Correlation does not imply causation. The concept is taught - and for the most part neglected - in practically every educational venue on the planet, particularly high school statistics. The notion teaches us that if two events occur together, it does not mean that they are related. If every time X happens, Y follows suit, human nature is to assume X has something to with Y, when all we really know is that the two correlate. Despite the counter-intuitive thinking this requires, it is the illogically logical way we are supposed to approach life’s puzzles. 

The Village of Homer currently has a couple of Xs and Ys floating around, and officials are playing the part of stats teacher telling us to resist the temptation to connect the dots. The resignation of former village clerk/treasurer Lea Anne Nowlin is X. The recent conclusion of a state police-led investigation into $2,500 in missing property taxes is Y. We are being told that they are unrelated and their happening within two weeks of each other is a coincidence. The resignation of the village’s chief financial officer may seem related to the missing taxes, but we are being led to believe they are just correlated.

Investigators concluded that insufficient information was available to determine what happened to the missing funds, and no charges were filed. This would presumably clear Nowlin of any negative implications, but when she offered her resignation and entered a confidentiality agreement with the village, a cloud of suspicion was once again cast over the situation.

The confidentiality agreement reeks of misconduct, even if it is completely independent of the tax situation. Confidentiality agreements do not depend upon misconduct, but the two often correlate.

In stats class the correlating factors were researched to determine if they are mere coincidences or if in fact one variable depended upon the other. The confidentiality agreement prevents any such research from occurring, and village council members have given no indications that these are avenues that should be explored. They seem willing to accept that the agreement puts it out of their hands. A couple of council members compared the situation to when an employee at a private company resigns, claiming no one had the right to know what may have brought it about.

The village office is not a normal company. It is a government institution, and the employees are held to a higher standard. Hirings, firings and resignations happen every day but, when it happens at a municipal body, the fact of the matter is, certain questions need to be answered. The council is neglecting their responsibility by taking an ‘ignorance is bliss’ approach.

Nowlin cited personal reasons which she’d like to keep confidential for resigning. If they are indeed personal and not at all job-related, then how would anyone know about them in the first place, and why would a confidentiality agreement be ncessary? Village Manager Jerry Stonebraker, Village President Chris Miller and village attorney Mark Robison were present when the agreement was discussed. How would those gentlemen even know about any personal issues pertaining to Lea Ann’s resignation unless she told them? That wouldn’t make sense considering she wanted her reasons be kept confidential. What do they know that she doesn’t want told? Nowlin’s, Miller’s and Stonebraker’s entering the agreement and consequential silence further suggests something of substance is being kept from the public, like perhaps a suggested resignation, or the choice of being fired or resigning, and the reasons for such.

Presumptions such as these are bound to be drawn when a confidentiality agreement is involved. By entering such a contract Miller, Stonebraker and Nowlin are doing little to discredit them. Just because all these factors correlate doesn’t mean they necessarily had anything to do with each other but, if we are given nothing else, then what else could we possibly believe?