I have never been one to allow misconceptions or untruths about me, or actions that I've taken, pass by without rebuttal. With regard to the issue of the New London school's superintendent search, however, I have remained quiet in order to allow the process to play out. That is, until now.

The Sept. 12 article in The Day, "New London school board appoints itself as search committee for superintendent," reports that the original search committee, "unanimously selected (Terrence) Carter for the district's top position."

This is not the case.

While the final vote of the search committee was clearly in favor of offering Mr. Carter the superintendent position, my vote, and two others as I recall, was cast for the other finalist being considered. My decision was not easy, since given the information provided at the time, Mr. Carter appeared to be a strong candidate. Nevertheless, I felt that the other finalist was a better fit for New London and its future. It was in the interest of showing support for potentially the next superintendent, that news of the split vote was never publicized and the assumption of unanimity within the search committee was made by the press and public.

A number of other points regarding this process also need stating. Over the past few months, I have witnessed much finger pointing and a good deal of it has been in the direction of the search committee. I consider this to be inappropriate considering that every member of the search committee was a volunteer whose role was to find an individual from those presented to us that best fit the needs of New London. Those entrusted to complete final vetting and background searches were paid professionals.

Search committee members were asked to develop criteria for the position and the search and compare candidates using the information provided and interviews. Those responsible for ensuring the accuracy of the information presented for and by candidates included the search firm of McPherson & Jacobson and the State of Connecticut Department of Education. These roles were clearly defined and at one point, if memory serves, the search committee was even instructed not to conduct any investigations of its own since that would be completed by the search firm. Not willing to taint the process as established, I, and I believe the other members of the search committee, complied.

When Mr. Carter was selected to be offered the superintendent position, none of what has since come to light was known to the search committee. After the search firm completed what it described as a background check, the only issue that was disclosed was a financial matter which, as we were told, was resolved and could not be used as grounds to deny the position.

Subsequent allegations reported by The Day and the Hartford Courant, including inappropriate use of a Ph. D. title, financial issues more severe than originally reported and possibly unresolved, inaccurate identification of minor studies, plagiarism on an application, plagiarism on a cover letter, and the withholding of a Ph. D. degree by Lesley University, were all unknown to the volunteer search committee and for whatever reason, not identified by the professional search firm or the state.

It has now been reported that the New London Board of Education alone will conduct a new superintendent search. That is their prerogative, but my hope is that the five other members of the original search committee will be at least given a debriefing to identify why the first attempt went so badly and to define the plans for the new search.

If asked, I suspect we would all serve again as members of a search committee. I doubt, though, that anyone of us will be as trusting in others as we were.

Adam Sprecace is a former New London city councilor.