Progressive Charlestown: Residents push back against Chariho School Committee's new policy on decorum

Free speech curbs stir hot debate

The Chariho School Committee held a special meeting on Tuesday to consider revisions to its code of conduct. The revisions, requested by Committeemember Diane Tefft, are included under the heading of “Decorum” and seek to mandate how people at the meeting comport themselves, speak, and behave.

It is clear, when reading the proposed rules about decorum, that they were written to target the public, not just committeemembers. How else to explain items like “Committee members and participants are encouraged to model the respectful behavior we expect of students and staff in our schools” or “Participants shall avoid disruptive actions such as outbursts, applause/cheering during proceedings, demonstrations, or the use of devices that interfere with the meeting.”

However, due to public outcry, pressure, and emails from constituents, who feared that under the guise of decorum, First Amendment rights might be curtailed, the wording was changed and the new rules, adopted on a 5-4 vote, apply only to the committeemembers.

Still, the difference between participants, members of the public, and committeemembers wasn’t always seemingly understood. Late in the meeting, when an audience member interjected themselves into the meeting, Committee Chair Louise Dinsmore said, “Please stop interrupting. You are not recognized by the chair. This is exactly why we need rules of decorum among - school committee members.”

As several speakers noted during public comment, the committee chair has the authority, under Robert’s Rules of Order, to direct the conversation and admonish those who speak out of turn. The decorum rules passed by the committee are unrelated to that.

Also of interest was the way Chair Dinsmore attempted to sideline proposed changes to the Code of Conduct made by Committeemember Jessica Purcell. After Committeemember Tefft made her motion, Purcell listed a series of revisions, but was told to wait until after the first motion was vetted and voted on. However, less than an hour later, when Committeemember Purcell attempted to revisit her proposals, Chair Dinsmore tried to shut her down, insisting that the issue had already been debated and no further action was necessary.

In the end, Committeemember Purcell was able to get the Code of Conduct sent to the Policy Subcommittee, where her ideas can be fairly vetted.

Here’s the transcript, edited for clarity:

Committee Chair Louise Dinsmore: We’re going to convene our special meeting of the Chariho Regional School District on Tuesday, February 3rd.

Discussion and vote to review and amend the Chariho School Committee Rules of Conduct. This was an agenda item brought forward by Member Diane Tefft. So at this time, I’m going to turn it over to Diane...

Mr. Moffat, resident: I have a point of order...

Louise Dinsmore: Your point of order?

Mr. Moffat: Your code of conduct requires a public forum at every meeting. It doesn’t specify the difference between a special and a regular meeting, so I’m curious as to why there is no public forum [listed on the agenda] here. It states, in your code of conduct...

Louise Dinsmore: Here’s our attorney. He just stepped in.

Attorney Jon Anderson: I anticipated this question... There is nothing that precludes the chair from allowing people to speak during the meeting. Bottom line, we all get to the same place. We may get there through different routes.

Louise Dinsmore: Once the school committee has had a chance to discuss the topic, we can take public comment. It will depend on how many people speak during public comment, but we’ll get there, and once we get there, I will allow the public to speak. Okay? Diane, I’m going to turn it over to you...

Committeemember Dianne Tefft: Good evening, fellow committee members, superintendent, staff, and members of the public. Tonight, we are considering updates to the Chariho School Committee’s Rule of Conduct. These rules are designed to ensure our meetings remain efficient, effective, and focused on the important work of serving our students, families, and communities across the Chariho Regional School District. Our current rules of conduct give us general guidelines for such things as meeting procedures, meeting times, the order of meeting agendas, the use of Robert’s Rules of Order as the guide used for our meetings, agenda development, communication, requests for information by members, ethics, and violations. However, the lack of decorum and members’ outbursts at most of our school committee meetings over the last year have highlighted the need to revise our rules of conduct. These revisions will strengthen and clarify certain provisions to better address behaviors that disrupt a quorum, hinder our ability to conduct business, and distract from the respectful environment we all strive to maintain.

The proposed updates aim to reinforce the core principles of courtesy, mutual respect, and professionalism among committee members. Principles that model the same standards we expect in our schools and that support constructive, collaborative collaboration on behalf of our students. These changes are not about limiting legitimate debate or differing viewpoints among committee members. Robust discussion is essential to our democratic process. These amendments are intended to provide clearer guidelines for decorum expectations among members, enabling thoughtful decisions without disruption and helping our meetings serve as positive examples of civic engagement.

I believe these refinements will help our body fulfill our responsibilities more effectively while upholding the integrity and collegiality that our community deserves. While reviewing public feedback online, I realized I used the term “participants” in my suggested revisions when it should have been “school committee members.” With that being said, I make a motion to adopt the updated rules of conduct as distributed to school committee members, with references to “participants” being replaced by “school committee members” and removal of the first bullet point, 5C, under enforcement language.

Louise Dinsmore: Thank you for that statement. We have a motion and a second. Discussion?

Committeemember Jessica Purcell: To start, I believe special meetings should be reserved for urgent district matters. This is our second special meeting within a matter of months. Our rules of conduct state that special meetings may be called for grievances, student discipline hearings, personnel matters, litigation, and negotiations, but this doesn’t fit any of those categories. We must prioritize the important topics that put our students first.

The suggested additions to the code of conduct are overly subjective, driven by feelings and bias, rather than by procedure and the orderly conduct of meetings. You addressed the issue that they blur the line between school committee members and the public, but I also think they threaten freedom of expression and the ability to determine how we can express ourselves in these meetings. I think any revision to this policy should align with Robert’s Rules of Order, which provide clear guidelines for organizing meetings and addressing one another.

I think they should also comply with the Open Meetings Act and constitutional protections for free speech and expression. As noted in the policy, Robert’s Rules of Order are an important framework. It helps us maintain order and the fair expression of diverse viewpoints, and it includes guidelines for taking action when members are out of order in their conduct, as outlined in the rules of conduct.

Robert’s Rules grants the chair authority to maintain order, but the chair generally cannot remove a member from a public meeting without a committee vote, which conflicts with the suggested additions to this policy.

Louise Dinsmore: I think she removed that, right? Diane? She removed that. Yeah..

Jessica Purcell: It’s hard to follow when you’re making changes in the meeting. Diane made points I agreed with, but as presented, they’re too subjective. These edits are subject to personal feelings and interpretation. They include redundancies with the current policy and Robert’s Rules. I suggest a much shorter, simpler section titled “Standards of Conduct” for school committee members. We can discuss members refraining from materially disrupting proceedings or interfering with others’ ability to participate. I think “members shall prepare for meetings in advance and refrain from the personal use of devices during meetings.” That, to me, has been more distracting than anyone’s behavior in meetings. I also think “members shall wear attire that’s appropriate for a public government setting that does not display slogans, images, or messages. This has been a concern for several constituents in messages I’ve received, and it’s come up in meetings before.

I would also like to suggest that the “chair may issue warnings, taking caution to ensure that rules are applied equally and not based on the speaker’s viewpoint.” I think these standards should be objective, not subjective. That makes it more realistic to enforce fairly and evenly for all members.

I was also surprised that you didn’t have any edits to the rest of the policy. When I want to make changes to a policy, I look at it as a whole. There were other things within the policy that I thought could be added. The policy states that each member may hold the floor twice, but there’s a 10-minute window. You can hold the floor twice, and Robert’s Rules specifies 10-minute intervals. That might be worth adding here.

Also, it states that the school committee may respond. I wonder if we could broaden that to include the superintendent and administrative staff. That’s a common practice that we already observe. I also wonder if we could shorten this section and refer to the public forum policy. This is a separate policy we already have. I’d also like to include that “school committee members can vote to extend public forum past 30 minutes if there is a motion to do so, and there’s a two-thirds majority vote.” That’s in accordance with Robert’s Rules.

The policy talks about sealing executive session minutes. I think that should be expanded to include sealing discussions, proceedings, and minutes, because you’re not only responsible for keeping the minutes to yourselves, but also for what we discuss and what happens in those meetings.

Louise Dinsmore: All right. So I think we have a motion and a second on the language that Diane suggested. And I’m talking about overall policy...

Jessica Purcell: I’d like to finish speaking. I’m almost done.

Louise Dinsmore: I understand that, Jess. So, do you have a point of order?

Jessica Purcell: I would like to finish my thought though...

Louise Dinsmore: I’m finishing my thoughts...

Audience member: Oh my gosh. She was literally speaking, and you cut her off.

Louise Dinsmore: First, you have not been recognized by the audience. This is a school committee discussion. I have not called on any member of the public. When I open it up to the public, you can feel free to say what you need to say, but I will not tolerate outbursts. This is a school committee discussion at this time. I’m sure you have a lot to say, and we will open it when it’s time. Please be respectful and let us finish our discussion. Thank you.

Jessica Purcell: What I’m saying is relevant to the topic at hand, and I’d like to finalize my suggested changes to the policy currently on the table.

I’d also suggest that we extend the agenda request period from 8 to 14 days. In section 3A, it discusses how school committee members, outside the committee, should “speak only for themselves.” I think that should be during meetings as well. We should strike out where it says “outside of meeting setting” so it just says, “school members should speak only for themselves. They should avoid giving the impression that they speak for the school committee,” and, I’d like to add, “and the Chariho Regional School District.”

This is not really in this policy, but I’d like to discuss the possibility of requiring school committee members to undergo an annual background check, just as volunteers do for the school district. That’s what I have prepared for notes. Thank you for letting me finish.

Louise Dinsmore: Okay. You had several items there. We have a motion on the table regarding Diane’s specific language. Before we get to your suggested changes to the rules of conduct, we had a motion and a second on Diane’s suggested language that had been redlined. Is there any other feedback on that?

Committeemember Craig Louzon: Why now? We’re just starting to come together, and this is a very divisive issue. Why would we want to do this now? We don’t have much more time left as a committee. Do you really want to hit the hornet’s nest? That’s all I’ve got to say.

Louise Dinsmore: I appreciate your feedback. I think there have been members around the table, and I’m not speaking for any other member, but there have been inappropriate and unbecoming outbursts that have impeded our ability to work together as a group. Specific behavioral guidelines are needed, and Diane brought the agenda item forward. I know that there have been other members around the table who have negative feelings about our ability or inability to have productive discussions around the table. I think it’s great that we’re here at this point, but we should come together, and we should make a renewed commitment to come together for the time that we have left.

Committeemember Linda Lyall: I’d like to comment on that renewed commitment. I’m feeling a little pressured because you’re not allowing, say, for Jessica’s ideas ... I know a motion and a second was made to accept as proposed, but we’ve never really done that before. We’ve always included other people’s suggestions. I believe Jessica’s suggestions should also be included, as I agree with some of them.

Louise Dinsmore: Absolutely. But we have a motion on the table, so we must address it first. And then, if there are any other updates or revisions that other members have-

Linda Lyall: But if the motion on the table passes, then there’s no other revision...

Louise Dinsmore: But there could be another motion to make updates to the rules of conduct.

Linda Lyall: Why would we want to do that? I have problems with some of the language. I feel it’s ambiguous. I’m going to feel that I have to be careful with what I say and how I say things. If I get angry at some point in time, that’s okay. You’ve become angry at meetings. We all have.

And I agree with Craig. I think that we were on a path of actually working together as a group, and now we’re sort of back to ... It is divisive. I don’t understand why we need to do this. I agree with Jessica that I would rather spend my time on work that is important to teachers, students, learning, and keeping schools open. I don’t think we need this at this point, to be quite honest.

If we follow Robert’s Rules, we could have very productive meetings. That’s how I feel.

Louise Dinsmore: Would you categorize the outbursts in the past as productive and as conducive to collegiality? Because I haven’t felt that way.

Linda Lyall: How many outbursts? I had one outburst. Karen had one outburst. I don’t know, there haven’t been lots of them. I think you’re more uncomfortable with the public forum. I really do.

Louise Dinsmore: I am what? Sorry?

Linda Lyall: I think what is most uncomfortable is some of the things that have been said during the public forum.

Louise Dinsmore: I’ve listened to everybody...

Linda Lyall: I know you have. And I’m not saying you haven’t. When I was chair, I had my cross to bear, and I know other chairs have too. I don’t think this is helpful at this time.

Committeemember Laura Chapman: Because there have been differences of opinion and we only have one meeting a month, it may seem like only you or Karen have [had outbursts], as you noted previously, but there have been multiple outbursts over the past year. From a personal perspective, to be on the receiving end of something like that from other committee members is not helpful. It doesn’t feel very good. Everybody has a different lived experience, in my opinion. Laying some ground rules like this is not a problem. It’s not intended for the public. I think it’s mainly a matter of decorum and staying on the right path. I don’t think that there’s anything outrageous in any of this stuff, to be totally honest.

We all recognize these things, but again, we’re all different people, and we all interpret and take things differently. And I think that if you go back and look at multiple meetings, you can see that certain things tend to happen that make it very uncomfortable for some people, and I would like to avoid that.

Committeemember Karen Reynolds: Avoiding discomfort is not always possible. The policy’s decorum provisions limit free speech and give the chair the power to silence speakers with whom she disagrees. I will own the outbursts that I’ve had, but words like respectful, productive, courtesy, ridicule, anger, rudeness, and impatience are subjective terms and can easily lead to unequal application.

A question for the chair: Were you being respectful and courteous on June 17th, 2025, when you turned to the audience and said, “I’m not finished. I allowed everybody to express their views this month and last month. I don’t. I’m going to finish my statement as Donna finished her statement last month. Don’t be disrespectful.”

Chair, were you angry, impatient, and rude, or were you agreeable, tolerant, and impassioned? These are subjective terms that can be interpreted differently, person to person. During the same six-minute speech, you said, “I am the chair of this committee, an equal member of this committee. The sooner you and the Chariho community accept that, the sooner we can all move forward to act in the best interest of the students of this district.”

Again, was that professional, respectful, and courteous, or was it demonstrative, disrespectful, and discourteous? It is safe to say we all have our moments, but now you want to control what is acceptable and what is not. We don’t need this policy. Can we all do better? Absolutely. But this looks like, feels like, and sounds like a limitation to people’s free speech, even at this table.

Committeemember Polly Hopkins: None of these ideas is any good unless they’re enforced. I’ve seen so many of these over the past three and a half years. I’ve seen several of these rules of conduct broken, stomped on, and misused. I suggest you all read the last paragraph. When I was censured, the censure procedure was not followed. I was not given any notice, including a certified letter, that I would be censured. I was not provided with the evidence for the censorship. So these [rules] are only as good as the paper they’re on, unless they’re enforced and upheld by every single one of us with respect to the next one. That’s all I have to say.

Jessica Purcell: I want to follow up with folks who have expressed discomfort with statements made or heard in meetings. There’s a recourse for that. If something happens in a meeting that we’re not happy with, we can call a point of order andpoint out that someone’s behavior is inappropriate and that they’re basing their statements on personalities rather than the issue at hand.

Louise Dinsmore: But isn’t that subjective? If I say somebody’s behavior is inappropriate, isn’t that subjective?

Jessica Purcell: Not if you call a point of order that they’re off topic or debating personalities and not issues. If you think someone’s out of order enough to change a policy, then you can call a point of order within a meeting. That’s appropriate, based on Robert’s Rules of Order and our current code of conduct.

Craig Louzon: This says rules of conduct. It’s also a policy, correct? Correct. We have a policy subcommittee. We don’t use it. Why wasn’t this brought to them first?

Louise Dinsmore: At one of our last school committee meetings, Diane raised the idea of holding a special meeting on this topic. The superintendent and I, when we were reviewing agenda items, because our meetings have gone quite long, often, sometimes beyond 10 o’clock, thought that if we put this item on a regular meeting, it would again go quite long, most likely beyond 10 o’clock. The superintendent and I discussed holding this as a special meeting. We discussed it as a team during our review of all agenda items. That’s how this came to be.

Craig Louzon: Why didn’t it go to the subcommittee first?

Louise Dinsmore: Because a member, Diane Tefft, asked it to be considered as a special meeting. So here we are.

Polly Hopkins: Read the formation of policies policy. That’s something I asked [our attorney] to look at because there’s no mention in there of a policy subcommittee. It’s a sketchy area. It doesn’t have to go to the subcommittee.

Louise Dinsmore: Is there any other input from the members before we go to the public? All right. So I have-

Before I open it up to the public, I would like to give some comments on this.

Our school committee meetings should model the respectful civil dialogue we expect in our classrooms and our district. Members who raise their voices, engage in personal attacks, interrupt, or otherwise engage in disruptive behavior detract from our shared purpose of acting in the best interests of our district and moving it forward in the spirit of excellence. In our exchanges as school committee members, we should strive to embody patience, kindness, and self-control in our words and tone, myself included.

There have been occasions when voices have been raised in frustration toward one another. We should remember that we serve the public best by choosing restraint, seeking understanding, and maintaining composure, even in disagreement. Moving forward, let us, as school committee members, commit to the highest standards of decorum: listening attentively without interrupting, maintaining respectful body language and tone, refraining from side conversations, and treating each other’s views with respect.

If members wish to share opinions about fellow members or broader matters outside the meeting context, they may exercise their free speech rights through letters to the editor or social media on their own time. However, when we convene as a public body to conduct the district’s business, we must uphold the highest standards of professionalism, fostering an environment where mutual respect and decorum guide every interaction. We face several consequential decisions ahead. As discussed earlier in our meeting, we have a fiscal year ‘27 budget. We have an elementary school capital improvement plan that will define our school facilities for generations. To deliberate effectively on these important matters and all district and business matters, we must ground our discussions in mutual respect and renew our commitment to it.

In my view, maintaining the highest standards of civility is as essential and timely as the substance of the issues we address.

I want to thank Diane for bringing an important topic forward for the special meeting. It’s something we’ve needed to discuss. It’s something we’ve needed to discuss and address for some time, to be candid with each other and to listen to each other. Over the last year, honestly, there have been instances where remarks aimed at me personally have felt deeply hateful and vile, inappropriate, and out of bounds. Worse, there have been times when the intensity of our discussions and votes left me personally feeling unsafe as I left our meetings. That’s not how any of us should feel while serving our community as public servants. In today’s climate, where political tensions too often spill into intimidation or even violence against public officials nationwide, it’s more important than ever that we set a different standard here.

We can and must prioritize mutual respect and safety for everyone at this table. Our district prioritizes kindness at every level. Kindness is reflected in the Vision 2026 strategic plan at all levels. In turn, the school committee should be that model for kindness, dignity, and respect. Whenever we fall short of embodying those values, we fail in our common humanity.

Diane, I think your recommendations for revising our rules of conduct are well considered and timely. I wholeheartedly endorse them, including the revisions you made and the revisions the public emailed to several of us today. I appreciate the revisions you made. You respected public input, and I appreciate that.

With your revisions, you emphasized upholding civility and decorum among the school committee members because these are the school committee’s rules of conduct. I hope this helps us work together moving forward.

Those are my comments. I will open it up to the community now.

Public Comment

Gary Stoner - Richmond Resident: I believe the policy Ms. Tefft submitted was submitted in good faith, but it is redundant with the school committee code of conduct, Robert’s Rules of Order, and the principles for conduct on the school committee. The first responsibility of the school committee members is to put the schools and the children first. If you do that all the time, you won’t need guidelines for conduct and so on. In any case, I believe this proposal duplicates existing content and needs attention.

Secondly, I object to putting into the hands of this or any other chair the responsibility to infer what is right and wrong and to determine when that person, if they’ve been determined to be wrong in what they’re doing, how they should be cut off or what should happen.

I believe that infringes on free speech. I think you’re wasting your time and should be home with your families.

Polly Hopkins: Mr. Stoner, can I clarify something with you, please? These rules are for members of the school committee. Did you think they were just for the chair? Because any member can pull up any of these and make a point of order and decorum

Gary Stoner: I believe the written policy covered all members of the school committee. I read in there that the chair of the school committee would be the judge.

Louise Dinsmore: For any public body, the chair keeps decorum.

Gary Stoner: The chair runs the meeting. So I infer that that’s what’s in there.

Polly Hopkins: Thank you. I just needed clarification on how you were thinking about it.

Debbie Miller - Cranston Resident: One of the things you should consider, moving forward, is to make your school committee nonpartisan. I think that would make things much easier for everyone. What is the process for reporting a school committee member who’s perhaps out of hand? I saw something for repeated offenses, but I don’t see anything for day-to-day. Would it be appropriate for me today to put in a formal complaint against Polly Hopkins? When I approached her earlier, I asked her to ask you where to sign up to speak, and she totally dismissed me. I felt very offended when she did that. I didn’t think that was professional at all. I don’t think it would meet your standards here. I think that if school committee members can’t act professionally, they shouldn’t serve on the school committee. It’s the same thing when you go to work. If my subordinate were unprofessional, you know what? They’d be done. If they were rude to clients, they’d be done.

The same applies to the school committee. If you don’t know how to behave appropriately, leave. I think that this whole policy that you’re trying to put forth should be tabled until you can figure it out. I think that the policy subcommittee should be formatted a little bit more specifically, so you know what goes first, what goes second. It sounds like you’re very confused here.

The rules of conduct should be your normal way of life. If you can’t perform professionally here and in your private life, you shouldn’t serve on the school committee. For instance, let’s say you’re on social media, and you post something on your personal account that’s a little bit unprofessional, like a photo of Nazis and members of the LGBTQ community?

Would you post that? I wouldn’t allow people to post that at my workplace. I suggest you table it until you can resolve it.

Polly Hopkins: Excuse me. Ms. Debbie Miller of Cranston? Could you clarify something for me? Or let me give you some info. She asked who she should contact. You can contact the Rhode Island Ethics Commission if you believe that when you came up behind me two inches from my face and asked that, I didn’t react, and you felt offended. Please get in touch with them. Okay? Thank you.

Louise Dinsmore: I’m going to ask school committee members to refrain from speaking to the public, because we shouldn’t be engaging in a back-and-forth during public comment. So thank you, Ms. Miller.

Debbie Miller: I appreciate it. If we can’t speak from the sidelines, the school committee members shouldn’t either.

Louise Dinsmore: Typically not during public comment.

Polly Hopkins: I will clarify, because I’ve been down this road: Public forum, before the meeting, prohibits the school committee members from interacting with the public on a large scale. You can clarify questions. You may ask questions; the agenda is open, and the public is invited to comment. We’re allowed to have a back-and-forth and discussion, as far as I know.

Craig Louzon: Just for future reference, you’re wrong by Robert’s Rules.

Polly Hopkins: Okay. Please tell me.

Craig Louzon: You ask the chair the question. The chair will ask the person standing at the podium.

Bruce Olian - Richmond Resident: Madam Chair, the word “you” cannot be used to another member. All remarks are addressed to the chair, Madam Chair.

Louise Dinsmore: Thank you, Mr. Olean...

Bruce Olian: The word “you” is out of order.

Louise Dinsmore: I don’t recognize you, Mr. Olean, but thank you.

Justin Bentley - resident: Thank you for allowing the public forum. I appreciate that.

Louise Dinsmore: You’re welcome.

Justin Bentley: I was afraid that wouldn’t happen. Thank you, Ms. Tetft, for striking the language. The word “participants” was, I think, why many people are here now in the room. We’re a little leery. For clarity, all items we discussed apply solely to the school committee, not to the public. Correct?

Louise Dinsmore: At least that’s what her revisions reflect.

Justin Bentley: The fear of limiting free speech was mentioned earlier. I would appreciate it if we were allowed, as long as it’s not disruptive to the meeting, to express our approval without being boisterous. If something is said that we feel passionately about and that is great for Chariho Schools, I would like to be able to, from the audience, express my approval.

Louise Dinsmore: Thank you. I appreciate that, Justin.

Cameron Giusti - Hopkinton Resident: With all the changes that you’ve made, I think it’s unwise to vote on this policy tonight. You have fundamentally changed your initial thoughts. Taking the enforcement language out of it, while I appreciate that, I don’t understand why any of the rest of this is necessary. I appreciate that it hasn’t been applied to participants, as that would violate everyone’s freedom of speech. I understand that these meetings aren’t comfortable. I was the chair during meetings. Linda was a chair. Craig was a chair when they were very uncomfortable. We had people with signs and a picket line out front. We had people yelling at us from the audience.

You’re always going to have some level of discomfort. You should not feel personally unsafe. If you feel personally unsafe, that’s a problem and something you need to address with someone who’s making you feel that way. But you’re taking this too far. Chair, you already have a difficult job. To now add onto your plate that you need to, on the fly, make a subjective decision as to whether you think someone else is going to be aggrieved by the tone that someone else is using makes that job impossible. Not only for you, but these are rules that you’re making for any other chairperson who comes after you. These changes are unwise. I understand and appreciate the conversation, but if you’re serious about making these revisions, they should go to the policy subcommittee so you can lower the temperature.

I don’t think you’re prepared to make the decision tonight. You shouldn’t be prepared, with all of the new information that’s been brought forward to you.

Jessica Purcell: In the spirit of collaboration and working together, the edits I suggested are valid. They deserve to be considered. I don’t think we should rush to implement changes that have already been made since the initial version we all just heard. I think if we want to work together on this, there’s a better way than just pushing forward with these changes.

Rick Avedesian - resident: First, I’d like to recognize that the first and greatest concern must be the educational welfare of students attending public schools. I agree with Member Louzon: I don’t think these changes will make you a more effective group in carrying out your charge as school committee members. I get it’s difficult. I’ve been where you are, and I understand, Louise. I’ve been someone who’s had a couple of outbursts. It’s been a while. I’ve tried to maintain control, and I know that I have directed some of my comments towards you. I have some valid points, but I don’t want to go there.

My feeling is this: It’s a tough job, and I’ve been there. I have been at the end of where you are now, and yeah, you have to bear with it. I respect the work you are doing, believe it or not, and I thank you all for your service, but I think moving forward with this is premature. I think Member Purcell has some very good points. There’s nothing to stop you from tabling it or amending it based on some of the other suggestions from the members, but I think you’re rushing into something. Ultimately, if you do this, it will only widen the divide among the members.

Simon Manlove - Hopkinton Resident: The stated aim of these policy changes was to enable productive discussion among members of the school committee and ensure that discussion was respectful. However, given the current proposal’s language, I do not believe it adequately addresses that concern. It is also vague, which makes it unhelpful for that purpose and potentially dangerous to include for other purposes. Specifically, the changes that Diane Tefft proposed earlier this meeting to change the language from referring to participants and members to only referring to members, I believe, are very important and a good change. However, that does not address the fact that several of the clauses and points in the language currently on the floor do not have a subject. There is no subject mentioned in the line.

It does not say members. It does not say participants. It does not say anybody. And therefore, it is open to interpretation about who that language may be construed towards or against.

In addition to that, the language of this proposal as a whole is linguistically inconsistent with the rest of the document. It does not use formal language specifying who it applies to, who will enforce it, how it applies, or the circumstances under which it applies; that is covered in the remaining clauses of the school committee’s code of conduct. For this reason, it is also widely applicable in situations beyond its stated purpose. In addition to this, many of its provisions use words that do not have a definitive meaning under their own definitions. The code of conduct does not specifically and rigorously define the terms that are used in this particular edition, nor are they specifically defined anywhere in other legal documents that are referred to in this code of conduct, which means that all of its provisions are extremely open to interpretation.

In light of that, I would consider it not even for reasons of this policy, but simply for reasons of the vagueness of the entirety of the procedure and its openness to possible legal challenge.

Louise Dinsmore: Our attorney reviewed Diane’s suggested revisions, and I don’t believe Mr. Anderson had any issues with the language proposed.

I’m going to have to hold you there.

Jessica Purcell: Can we vote to overrule your ruling?

Louise Dinsmore: We need a two-thirds majority to vote to have him to continue...

I move to allow the speaker to continue. Second. So we have a motion and a second. All those in favor? Opposed? Okay. Go ahead. Continue. So you have another minute.

Simon Manlove: Thank you, Madam Chair. For these reasons, I would consider it not a problem with the policy in these revisions, but simply unwise at this time and in this state of the revision to attempt to put this language and these particular ideas into effect as an official policy. This needs additional polish. This needs clarification of the exact standards and should be definitive and objective, as this language is currently not.

Goldie Williams - Richmond Resident: There was a time when Laura and Louise got attacked, and they needed a police escort out of this meeting. I didn’t think that was right. As for being for all kids all the time, not by me, especially my oldest son. Thank you.

Bruce Olian: In a positive spirit, this is pretty good stuff overall. I commend Diane Tefft for trying to write the policy. I think it’s well meant. I have a couple of issues with it. Being a Christian and starting with our Jewish roots, the 10 Commandments are all “thou shalt not, thou shalt not, thou shalt not, thou shalt not, thou shalt not.” That’s why a lot of people ask, “What should I do?” Well, that’s why we have Matthew 5, which says, the peacemakers, the humble, and whatnot. You get my point.

The point is that although it’s well written, grammatically correct, and all of that, it’s very negative. I would suggest it go to a committee. I’ve been on many committees.

When we had a policy, we usually had one person write it and then sit down and tear it apart and say, “Ooh, I don’t like that word. Ooh, let’s change that word to that one.” You’ve got to have at least three or four linguistically aware people, and no disrespect to the author. I think she was very well-intentioned. Again, it comes across as a tad negative. Ten years from today, if somebody reads this policy, they’re going to say, “What the heck was going on in Chariho then? Do they sell tickets?”

I want it to be more positive because you people are about to be more positive. This is almost contradictory to where you’re going. To wrap up, I would like to send it to a small group who can carry this forward, with the intention of removing or minimizing some of the negative language.

Robert’s Rules of Order can be summarized in one sentence: Civil behavior for a deliberative body to move forward. Civil is the keyword. You got my point. I suggest you table it for now. Get that thing, tear it apart, put it back together again, and try to have a positive tone so that ten years from today, people will read it and say, “They did a good job.”

Louise Dinsmore: I think that the bullets that Diane put forward, for the most part, are in a positive context. Committee members are encouraged to model the respectful behavior we expect of students and staff in our schools. All communications, whether spoken or written, should reflect the highest standards of professional decorum and avoid any appearance of bias, discrimination, or disrespect. I would push back on you a little bit, Bruce, about the “thou shalt not.” I appreciate your feedback on that. I appreciate, and I think all of us appreciate, your feedback. With that said, we have a motion on the floor. We have a second. Are we ready to vote on this?

Karen Reynolds: If there’s an amendment made ... Jess had referenced a lot of things and it was a lot for me to process in one sitting... With the number of additional things that Jess suggested, perhaps the piece should go to the policy subcommittee.

Louise Dinsmore: All right. Members, we have a motion on the floor and a second. Are we ready to vote? Okay. All those in favor of moving forward with the decorum section of the rules of conduct, as Diane noted with her revisions. Raise your hand. All those opposed. Motion carries. [5-4]

Jessica Purcell: I make a motion to send it to the subcommittee as well.

Louise Dinsmore: You’re making a motion for your revisions to the rules of conduct to go to the policy subcommittee?

Jessica Purcell: For the whole policy to go for review. Yes, I can make my revisions as well.

Louise Dinsmore: The school committee voted to include this language. It has been adopted as part of the rules of conduct.

Jessica Purcell: Multiple folks expressed interest at incorporating my amendments and I understand why they can’t be ... They didn’t want to be made right now, but also Ms. Tefft had changes that were rolled into this document. There’s a lot of discussion that could be had, and I would like it to go to the policy subcommittee.

Louise Dinsmore: Sure. If you want to put that forward at our next school committee meeting, do you have revisions to the rules of conduct for some other items, either meeting procedures or agenda development?

Jessica Purcell: Can I make a motion now?

Louise Dinsmore: If you’d like to.

Jessica Purcell: That’s what I was doing.

I make a motion to send this policy to the policy subcommittee for further revision.

Louise Dinsmore: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion?

Karen Reynolds: So to clarify, this would be regarding not what we had all just discussed at length. This would be in reference to the ones that you had spoken about previously, correct? I

Jessica Purcell: I can make other changes as well. I don’t think it can be specific.

Louise Dinsmore: So I’d like to weigh in on that. We just discussed this and voted. So now to go back and make suggested revisions to whatever Diane-

Jessica Purcell: You completely ignored my suggestions.

Louise Dinsmore: Then Jess, make a motion to.

Audience members: She did!

Jessica Purcell: I was!

Louise Dinsmore: But we only consider one motion at a time, and the motion was for Diane’s language.

Audience member: You could have amended the motion.

Louise Dinsmore: Please stop interrupting. Please stop interrupting. You are not recognized by the chair. This is exactly why we need rules of decorum - among school committee members. Also, when the policy subcommittee meets, I hope it will consider the rules of decorum and decorum suggestions, as we can’t have audience members disrupting a public meeting. It’s just not appropriate. And I think everybody around this table can agree on that. I would like to... We have a motion on the table.

We have a second. Do you want to restate the motion, Madam Clerk?

Clerk: The motion is for the whole policy to go before the policy is.

Louise Dinsmore: So we have a second, but what’s ambiguous, I think, to ... What’s ambiguous is if whatever we just passed is now going to be reconsidered, then what was the point?

Mr. Moffat: May I ask for a point of order?

Karen Reynolds: What we just approved, or you just approved, can go to the policy subcommittee and be discussed, and then it’s going to come back to be voted on here, correct? I think even though we just voted, we voted on some of the word choices. I think some of the word choices could be looked at, even in the decorum section. Jess’s suggestions could be vetted. The whole policy could be rewritten. There were a lot of changes even to Ms. Tefft’s piece that may look different once it’s all typed up.

Louise Dinsmore: I think that we just discussed this. We had a majority vote. It was a five-to-four vote. Going back to suggest the changes we discussed, then having another discussion about them, and adding a subcommittee, to me seems redundant and unnecessary, and not respectful of the majority’s vote. That’s my opinion, and I’m entitled to it.

Mr. Moffat: Hold on. I want to add that once you open the discussion to vote, review, and amend the Chariho School Committee Rules of Conduct, you open the entire rules of conduct. This isn’t just for Diane Tefft’s amendment. Once you open the discussion, you open the entire code of conduct. Jess has standing. Has this meeting not been adjourned, okay?

Craig Louzon: Look at how many times this policy has been revised. It’s been revised 10 times...

Attorney Jon Anderson: It’s my opinion that the motion is within the scope of the agenda item, and any member of the school committee can make a motion about the agenda item. If there’s a second, then motion needs to be considered.

Louise Dinsmore: Okay. So again, we have a motion and a second. So my feedback on this, and we’re on the discussion part of the motion, right? My feedback is that we already discussed this. There was language added to the rules of conduct. I don’t understand why the decorum section would be revisited at the policy subcommittee level. That’s just my opinion.

Karen Reynolds: No one is saying it is or isn’t, but the policy should be returned to the policy subcommittee so Jess’s suggestions can be discussed and, if appropriate, incorporated.

Louise Dinsmore: I don’t think there’s any disagreement on that. If you have other adjustments you’d like to consider for the rules of conduct, and there were many, I’m sure most are strong suggestions. If you want to discuss those at length at the policy subcommittee level, and then bring those prospective revisions back with a red line, just like Diane brought this forward tonight, I don’t think there’s any disagreement on that.

I just gave you my opinion. I don’t think the decorum section should be revisited, as we already discussed and voted on it.

All right. We have a motion and a second to refer this to the policy subcommittee. So all those in favor?

Okay. Unanimous. Great. Okay.

See also:

SteveAhlquist.news is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Wednesday, February 4, 2026

Residents push back against Chariho School Committee's new policy on decorum