Reporting on PBHA Inaccurate

I am deeply disturbed and offended by your most recent PBHA article, PBHA Board To Consult Cabinet" (Aug. 15). In it, numerous factual errors and misinterpretations of complex topics were presented, resulting in factual contradictions and skewing of my position in the PBHA-Harvard negotiations.

The clearest example of your irresponsible reporting occurs when you claim that the Board "reached consensus to delay their decision" when you later claim that Dean Epps, a voting Board member, "opposed the decision. " He in fact, formally voted against such a move-there was no consensus reached.

However, it is the more subtle mishandling of sensitive and complex topics that is more upsetting. For instance, your story claims that PBHA and the University have reached impasse-one side insisting the executive director must report to the board" and the other insisting that the executive director must report the University, " further assuming that any such intermediate situation is considered an "imperfection. "

As was noted in my e-mail to the Cabinet on Aug. 11 (which you cite in this article), reporting is an incredibly complex topic. The nature of finding a compromise is to define what areas Harvard needs reporting from PBHA's executive director and what areas PBHA needs to effectively maintain its programs. A compromise is an ideal situation that both sides have been working on, not an "imperfection" to which one has to "capitulate".

According to the Cabinet resolution of April 30, 1997, PBHA voted for a PBHA hired-staff that would enhance our programming, and that the Board should supervise the executive director with guidelines that were helpful for mutual understanding between Harvard and PBHA. However, you quizzically claim that I moved to "retract the organization's demands. " I am not clear on what you are paraphrasing. What I did was move to accept an agreement-on which the Board of Trustees has been working diligently for the last six months-that coincide with Cabinet's demands.

Again in my Aug. 11 e-mail, which I am sure you have read with deliberate scrutiny, this agreement on the table is substantively and operationally better than the agreement signed in 1996. PBHA does have de facto control of the search process for the executive, and numerous other auspicious changes have been made, ranging from changing the composition of ex-officio university board members to provisions that-allow PBHA to manage the program support staff.

Nevertheless, the most disrespectful aspect of this whole ordeal is how information was gathered. Since I publicly held a different opinion from other student officers that were interviewed, any responsible journalist would know that my views were pivotal in accurately reporting this story. When interviewed after the Board meeting, not one single comment that I made was used. Rather, you decided to rely on paraphrasing my position and actions, disregarding my direct input. I can only view insidious strategy to spin the story so my position "directly opposes" other PBHA students, and make my stance of constructive compromise seen as "capitulation. " Both acts I find completely inaccurate and reprehensible. -Michael W. Ma '98,Vice President, Phillips Brooks House   Association, Inc.