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:
- Who
are the candidates who signed the Moms for Liberty Pledge in Rhode Island? 2024-07-16
- There
were shenanigans at the latest Chariho Regional School District meeting 2024-12-18
- Following
a script - or maybe not - the Chariho School Committee elects Louise
Dinsmore as Chair 2025-01-15
- Chariho
School Committee’s leadership prepares to go after libraries, face masks,
Title IX, and trans kids 2025-02-13
- Chariho
parents defend policies to protect transgender, gender diverse, and
transitioning students from activist school committee members 2025-03-13
- Residents
hit conservative majority on the Chariho School Committee for secrecy, bad
decisions, and shutting down public comment 2025-05-14
- Chariho
School Committee Policy Subcommittee votes to rescind its masking policy 2025-06-26
SteveAhlquist.news is a reader-supported publication. To
receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid
subscriber.
.png)
.png)
.webp)
