Supt. Hamm’s letter about Spring Valley incidents

I’ve finally, finally, finally gotten caught up on my email for the week, so I’m belatedly sharing with you this message from Sen. Joel Lourie. He sent it out to member of the Richland County legislative delegation, with this note:

Dear Fellow Members of the Delegation –

By now, each of you should have received the attached letter from Dr. Hamm regarding the incident at Spring Valley High School.  I have heard from many parents throughout the district who have indicated their support for the way this crisis was handled, and a strong sense of optimism in moving forward.  I believe there will be positive changes that come out of this unfortunate situation.  On a statewide level, we should re-visit the “Disturbing Schools” section of state statute to insure that we are not criminalizing incidents that could be handled administratively.  I also want to thank Dr. Hamm and the administration and board for their professionalism and sensitivity in dealing with this matter.

Best regards always –

Joel Lourie

I’m in complete agreement with him that the “disturbing schools” law needs to be addressed — in fact, I see that as the one legitimate response the delegation may have to these school matters.

I would copy here the contents of the note from Dr. Hamm, but unfortunately, it’s one of those PDFs that won’t let you copy and paste the text.

But you can read it by clicking here

9 thoughts on “Supt. Hamm’s letter about Spring Valley incidents

  1. Doug Ross

    Link goes to:


    Only the NSA has access to your C: drive.

  2. Brad Warthen Post author

    Has everyone (everyone who is interested, I mean) been able to read the PDF?

    As a journalist and especially as a blogger, I don’t much like PDFs. At best, they are harder to work with than Word files, and at worst, they are only a picture of a document, and too dumb to recognize that they contain text — in which case, they might as well be JPGs of a document.

    I resent them, and tend to see them as deliberate attempts to undermine transparency — that, and a Clinton-emails-style attempt to control everything. It’s saying, “You can only read my words in the original document, you may not pluck out quotes.”

    But journalists are going to pluck out quotes anyway, so it’s a bit self-defeating, because forcing hurried journalists to retype the words introduces the opportunity for error.

    And of course, PDFs may not represent such control-freak impulses at all. They may reflect the technical ineptitude of the person sending out the document.

    (At this point, maybe one of you is thinking, “Brad’s inability to grab text from this document illustrate’s BRAD’s technical ineptitude.” All I can say is that it you’ve got advice, I’m listening — but keep in mind that I lack the ability to WRITE in a PDF. I only have a viewer.)

    1. Bryan Caskey

      Brad, you can probably convert your MS Word files to PDF format. When you go to your “print” function, see if one of your possible “printer” options is something that says PDF. If you have that, when you “print” it, you’ll create a PDF of the document, and it will be a searchable one, not like a scanned image. I use that function all the time. For me, it ensures that when I send a document to opposing counsel, like say a 22 page settlement agreement, that they can’t easily edit it.

      PDFs are harder (but certainly not impossible) to modify than MS Word documents. Also, if you ever have to file a document in a federal court proceeding, you have to file e-file it, and the format has to be PDF. The feds won’t accept any other format.

      Lawyers use PDFs a lot. They’re you’re friend when you want something to be more secure that an completely open MS Word file.

  3. Bill

    ‘The audio or video on this page requires DRM software that Firefox does not support’
    I’m also technically challenged.Using Firefox’s private browsing is the only way I can read,The State w/o going insane.Helps w/those annoying audio/videos,too.It’s almost as good as the 1990’s.

  4. Pat

    I see no problem with a PDF. This was a signed document on letterhead; it was scanned and saved as a PDF. The author wouldn’t want anyone changing a document with his/her signature. It has nothing to do with lack of transparency. It’s all about security and keeping it with the original content.
    I also think the administrators handled the student protest appropriately.

Comments are closed.