A new element of the Palo Alto school district's communication strategy – to each week gather and categorize all media coverage related to the district as positive, negative or neutral – came under fire from one board member last night, who called for the superintendent to cease the activity.
District Communications Coordinator Tabitha Kappeler-Hurley has been collecting all news stories about the district and then marking them as "win," "lose" or "tie." The practice is a metric for one of the board's five overarching goals for the year "to anticipate, respond, and promptly resolve distracting and disruptive issues in order to maintain focus on the District's vision."
It was reported in Tuesday's board meeting agenda that as of Nov. 22, there have been 50 positive ("win"), 10 negative ("lose") and 42 neutral ("tie") stories about the district.
Among those marked "wins" was a Palo Alto Online article previewing the first board meeting of the year; "ties" included stories about Palo Alto High School's new academic integrity policy and a recent student suicide.
Kappeler-Hurley told the Weekly Tuesday that a story categorized as a win successfully shared the "good work that the district is doing," and particularly might have been the result of a press release she shared. What's designated a tie is more subjective.
"Even if it's something that you could say is a negative story or a story that highlights a problem or an issue, it's still very much be possible for it to be a 'tie,'" she explained. "Is it fair reporting? Is it balanced and give good information? It may still highlight a problem and that's fine. That's the role of media, to share information."
She added that a story that might have left out information the district provided to the reporter "might slide it over to the negative."
Newly elected board member Ken Dauber, who along with Terry Godfrey was sworn in Tuesday night, expressed concern that such an approach is moving away from what the district's standard on media coverage should be: ensuring accuracy.
"I don't think that it really reflects our communications strategy well to try to categorize media reports (as) positive, negative and neutral because I think it leads us into decisions that media coverage is negative not because it's inaccurate necessarily -- which I think should be our standard -- but because it's critical," Dauber said. "I think that we really should be focused on how do we ensure that we are working to communicate effectively facts about the district and that we are responsive to the media and so forth. I don't think we should be necessarily monitoring the tone of those articles or whether we agree with their perspectives."
Board member Camille Townsend and Melissa Baten Caswell, who was elected board president Tuesday night, agreed that accuracy is important but didn't express support for discontinuing the media analysis.
"You bring up a very valid point -- if we're categorizing accurate as positive, we get into a situation where not very good news is counted as a positive because it's accurate," Baten Caswell said. "We probably need to separate the two of those."
Superintendent Max McGee, who said he successfully used this as a communications metric during his tenure as Illinois state superintendent, defended the approach as a means to dispel a "bunker mentality" within the district.
"When I first got here, what I heard from members of the community and especially from the leadership team is, 'We are under fire from the media. We have a bunker mentality. We are paralyzed by all the negative press.' That's a term that was used," he said.
"There's a psychological benefit for people to see that the loudest voice isn't the only voice," Baten Caswell echoed. "We could all argue with Tabitha on whether things are positive, negative or neutral, when maybe all we need to do is keep track of how many positive articles there are just so that people know that there are (positive articles)."
Dauber agreed that letting district staff "know that their work is appreciated in the community" is important, but that it can be done in other ways. He suggested making it a practice to circulate positive news stories internally and said he'll bring further ideas to the board's next meeting in January.
"I think the ultimate principle here is our performance is going to drive our perception," Dauber said. "If we focus on performance, then perception will follow. That's kind of the basic crank that we're trying to turn.
"I think this moves us into territory that we don't really want to be," he said. "I suggest that we discontinue this particular instrument."
Baten Caswell said she'll make sure the topic is brought back for future discussion as part of the superintendent's mid-year evaluation on Jan. 20, when board goals will also be discussed.
Comments
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 10, 2014 at 10:21 am
on Dec 10, 2014 at 10:21 am
I can see McGee's point, but Dauber is right. The district people have a bunker mentality because key people did some despicable or just incompetent things, and they don't know how to take responsibility and learn from their mistakes. [Portion removed.] McGee doesn't really know about those things or he'd have worked harder to bring in his own team. He's not going to solve the bunker mentality that way here because it doesn't stem from the media coverage.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 10, 2014 at 10:31 am
on Dec 10, 2014 at 10:31 am
This is an interesting topic and we should be told about it. But what else happened, where is the full report on the meeting?
It is now 10.12 am on Wednesday morning. As yet there is no report on the meeting last night.
Was it well attended?
What was discussed about enrollments?
What happened at Open Forum? Were there many speakers? What were their topics?
A newspaper should be reporting this news. Thank you.
Fairmeadow
on Dec 10, 2014 at 10:50 am
on Dec 10, 2014 at 10:50 am
OK, this is insane. School staff is actually categorizing news stories as positive, negative and "ties." What is this story? Is it "positive" because it informed this taxpayer of an absolutely goofy thing the school staff is doing? Is it "negative" because it's shedding light on this practice? Is it a "tie," because, well, I don't understand ties at all I guess.
Come on, now. We're smarter than this. Focus on the kids in school and not the words in the press.
Duveneck/St. Francis
on Dec 10, 2014 at 10:51 am
on Dec 10, 2014 at 10:51 am
I sense a long 2-years of Dauber vs. Caswell arguments over the minutiae.
Sounds to me like the Communications Coordinator is trying to find a reason why PAUSD hired her in the first place. Everything should be based on truthful and honest information. Yes, there will be coverage that shows the district in a bad light. They need to accept that and correct the issue, not count newspaper clippings.
At some point, PAUSD needs to own up to their mistakes, figure out what does and what doesn't work and use what does and toss away what doesn't, and move on. It sounds like they're too afraid to make a mistake or admit that they might not be perfect.
People accept mistakes. What they can't accept is when you try to hide, blame someone else or make excuses.
Fairmeadow
on Dec 10, 2014 at 11:16 am
on Dec 10, 2014 at 11:16 am
A suicide="tie." Such apparently inept labeling makes clear the inadequacy and potential for offense of labeling. Moreover, just as some people want only to learn the "score" of a game rather than how it has been played,
labeling can be a disincentive to learning about situations that may be complex. The ideas of "win" and "lose" suggest an adversarial role with media, whereas the job of school communications should be to raise awareness, not tell people how to judge certain issues.
Presentation of any story can include a broad range of perspectives about relevant issues, but the understandable desire for an entity to attempt to cultivate a positive image promotes propaganda that interferes with a nuanced understanding of important issues.
Barron Park
on Dec 10, 2014 at 11:22 am
on Dec 10, 2014 at 11:22 am
Dear onliners,
It's very discouraging to see the District's opinion that a story regarding the suicide of another Gunn child represents a "tie."
To label such a story as a "tie" is to stress the measures taken in order to rebound—which clearly have not worked in this District—over the plain fact of another child ending his life in front of a moving train. (I'm deliberately using plain, factual words.)
When I was teaching at Gunn in 2009-2010, I heard from students who had gone off to visit colleges that, during the guided campus tours, when it came out that they were from Gunn, the other parents and students on the tour, visitors from around the country, would whisper about "the suicide school." This was very hurtful to my Gunn kids.
And now, again, I think this District faces a very uphill battle to get its win-loss column where it wants, especially at the national level, the one that college admissions offices pay attention to. We seem, unfortunately, to want to place a positive "spin" on the very events—still unconsidered—that are wrenching our hearts.
I think this entire town, and its students and teachers and administrators, remains shaken and frightened by our teenagers ending their lives on our local railroad tracks, and that our self-regard and self-confidence—especially for those who were part of this community in 2009-2010—have been wounded in ways yet unhealed.
I do not think that the way out of this, though, is to look to see how well our self-image has been polished in the media. It would be better if our decision makers gave their concern to listening to our teenagers, rather than to listening to the news.
Mr. Dauber's warm and inviting remarks, last night, addressed directly to the Gunn girls who spoke during Open Forum, were gracious and timely. And it's a very good thing that he's raising questions about this win-tie-loss media policy. I think his observations go to an important issue: whether what will help us most in the District is a positive reflection of ourselves in the press, or a true one.
Sincerely,
Marc Vincenti
Crescent Park
on Dec 10, 2014 at 11:49 am
on Dec 10, 2014 at 11:49 am
Regarding the comment by "resident" about a lack of coverage of last night's meeting, I suspect the Weekly is having a hard time with the story because Dauber didn't look good. As the Post pointed out this morning, he apparently violated the Brown Act (open meetings law) by responding to people who made open forum comments. The board is supposed to stick to the agenda topics and not discuss things that aren't on the agenda. Dauber certainly must know the rules since he used to lecture the board on various laws, but he ignored this one.
Since the Weekly supported him so strongly, it's probably taking time for them to come up with a story that whitewashes his performance. He didn't look good, so I'm sure the reporter is having a hard time spinning it.
At the end of the meeting, Dauber called for the district to stop pursuing its Freedom of Information Act requests it had filed last year with the Office for Civil Rights.
He made the argument he used in the campaign that the district's battle with OCR was too costly and should be stopped. Of course he used to work for OCR and got campaign contributions from his former boss there. Anyway, the other board members pointed out that any money spent on the requests had already been expended, and the only thing that will happen now is that the district will get the information from OCR and share it with the public.
Townsend and others said that they wanted the information for transparency's sake. I think Dauber wanted to stop the information from getting out to protect OCR. [Portion removed.]
Again, Dauber doesn't understand the Brown Act. Besides, the other board members said, 11:45 p.m. wasn't the time to discuss the subject. So I guess it will return at a future meeting at an earlier hour so the board can vote 4-1 in favor of transparency.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 10, 2014 at 11:58 am
on Dec 10, 2014 at 11:58 am
I have been watching this spectacle since 2009 with great interest and am, frankly, quite baffled by the lack of progress we have made in so many areas that could benefit the social and emotional health of our students.
I applaud the brave Martha who did the Snodgrass skit with Mr. Vicente and a Youtube video that was gut wrenching. The students are the ones that we should be listening to. The girls that were advocating for change but not the kind that strips them of their cell phones had lots of good things to say as well. I think we do need to hear from our students. They are the ones who are living day in and day out in this pressure cooker Palo Alto.
What about the article about cheating that was published in the Daily News today? Is that a "win", "lose", or "tie". I can't imagine that these students are the "honor" students who are trying to secure themselves a spot at MIT or may be sabotaging another student's experiment so that they may get a spot at their sought after institution of higher learning. If they have to use "academic pressure" as a reason to do these acts that should be a signal to the parent community that clearly we are not raising healthy happy students. What is even more appalling is that many parents will prevent the staffs of our schools to dole out an appropriate punishment for cheating. In my day and age there was a zero tolerance for this kind of behavior. The article reminded me of all the projects that I saw arrive at my children's schools that had significant input from professional parents and were truly not the work of the child. We are, indeed, a very sick society and until we bring our moral compass back to true north these problems will continue to escalate.
I am extremely ashamed that our district has hired someone to "spin" our district's news in such a a way that they could ever call a suicide a "tie". You a owe an apology to those this kind of labeling hurts. Enough!
I am very happy that we have someone of Ken Dauber's caliber whose compassion has directed him in a direction that is looking out for all of our students. Thank you Ken! Ken certainly deserves to be listened to after all of the years he has been advocating for our students.
It is high time that we hear more from our students. We need forums where we hear from the students and have no "slide clicking experts" that rattle off a bunch of statistics. We can also hear from students who didn't cave into the system marched to their own drummer and were very successful. We have many of them in our community. We need to hear from our students both past, present and future! The sooner the better. We cannot afford to wait!
College Terrace
on Dec 10, 2014 at 12:01 pm
on Dec 10, 2014 at 12:01 pm
Hannah Arendt herself could not have predicted that a schools would describe the suicide of one of its students as a "tie." This indicates that the district is reviewing a story about a students death to see how the district or Gunn comes across in the story. This is something we would expect to see from a corporation whose product kills such as tobacco or firearms. It is totally inappropriate and ghoulish behavior in a school.
What must the parents of these two beloved boys think of the callous and banal manner in which this has been handled. Tabitha should be terminated immediately. Immediately. When the PR manager becomes the story it is time for her to go.
Dauber is an absolute hero for surfacing this issue. Shame on the rest of this useless board.
Midtown
on Dec 10, 2014 at 12:03 pm
on Dec 10, 2014 at 12:03 pm
Far too much talking, not enough positive actions.
We have not elected school board members to spend any of their time categorizing the articles in the press but to work and propose concrete solutions by collaborating with the entire community, students, parents, teachers, medical professionals, to make our schools a healthier place for our children. Period.
Maybe an efficient way to start is to ASK - LISTEN - REFLECT on how our students feel. All of them, not just a few representatives.
Charleston Gardens
on Dec 10, 2014 at 12:06 pm
on Dec 10, 2014 at 12:06 pm
The Post's charge that Dauber violated the Brown Act, repeated here, in making brief responses to citizens during Open Forum is entirely spurious. The relevant part of the Brown Act:
"No action or discussion shall be undertaken on any item not appearing on the posted agenda, except that members of a legislative body or its staff may briefly respond to statements made or questions posed by persons exercising their public testimony rights under Section 54954.3. In addition, on their own initiative or in response to questions posed by the public, a member of a legislative body or its staff may ask a question for clarification, make a brief announcement, or make a brief report on his or her own activities. Furthermore, a member of a legislative body, or the body itself, subject to rules or procedures of the legislative body, may provide a reference to staff or other resources for factual information, request staff to report back to the body at a subsequent meeting concerning any matter, or take action to direct staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda."
The school board's own agenda for Open Forum says, "Without taking action, Board members or district staff members may briefly respond to statements made or questions posed by the public about items not appearing on the agenda." Melissa Caswell affirmed this at last night's meeting. Who knows why the Post was confused on this point, except that they didn't support Dauber's election.
As to the OCR FOIA requests, Dauber's comments were stimulated by the Superintendent's report that the district's lawyer had discussed an outstanding request with an OCR lawyer. Obviously our lawyer didn't have that conversation for free, so these FOIA requests are not free. Even if there is no more legal work required before the documents arrive, we are still going to be paying lawyers and staff members to review the documents, comment on them, summarize them, discuss them, etc.
Personally, I think most people agree with Dauber that there is no benefit to the district in continuing to pursue these requests relating to closed cases, but at least it should be clear that it costs money to keep doing it.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 10, 2014 at 12:17 pm
on Dec 10, 2014 at 12:17 pm
Why did Ms. Godfrey go "with the flow" (meaning the same old sewage that we had flowing pre-election) last night when she clearly stated in the pre-election forums that she we not interested in wasting our precious resources paying for lawyers and continuing this madness with the OCR?
I guess she has already forgotten her campaign promises? I wonder what her reasoning for last night's flip flop.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 10, 2014 at 12:38 pm
on Dec 10, 2014 at 12:38 pm
> Personally, I think most people agree with Dauber that there is no benefit
> to the district in continuing to pursue these requests relating to closed cases,
> but at least it should be clear that it costs money to keep doing it.
Dauber was elected by only 25% of the registered voters. The OCR issue was not on the ballot. So, suggesting that Dauber is now the voice of the community that pays for the PAUSD is not going to fly!
The the massive fraud and malfeasance in the Federal government, particularly during the current Administration--if the OCR is out of line, the taxpayers have a right to know.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 10, 2014 at 12:44 pm
on Dec 10, 2014 at 12:44 pm
It seems we now have a new hot topic for our schools debates.
I think it is interesting to know that somebody is watching the media reports and logging the information, but grading them is an awful idea and should not be done. There is a big difference between whether something is a truthful interpretation of the facts and whether it is showing the schools in a good light or not. I don't particularly care what the media think as such, but do care that they are reporting.
My bigger concern on this topic is that our own media, the Weekly, does not seem to report anything other than what it wants to report. A comprehensive report of last night's meeting would include more about the audience, the various topics on the agenda (enrollment) and Open Forum. To make the headline about media concerns is not good enough. How much time at the meeting did this take? Is it really the best item for the reporter to write about? How long did the reporter stay at the meeting, perhaps the reporter was only there for this part of the meeting? I don't know I wasn't there.
I would like to have a better coverage of Palo Alto issues by the Weekly.
Southgate
on Dec 10, 2014 at 12:55 pm
on Dec 10, 2014 at 12:55 pm
I am cross-posting what I said about this over in the discussion thread on my guest opinion piece, "It's time to rethink our high schools."
Web Link
News flash, I just read that the district's PR person, Tabitha Kappeler-Hurley, has rated my guest opinion a "tie" based on the district's new grading metrics for news coverage.
I think it's sad that we are paying someone six figures to read and compile a spreadsheet about PAUSD news stories. This money could be used to hire a nurse or other needed professionals at the site level. My advice to the district is: use your platform to highlight the stories you like to serve your own purposes, and ignore the press that you don't like it. Myself, I look at the PAUSD News Blog, keep up the good work getting your message out there.
According to the metric that I read in the Weekly's article today, only "positive" stories will get a "win" rating, and anything with any criticism will be a "negative" or a "tie". I am heartened to read that my piece, because it doesn't merely praise the status quo, managed to eke out a "tie" and not a "negative".
According to the Weekly's article: "Kappeler-Hurley told the Weekly Tuesday that a story categorized as a win successfully shared the "good work that the district is doing," and particularly might have been the result of a press release she shared. What's designated a tie is more subjective."
"Even if it's something that you could say is a negative story or a story that highlights a problem or an issue, it's still very much be possible for it to be a 'tie,'" she explained. "Is it fair reporting? Is it balanced and give good information? It may still highlight a problem and that's fine. That's the role of media, to share information."
So if I get this right, a story that highlights a problem or an issue will be a negative, unless she deems it worthy of a tie. So for example, if we write about the achievement gap, that's a negative, unless it pleases her, and could only be a win if we praise the task force that is working on it.
Why waste public money on this exercise? Instead, why not just identify and respond to inaccuracies in the press?
I would actually like to petition for a "win" rating for my piece, for sharing thoughts on how we might improve our district in a constructive manner and for attempting to hold a civilized community discussion in this anonymous, open forum. However, maybe "tie" or "negative" will be the new "win". I'm not a reporter, but if journalists are getting graded on whether they parrot positive press releases, not report the facts, that's bad for all of us in a free society.
But uh-oh, I think I may be down-graded to a "negative" after this post. What a downright Orwellian and ridiculous undertaking this is.
Crescent Park
on Dec 10, 2014 at 1:16 pm
on Dec 10, 2014 at 1:16 pm
[Post removed.]
Charleston Gardens
on Dec 10, 2014 at 1:27 pm
on Dec 10, 2014 at 1:27 pm
CW says: "Just for the record, Baten Caswell had to remind Dauber that it was against the board's policy to respond to open forum comments, so I don't think the Post is alone in having a concern about Dauber's end-run around the Brown Act." It's not against the board's policy to respond to open forum comments. See the statement on the board agenda that I quoted: "Without taking action, Board members or district staff members may briefly respond to statements made or questions posed by the public about items not appearing on the agenda." More to the point, it's not against the Brown Act either. CW is just making this up out of thin air, contrary to the facts.
I said that Dauber's comments on FOIA were stimulated by the fact that the district heard from its lawyer about FOIA because that's what he said. The superintendent's report on OCR was mostly about FOIA. I'm not coming up with some offbeat interpretation.
Charleston Meadows
on Dec 10, 2014 at 1:29 pm
on Dec 10, 2014 at 1:29 pm
[Post removed.]
Charleston Meadows
on Dec 10, 2014 at 1:31 pm
on Dec 10, 2014 at 1:31 pm
Also Baten Caswell specifically said that Daubers comments were fine. So the post from CW is a bunch of baloney.
Crescent Park
on Dec 10, 2014 at 1:32 pm
on Dec 10, 2014 at 1:32 pm
I understand why so many people view any action by PAUSD staff as suspicious...given the last few years of contention. I'm not taking sides but would like to point out that most successful organizations track media reports, websites, relevant online forums, etc. Though not perfect, these are all great sources for information, opinion, "pulse taking", etc.
So if I were to look at this as the glass half-full, then I'd say that it is encouraging that there are people at PAUSD who are looking for and listening to news reports, public opinion, feedback, etc. As for the "grading" of all these items...guys, don't sweat the small stuff.
Crescent Park
on Dec 10, 2014 at 1:44 pm
on Dec 10, 2014 at 1:44 pm
"Legal Eagle," the Brown Act (Section 54950) doesn't allow boards to discuss topics that aren't on the agenda, even when responding to public comments. But "legal eagle" if you think you're right, then tell me where it is allowed in the Act. Please cite the specific section by number.
Charleston Gardens
on Dec 10, 2014 at 1:53 pm
on Dec 10, 2014 at 1:53 pm
CW, the citation in the Brown Act 54954.2(a)(2). I'll repeat it here. Contrary to your statement, it absolutely allows board members to respond briefly to public comments on items not on the agenda. That is its whole purpose.
"No action or discussion shall be undertaken on any item not appearing on the posted agenda, except that members of a legislative body or its staff may briefly respond to statements made or questions posed by persons exercising their public testimony rights under Section 54954.3. In addition, on their own initiative or in response to questions posed by the public, a member of a legislative body or its staff may ask a question for clarification, make a brief announcement, or make a brief report on his or her own activities. Furthermore, a member of a legislative body, or the body itself, subject to rules or procedures of the legislative body, may provide a reference to staff or other resources for factual information, request staff to report back to the body at a subsequent meeting concerning any matter, or take action to direct staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda."
I really think you should take a minute to educate yourself before posting statements that are completely incorrect.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 10, 2014 at 1:56 pm
on Dec 10, 2014 at 1:56 pm
That's true, Crescent Park Dad, but usually organizations have at least some interest in finding ways to use the information to identify and correct problems, to innovate, and to respond better to customers. Remember what the goal of a school district is -- it's not primarily to pad the resumes of C-players or to gloss over their misdeeds.
Organizations who allow key members to engage in a lot of CYA especially at this level, are troubled organizations indeed. Allowing it in a school district, for people who already hold all the cards powerwise against vulnerable students and families, is just wrong and deleterious to the mission of the organization.
If they were tracking the media to send around attaboys once in awhile, as Dauber has suggested, that's great. Better that they should be using the media to identify problems, because the district office is a den of insularity, and some of the most insular are already feeding McGee the K00l-aid.
Registered user
Southgate
on Dec 10, 2014 at 5:43 pm
Registered user
on Dec 10, 2014 at 5:43 pm
I don't think it's sweating the small stuff to have an issue with this practice. It's an inappropriate use of limited public funds, and it was of course utterly insensitive about the suicide of one of our kids.
Also, I assume Ms. Kappeler-Hurley is going to start grading the Campanile and the Oracle, etc? Our kids write journalism and a lot of it discusses areas of concern to them. Get on with it, and tell them they get a "tie" or a "lose" for writing truth that you don't like or control.
I'm also concerned about the optics of this. It will be easy at a high-level to just view public coverage as either positive or negative based on her rubric, and around here negative means you're branded as blaming the schools, divisive, etc., even if you just wish to discuss areas of improvement, so this practice will only feed that intimidation and name-calling. I've already been accused of it by anonymous posters for writing my guest opinion.
I would think anything that helps surface and explore areas of improvement should be a positive. What if we had a graft or abuse scandal, or some other scandal that was discovered by investigative journalism? Well it would be a negative based on the rubric. I think that it would obviously be a positive to the rest of us. And the district works for us, so it needs to reflect the interests of the community.
I reached out to noted journalism professor at NYU, Jay Rosen, who writes the influential Pressthink blog.
http://pressthink.org
Here's what he said (he gave me permission to quote his comment):
"I have never heard of it before and I don't think it's good idea because there's a fatal ambiguity: is a story "negative" because it's poorly done, biased or sensationalized.... or is it negative because it's delivering negative news... or is it the latter but called the former by people who can't face "negative" news?"
Actually it's worse than what he posits, the only test is whether it's positive or not, it can be poorly done, biased or sensationalized, but as long as it's positive then it's a win.
I think only Charlie Sheen is interested in "winning". Let's get district staff back to work on things that matter.
Registered user
another community
on Dec 10, 2014 at 8:34 pm
Registered user
on Dec 10, 2014 at 8:34 pm
@Spectator---
Yes, this discussion have been going on for a long time.
Sandra Pearson, former Paly principal and an acclaimed past PAUSD official, wrote to PAUSD board regarding the new communication PR position. Her letter was published here - (Web Link
Many threads dealt with this issue. The above is one sample.
Registered user
Green Acres
on Dec 11, 2014 at 2:05 am
Registered user
on Dec 11, 2014 at 2:05 am
Which meeting did CW attend? I saw a room filled with Dauber supporters who cheered and clapped boisterously and at length when he was sworn in. It was clear why the majority were there -- to support Dauber for his swearing in.