come up with as many “bad-sounding” allegations as possible (regardless of whether there is an absence of substance).
Our question is this: Don’t lawyers and public officeholders have an ethical responsibility to tell the truth, to not present trumped up and baseless allegations that mislead and distort?
Incidentally, we understand that the Oklahoma City Chamber of Commerce is planning a reception to honor Cliff Hudson for his contributions to the school district, and we recognize that the school board presented the ole boy a trophy or something like that the other day.
Who will give him what he deserves for what he did to willfully do damage to a good man’s career and to Supt. Porter’s reputation and record of integrity?
An even cursory examination of most of the allegations (which could be done even by those among us who don’t happen to have law degrees) would yield the same conclusion the district attorney reached: there’s nothing to any of them.
Two new school board members have taken their seats since the Hudson travesty of justice against Supt. Porter, so that some of that cabal of evil that allowed Mr. Hudson to do what he did is still there. Those who were saying back then they would not rest until there is a complete re-configuration of the school board (i.e., they want to throw the rascals out!) should remain vigilant and keep working.