Post Reply to Rock's House

This is not a vent board or any other kind of therapy. Before you hit the POST button, ask yourself if your contribution will add to the level of discussion going on.

Important notes on articles:

Handle:
Password:
Subject:

Message:

HTTP Link (optional):

Poster's Email (optional):

 


Post being replied to

Not in light of Swarbrick's public comments to The Observer by ShermanOaksND

While it remains theoretically possible that Swarbrick has privately voiced displeasure over Kelly's performance, the fact that Swarbrick pointedly declared Kelly in satisfaction of Swarbrick's own expectations is substantial evidence to raise a non-speculative inference that Swarbrick's discussions with Fr. Jenkins et al. have been to the same effect.

Also, to be clear, I've never suggested that Swarbrick resign in protest. He obviously won't do that if his expectations and beliefs are as he described them to The Observer. And even if those weren't his expectations and beliefs (which would mean he lied to The Observer, given how clear his statements were), he could stay on the job and actively work to change ND's expectations. For instance, he could try to persuade Jenkins et al. to raise their own expectations, or even get explicit or implicit authority to impose higher expectations than those shared by the PTB. At a bare minimum, Swarbrick wouldn't make public comments remotely similar to those he just made to The Observer.

I rarely think resigning in protest is required. One exception would be if Swarbrick were absolutely convinced Kelly needed to be fired but was overruled and told to keep Kelly. But that seems far-fetched. We're more likely to see the opposite, and already did in the case of Ty Willingham. But even then, neither Kevin White nor Monk Malloy felt strongly enough about that decision to resign in protest.