We received this e-mail from a teacher whose name is being withheld.
From: [name withheld]
Please withhold my name, as I fear repercussions from the board. At yesterday's staff/faculty meeting, during which Mr. Lahm was asked to attend in order to clarify the board's intentions with regards to the staff/faculty/board meeting, he assured us that the board has no intention of terminating anyone else's contracts. Nevertheless, the general feeling is that his assurances do not count for much.
In a previous message on this site the issue of "neutrality" was mentioned. It is my personal feeling that any individual or community who declares themselves "neutral" in the current crisis is indeed implicitly supporting the Board of Trustees, insomuch as it allows the board to continue on the path they have staked out for the children of the ISM community. We don't know what they want to do with the school, but by standing neutral, we'd be giving them free reins.
The board is currently attempting to divide and conquer, by avoiding a meeting with both parents and faculty at the same time. At yesterday's staff/faculty meeting, Mr. Lahm's justification to the faculty for not wanting such a meeting with both parents and staff/faculty was that "there was little common ground between the concerns of the faculty and those of the parents". The resounding response to him was that the concerns of parents and ISM employees are exactly the same: the welfare of the children.
Concerned ISM employee