Coordinator Blansett Appears on Video

ORCSD DEIJ Coordinator Rachael Blansett and Superintendent Jim Morse

Happy last day of school and happy Juneteenth! This post was mostly written Wednesday night after the board meeting.  At the time, the meeting video was no longer available. I held off running this post then because Yusi asked me to run her essay, and this is essentially a response to that.  I'm just going to post this now, without going through the posted meeting video again to pull out exact quotes.  

I decided Yusi was right and I was wrong about the SPED cut. I'm really sorry about that.  Please see my full apology near the end. - Dean

Coordinator Blansett Appears on Video

Newly appointed ORCSD DEIJ Coordinator Rachael Blansett was expected to be at tonight's board meeting.  Instead of an in-person appearance, board watchers were treated to the following video in which Coordinator Blansett was interviewed by Superintendent Jim Morse.

When I listened to the board meeting live, it had distant, reverberant sound for this video and the public comments which followed, sound which I found mostly unintelligible.  This video has fine sound; hopefully the board meeting sound can be straightened out before that meeting is uploaded [it was].

The community has been roiled in a controversy about the position [posts: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7], mostly stemming from Rachael's podcast 2 Happy Heauxes.  The podcast contains content which shocked many community members; please see the previous posts for details. The interview gets to the issue of Rachael's podcast at the 5:00 mark.

JM: Rachael, you produced some podcasts that have caught our district population's attention, Can you talk to us about when they were created and what their intent was? I know that part of what's caused our community's attention is the language specifically that can come across as coarse and vulgar. Would you address those?

RB: Definitely. The concerns are valid and I'm happy to address the question. Just to give a little context, the podcast was created by me and my best friend. It was after we were graduating graduate school and embarking on our professional journey in our careers. It not only served as a way for us to maintain our relationship and connection with one another, but I think the other piece was that we really wanted to provide a space and a platform to talk about the racialized experiences that we had as black women within academia,  within life and within our profession. So we've been really trying to use it as a platform to raise awareness and hold different dialogues and discussions around these different topics that impact the black community, specifically black women.  So speaking from our own lived  experiences, but also inviting different guests  and different folks within our own networks to engage in this dialogue to learn more.  As with any form of media and content, it's not for everyone.

JM: ... I think the biggest concern that I'm hearing Rachael is that you would bring that kind of language or those types of podcasts into this school district.  Can you address that?

RB:  No, absolutely not, and as I said this was a personal and creative outlet....We started the podcast back in grad school, and that's no longer where we're at, so from here on out we will not be doing the podcast anymore.

I appreciate Rachael saying "the concerns are valid."  This all seems like a pretty good outcome. The offending podcasts are gone. Rachael won't use that language in ORCSD. We all live happily ever after once the current tire fire burns itself out.

I'll note the superintendent pretty much avoided the difficult issues. Vulgarity is bad, but it was the disparagement and apparent bigotry that was more shocking to people, and that wasn't addressed at all here. Similarly, there was some discussion about how the word "queer" had been reappropriated (successfully given they're using it in TV show names), but nothing about the more controversial "hoe" or "heaux."

As one podcast listener told me, “what struck me was that the whole purpose was a kind of chummy expression of anti-white sentiment. I mean that was the purpose of the hour.” To minimize the concerns that many people have expressed about this content sounds a lot like dismissing it as “locker room talk.” Some of our mostly white district might not be that inclined to welcome someone who appears to dislike white people, which isn't unreasonable.  I believe this still needs to be addressed.

A public comment pointed out that "back in grad school, and that's no longer where we're at" is a bit disingenuous given the last podcast episode appeared two weeks ago. Well, it was two pretty eventful weeks. For the record, it appears Ms. Blansett finished grad school in 2018, and there are 34 podcasts in the series, which began in 2019 and the last one was indeed posted a couple of weeks ago. Many people have downloaded and listened to them. The podcasts were scrubbed from the Internet a week or so ago; exactly why is undisclosed.

The district added a new DEIJ page to its website.  It includes the relevant page of the strategic plan, a list of relevant committees and their members, the job description, stuff about the hiring process and a FAQ.  This might have gone a long way toward providing transparency around the position had it not just gone live today, two weeks after the position had been filled.  Better late than never, I suppose.

Yusi calls me and Ruth out!

By now it's pretty clear how this unfolded.  On paper and in person, Rachael was the best candidate to emerge from the hiring process. The superintendent says he never looks at social media for district hires to avoid finding facts he's legally not supposed to know. I believe him. Member Yusi Turell stated the board knew all about the podcasts. So by the time the offer was made, the district, including the superintendent, knew all about the controversial content, but decided to go forward anyway, eyes wide open. What I don't get is why there was no plan to address right then the controversy that had already started.

My opinion is it's a mistake to avoid looking at a candidate's internet presence, especially in a very public position, because it erupts into scandals like this.  It was a bad decision to offer Rachael the position once the controversial content was revealed.  Finally, given the choice to hire, it was bad not to attempt to immediately address the controversy that had already erupted.

Are podcasts even social media?  If you ask me, they're pretty much just media, modern day radio. We wouldn't ignore a candidate's very public TV appearances, so we probably need to redraw the line here.

Yusi agrees that the district's roll-out of the position was bungled. She stated [I'll use her written post for quotes]:

How much healthier for our community, and for Ms. Blansett, if administration had immediately released a press release at her hire, with a photo that matched the job at hand? Instead, an article from the high school student magazine, written by a student and using a photo grabbed online, was sent to the Town of Durham’s Friday Update – causing some to think that the administration and Ms. Blansett had selected this photo as a message for Oyster River – and certainly distracting from everything else Ms. Blansett brings.

As online concerns grew, the district should have sent a clear message to squelch speculation, something like:

1. “The administration and School Board were fully aware of the podcast prior to hiring Ms. Blansett.
   
   
2. “We hired Ms. Blansett for her full self and we stand by our decision. We do not ask Ms. Blansett to disavow how she expressed her version of the messy, sometimes angry, sometimes hopeful feelings that we all feel at times (but especially when we’re on the receiving end of bias and discrimination). We know that we cannot claim to want a DEIJ Coordinator who speaks and listens with experience, knowledge, and nuance – while also insisting that their whole life fit in a small box of what we deem ‘polite.’
   
   
3. “Ms. Blansett will not continue her podcast as an Oyster River employee. We support her choice, recognizing that society needs both provocateurs and healers in order to change – but that it is near-impossible for one person to hold both public personas, without confusion, at the same time.”

I agree the roll-out was bad and the controversy was predictable, as Yusi said.  It was also avoidable, as Yusi also said, but probably only by choosing a different candidate.  In my opinion the real problem was the board forgot how to play hot potato: (1) don't pick it up, and (2) pass it on.  Despite all of Rachael's good qualities, the controversial podcasts made her a hot potato, guaranteed to embroil the district in the current controversy.  The district picked it up and didn't pass it on. Controversy ensued and we're all worse off as a result. Hopefully we get through the pain to the good part and it will have all been worth it.

Frankly what happened makes the entire political left look bad.  We're making true the conspiracies theories of liberals executing secret plans to spend tax dollars to indoctrinate children with questionable dogma. Given the precarious state of democracy in this country, we really don't want to make that impression right now. 

As for the photo in the Mouth of the River piece being "grabbed online," it was Rachael's official photo for the NH Listens fellowship she currently holds, not a random photo. I won't rehearse the content of the shirt again, especially now that it's been swapped out for something more acceptable. I just think we'd all have been so much better off if all this internet scrubbing took place before Rachael's name was announced, rather than after a month of scandal. 

After throwing the superintendent under the bus about the roll-out (without mentioning his name, so I'm reading between the lines here), Member Turell goes on to criticize Ruth and me, saying:

In contrast, I’ve observed that a few members of our community are intentionally spreading rumor and fanning flames online .One such falsehood is that the DEIJ hire cannibalized $50k from special education, a message that drives a wedge between DEIJ and special education. (I will respond to this and a few other claims in the comments.) 

Ruth and Dean, I know that this process and documentation for the DEIJ Coordinator have not been how you personally would have gone about it. We have learned from some of your points, including better transparency. But the fact is, you weren’t the ones rolling up your sleeves over the past 5 months or 5 years to make the district more inclusive and to support teachers in this area. Your approach was not the one that the Board approved after much discussion, or that the community supported. You reached out the day before the Deliberative Session and tried to cram. At what point does misunderstanding from late arrival, turn into willful ignorance, turn into intentional harm and sabotage?

I want to start my response to this by saying I welcome Member Turell's criticism, and I harbor no ill will toward her because of it. I'm a big boy playing in the public sphere, and comments like this, and much worse, are part of the deal.  She could have mentioned my name at the board meeting but she didn't, because she's nice. She had expressed her concerns to me privately when the previous post went out, but I declined to make changes for reasons I'm about to get into.  I guess she felt the need to go public, which is fine. I enthusiastically supported Yusi for the board and I consider her my friend. I hope she still feels the same.  

That said, I disagree with Member Turell's criticisms and I stand by my comments. All but one, anyway, which was an error on my part, not willful ignorance.

As for "intentionally spreading rumor," I have been known to post a rumor or two, usually because it's the only information available, and which I try to clearly label as rumor.  But around this DEIJ issue I've tried to stick to district meetings, documents and publicly available sources on the internet.  Every reader is free to click the links to verify the accuracy of my claims.  I am eager to correct inaccuracies as soon as I learn about them. I'm going to do it below.

Regarding "fanning flames online," I'd argue that it was the controversial choice of finalist candidate that ignited the flame and the subsequent hiring of said candidate was the fanning. I publicized the controversial stuff because I thought it was important for the community to see what we were getting into. This blog was started in 2012 because a board member was making racist and sexist tweets. I'm not going to ignore similar stories just because they're coming from my political side.  The plan the DEIJ boosters seem to prefer was to keep it all secret until Rachael's hiring was a done deal. I had to attend two meetings at 5:45 pm just to learn the names of the candidates!  I still haven't figured out the names of all the committees that were working on the issue.

12/1 minutes
 click to enlarge

As for "your approach was not the one that the Board approved after much discussion, or that the community supported," I contend that there wasn't nearly enough public discussion about the position. From the December 1 minutes (right) we see some of the board agreed with that. There were suggestions to use the time for a public forum, a public survey and to tighten up the job description. There was a close 3-4 vote for the half-time solution before the full time solution, at a cost of an addition $50,000, was chosen 6-1.   One wonders if member Cisneros, who voted NO both times, regrets not making a strategic YES vote for the half-time option.

From my perch it appears the board and district knew they wanted this position and didn't much care how the public felt. I've been hearing from a number of folks who say they don't like the controversial content, but they don't want to become a target by voicing their concerns. I have to agree that it's not much fun being a target. The touchy topic means the board should have worked extra hard to discern actual public opinion, instead of glossing over it.

Yusi gets hurtful with, "You reached out the day before the Deliberative Session and tried to cram. At what point does misunderstanding from late arrival, turn into willful ignorance, turn into intentional harm and sabotage?"  

I've watched every board meeting since 2011, most in person, so I hardly think "late arrival" applies to me.  As for Ruth, she learned of the issue when she did, despite the lackluster communication from the district, and immediately sprung into action.  Most of us don't have time to follow every move the district makes, trusting the board to make reasonable decisions, but Ruth was hardly late. The board decided to put the position in the budget, and Ruth was there in time for Deliberative Session when the voters can undo the decision. Despite the district's communication failures, I publicised Rachael's podcasts a few days after her name was very quietly released. That was a week or two before the candidate was chosen, plenty of time for the board to consider the podcasts in their decision. There's no sabotage here.  What there is, in my opinion, is the professional misjudgement of the board attempting to underplay or choosing to ignore the candidate's obviously divisive internet presence.

I should point out that I was the first person in the district to publicly express my support for Rachael before she was hired, and perhaps the only one to do it in a widely distributed post or article.  I chose her over the other candidate because she was obviously much more fun.  I wondered then if the controversial stuff was too controversial for the district. The ensuing firestorm on facebook confirmed to me that it was.

Let's get to the issue of the linkage between the $50K of Special Education funding and the full year DEIJ position. Yusi was very insistent here, so I went back and watched the December 1, 2021 meeting a third time. Member Howland clearly links the special education funding to the DEIJ coordinator position. At 1:10:10, Al says "in order to fund the DEIJ position for the full year you would have to use the $50,000 that Catherine [Special Education Director Catherine Plourde] has yet to tell us if it actually exists."  This was the option eventually chosen, and where I got the strong impression of the linkage.

But Yusi is correct.  In the discussion which followed, the superintendent and special education director did describe the $50,000 being cut from the special education budget in a way that made it pretty clear they were going to cut it no matter which option was chosen.  I'm guessing the first couple of times I heard I was upset about the cut and was assuming what they said was spin to justify cut so they could have their full year DEIJ position.  Member Cisneros was skeptical of the cut as well. But now I have to admit that the summary in the minutes, "Dr. Morse noted that $50,000 came out of the contracted services account since those contracted services will not be needed the following year," is a fair interpretation of the discussion.

So I need to apologize here.  I'm sorry Yusi, board, district and community. I wasn't late, willfully ignorant, or completely mistaken, but I did misinterpret the full discussion and I drew the wrong conclusion about the full year DEIJ Coordinator funding being linked to the $50,000 cut in Special Education.  I will endeavor to be more careful in the future.

Excerpt of MLK's Letter from a Birmingham Jail

Let me close by addressing Yusi's use of Martin Luther King 's Letter from a Birmingham Jail, which refers to the refusal of white moderates to participate in civil disobedience against Jim Crow. I suppose I'm the bad white moderate "more devoted to order than justice" in this story, versus Yusi, the hero who is presumably taking "direct action." I'm not sure slipping a controversial candidate in under the radar is what MLK had in mind, but I'm willing to learn.

In this case, we were not forced to choose between order and justice. The district tried to complete the hire of a controversial candidate before the public noticed, and then the boosters tried to bully the citizens into not complaining about mess that resulted. That's not just, and it definitely wasn't order. The district needs to strive for transparency and accountability.

At this point in time, before Coordinator Blansett has done any work at ORCSD, we need to recognize that we're pretty much all worse off than we were a few weeks ago. It didn't have to be this way. We see various attempts to shift the blame, but we all share it, myself included.

Member Turell on the DEIJ Coordinator

Rachael Blansett, New ORCSD DEIJ Coordinator

Board Member Yusi Turell asked me to run the following piece, which I am happy to do. I'll be responding soon, so please stay tuned. Thanks for the essay, Yusi. I've tried to post it as it was sent, with only minor formatting edits and some edits Yusi sent me.  Yusi has continued the piece in the comments, so please check them out too.  - Dean

Guest blog by Yusi Turell, School Board Member

[This is an expanded version of my statement at the June 15th School Board meeting, which was condensed in the interest of time. It reflects my personal opinion and not necessarily that of the ORCSD School Board. I appreciate Dean publishing this even though I criticize his and Ruth’s approach (not by name during the Board meeting).]

Ms. Rachael Blansett will begin the new role of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Justice (DEIJ) coordinator on August 1, 2022. The need for this role emerged from 5+ years of stakeholder discussion and a widely recognized need for a consistent, skillful, and age-appropriate approach to related topics in curriculum and instruction across the district (as outlined at the Feb. 8th Deliberative Session). Ms. Blansett currently serves as the inaugural Diversity & Inclusion Fellow at College of the Atlantic (Maine) and Sterling College (Vermont), after earning an M.Ed. in Student Affairs and a B.S. in Communications. She consults with Mount Desert Island Regional (K-12) School System in culture and curriculum. Ms. Blansett brings significant, transferrable experience in collaborating with staff and faculty to create equitable environments for teaching and support and to develop strong, sustainable, and inclusive communities.

The Oyster River Clean Slate blog and resulting Facebook comments have trumpeted one aspect of Ms. Blansett’s experience: her co-hosting of the podcast, ‘2 Happy Heauxes.’ (Ms. Blansett has since made the podcast unavailable online and said she will stop producing it.) Some might say this focus is sensationalistic and disproportionate to her spotless professional resume and ORCSD interviews. Others have scoured the episodes and screen shots, wondering if they reveal that Ms. Blansett is unsuitable for a job in K-12 education.

I was one of 15 people on the interview committee. After our six-interview marathon on May 3rd late at night after the two finalists were selected, I searched their names online. As you can imagine, I was surprised by the podcast and some of its episode titles. For example, one episode is provocatively titled, ‘Wh*te People Are Not Okay: The Panel.’ (It turns out this is a group of the co-hosts’ white friends in cross-cultural conversation about hygiene, food & cooking, music & dance, allyship, and more.) It took a lot of time and brain- & heart-energy to listen to many episodes, to think “why are the co-hosts saying this,” to unpack why it was uncomfortable for me, and finally to consider what all this could say about her character and how it might translate to her job in Oyster River.

“A fish doesn’t know that it’s wet.” When we are swimming in a dominant culture – and we don’t even realize that our societal systems are pushing others to conform – it can be jarring to hear those normative expectations explicitly named. When we ourselves are working hard to avoid language or actions that disparage or harm marginalized groups, it can be jarring to read or hear language that points out these differences, especially through comedy.

Others will have different interpretations and take-aways. For me, while I grew to dread the inevitable online firestorm, I also grew to appreciate the depths of what Ms. Blansett could bring to Oyster River in these turbulent times. Ms. Blansett is a candidate and human who both encompasses, and is larger than, her podcasts. She is a first-generation college student who brings additional socioeconomic diversity to our leadership team. She has developed trainings on dismantling classism and ableism and on the relationship between social and environmental justice. She grew up in East Detroit, served as a resident director in Berkeley, CA, and received stellar reviews for her DEIJ work with majority-white colleges in Maine and Vermont. I personally have spent four hours with Ms. Blansett. Her interviews show her to be personable, analytical, and informed and nuanced in complex topics – someone who asks good questions and responds thoughtfully. Her references are glowing. We are lucky to have her and will be lucky to keep her.

District Communication

Despite having the right person in the right job, over the past two weeks I have been dismayed how district communication has handled this predictable and mostly avoidable controversy.

How much healthier for our community, and for Ms. Blansett, if administration had immediately released a press release at her hire, with a photo that matched the job at hand? Instead, an article from the high school student magazine, written by a student and using a photo grabbed online, was sent to the Town of Durham’s Friday Update – causing some to think that the administration and Ms. Blansett had selected this photo as a message for Oyster River – and certainly distracting from everything else Ms. Blansett brings.

As online concerns grew, the district should have sent a clear message to squelch speculation, something like:

1. “The administration and School Board were fully aware of the podcast prior to hiring Ms. Blansett.
   
   
2. “We hired Ms. Blansett for her full self and we stand by our decision. We do not ask Ms. Blansett to disavow how she expressed her version of the messy, sometimes angry, sometimes hopeful feelings that we all feel at times (but especially when we’re on the receiving end of bias and discrimination). We know that we cannot claim to want a DEIJ Coordinator who speaks and listens with experience, knowledge, and nuance – while also insisting that their whole life fit in a small box of what we deem ‘polite.’
   
   
3. “Ms. Blansett will not continue her podcast as an Oyster River employee. We support her choice, recognizing that society needs both provocateurs and healers in order to change – but that it is near-impossible for one person to hold both public personas, without confusion, at the same time.”

These three points, proactively messaged, would have helped our community make sense of seemingly contradictory information about Ms. Blansett. Instead, the district waited until this evening to react. (I applaud the new DEIJ website, still under development but long overdue.) 

At this point, my concern is not that we will somehow turn our back on this hire; it is about what happens next. My heart aches for the DEIJ Committee members or other courageous allies who may have been blindsided by the podcast-related firestorm – a result of the vacuum in district communication. All this was avoidable. And it's still fixable if we assemble a diverse team to think deeply about what Ms. Blansett, teachers, and the community need to heal and move forward.

One final note. Clearly, I am critical of the administration’s communication to date. The bumpiness in introducing Ms. Blansett is one of the reasons that her job is needed in the first place! Nevertheless, I staunchly support the administration’s intent and am not going to let this drive a wedge between us.

Community Communication

In contrast, I’ve observed that a few members of our community are intentionally spreading rumor and fanning flames online .One such falsehood is that the DEIJ hire cannibalized $50k from special education, a message that drives a wedge between DEIJ and special education. (I will respond to this and a few other claims in the comments.) 

Ruth and Dean, I know that this process and documentation for the DEIJ Coordinator have not been how you personally would have gone about it. We have learned from some of your points, including better transparency. But the fact is, you weren’t the ones rolling up your sleeves over the past 5 months or 5 years to make the district more inclusive and to support teachers in this area. Your approach was not the one that the Board approved after much discussion, or that the community supported. You reached out the day before the Deliberative Session and tried to cram. At what point does misunderstanding from late arrival, turn into willful ignorance, turn into intentional harm and sabotage?

What is the highest and best use of our community’s considerable energy and credentials? How do we all choose daily to avoid becoming the ‘white moderate’ that Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. warned us against (“more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice…”)?

In Closing

Dr. Morse has said, “we must give [Ms. Blansett] the gift of time to get to know us and for the district to get to know her.” ORCSD hired Ms. Blansett to help us have rich conversations that won’t always have us all agreeing with each other. Rather, they rather invite us – and especially Oyster River educators – to understand more ‘layers of the onion,’ so they can better prepare our children to thrive in an diverse world. I welcome Ms. Blansett as a professional resource on our school administrative team and in our community.

[Member Turell further elaborates on the issues in the comments below. - Dean]

DEIJ Coordinator Controversy Continues

Congratulations again to Rachael Blansett, ORCSD's first DEIJ Coordinator. The board approved the superintendent's nomination at the June 1 meeting, and Ms. Blansett accepted the position a few days later.  The superintendent has said that Rachael plans to attend the Wednesday, June 15 board meeting, 7 pm in the ORHS library, and will officially start work on August 1st. 

The controversy around her candidacy began about two weeks prior to approval, when her name was announced and, among other things, I publicized her podcast 2 Happy Heauxes within the district.  Probably due to the ensuing controversy,  the 2 Happy Heauxes website has recently been password protected and all the episodes, formerly available on the site as well as from various podcast distributors and soundcloud, have been scrubbed from the Internet.  This is the kind of thing one generally does before seeking employment, but better late than never I suppose. The rumor is some Oyster River folks downloaded all the podcasts before the purge.

The position was controversial even before the candidate was announced.  I rewatched the Demember 1, 2021 board meeting where the decision was made.  Incredibly, the board made almost all the objections my wife Ruth Sample later made: The budget is too tight this year, the job description is too vague, consultants would be preferable, the position would embroil ORCSD in scandal, the public should be surveyed and allowed to vote on the position, etc.  I was reminded that $50K of the money for the position comes from the Special Education Speech, Audiology and Vision Services budget.  Are some students not going to get their hearing or vision addressed because we're paying for a DEIJ Coordinator? 

Ruth made the case against creating a new, expensive administrative position in February, adding that the process that led to the position was not transparent and that a needs assessment was not done.  There's also an inconsistency about whether consultants were hired before deciding we needed a full time post, with some board members claiming yes, and the superintendent saying no consultants were hired.

Back to Rachael. With all the sites related to 2 Happy Heauxes down, I can only access various items folks have posted from Rachael's website. Let's include a few for the record from the Community Discussion Group for Durham, Lee and Madbury on facebook.

In this first example we see language that would be likely be inappropriate to use with students.  Had this remained accessible, the students would likely ask about it, but with the scrubbing that possibility is lessened now.

Here we're getting into slightly questionable territory (in exactly what sense are white people not OK?), but it seems like all good fun. 

It's this list, from Season 1 Episode 1, that's probably the most concerning:

Now I'm no DEIJ Coordinator, but there's no doubt that if White was changed to Black here, the title and a few of these items would be condemned as outright racist statements. When the DEIJ coordinator gets here, she can explain why it's not racist in its original form. I look forward to that explanation.

My wife Ruth Sample sent email to the board and superintendent about this list, stating:

Her advice that “wh*te” women should “WASH YOUR FUCKING LEGS” and to “Do your baby’s hair, bitch” (among other fascinating pieces of advice) is bigoted, offensive, and vulgar.  I would say it is “inappropriate” except that “inappropriate” is when one uses the salad fork for shrimp, or when one wears crocs to a funeral.  It is racist, divisive, and the very opposite of what DEIJ aspires to.  It is completely at odds with K-12 education. It is disqualifying.

Ruth is obviously a much better writer than I am. The district and board are pretty much sticking their collective heads in the sand. Superintendent Morse stated in an email to Ruth:

The district does not audit social media accounts as our lawyers discourage this practice as we may come across information that is a violation of federal and state law that we have no business knowing, such as one’s religion, sexual orientation, marital status, age, or disability that could potentially be used to discriminate against a candidate.

That's a scandal right there. The district doesn't look at candidates' social media?!? That seems like HR malpractice. Plus the superintendent didn't seem to be all that concerned about avoiding litigation when he previously stated that it was the Rachael's "lived experience" that made her preferable to those with actual "K-12 experience" which seems to imply he knew something about her sexual orientation and her race when we made the offer, which he obviously did.

Members of the board knew about Rachael's social media; several had commented on my May 17 post shortly after it was published. Even if Dr. Morse didn't do a google search, anyone who looked at my post saw the results of Google searches on the two finalists. The board and superintendent discussed the hire for 30 minutes in non-public session on June 1. Surely the subject of Ms. Blansett's social media must have been touched upon.

Chair Williams replied to Ruth, stating:

Voters overwhelmingly supported the budget adding the DEIJ coordinator position both at the Deliberative Session in February and at school district elections in March. Voters, the School Board, and Administration are generally aligned on the direction the district is moving.

The chair is telling us there's nothing to see here.  A large number of folks on facebook have expressed surprise, saying they knew nothing about the position, and are truly shocked when they learn of Rachael's online content. District communications still need some work.  I personally think the vote at Deliberative Session or on election day might have gone a little differently had the voters known that the candidate to be chosen publicly advises white women to  “WASH YOUR FUCKING LEGS.”

The chair added:

State law in New Hampshire (RSA 98-E) and district policy GCR, GCB, and GBI protect the private freedom to speech of school district employees. Oyster River Policy (GBEB) as well as the NH DOE codes of Conduct and Ethics include standards for educational professionals (including administrators) when in contact with students, other staff members, and parent/community members in their responsibilities for the district. I have full confidence that Ms. Blansett will build positive relationships with staff, students, and families in alignment with these policies. If it was used in our schools, the content that you are concerned about from Ms. Blansett’s social media presence could likely violate district policy. I don’t expect that to happen.

That's a bit convoluted.  Why would we hire someone as a district leader whose social media content would violate school policy if used in school?  

I've been a big supporter of the board and most of the members over the past decade, but I still speak up when I think they've erred. This was a totally unforced error, embroiling the district in a scandal that could have easily been avoided by choosing a less controversial candidate.  I honestly thought when the 2 Happy Heauxes stuff arose the district would just say oops and look at other candidates, but that wasn't to be.

I'm a liberal Democrat that's supportive of DEIJ, but the way this process has played out really concerns me. I don't think I'm alone. We'll see if there's any public concern voiced at Wednesday's school board meeting (7pm 6/15 ORHS library).

New Dress Code Proposed

The students have produced a draft dress code.  The impetus was an email I can't track down when students were returning after being remote that warned students about the dress code.  I'm guessing it was similar to the one that went out to students in a May 14, 2022 email:

Proper School Attire

The nice weather is here, and we are seeing some attire that is not school appropriate. Please review:

Students are expected to adhere to standards of cleanliness and dress that are compatible with a safe and respectful school learning environment. School administrators have the authority to impose restrictions when, in their judgment, a student’s dress disrupts the educational process or poses a threat to health or safety.

Overtly sexual clothing (which includes clothing which, by its brevity, shortness, looseness or tightness, is sexually explicit), clothing that is distracting to students and teachers, or any apparel which by being worn at certain times or places or which through word or design is demeaning or discourteous shall not be allowed. Specific guidelines to keep in mind are “all of your outerwear must cover your underwear” and tops and dresses must have over the shoulder straps and fully cover the midriff (waist) area. Students who violate the school dress code will be held in the main office until more suitable clothing is found and will be expected to make up missed class time in detention.

Clothing and Other Items- No references to drugs, alcohol, tobacco, sexual activity, or illegal acts are allowed. The school administration has the authority to prohibit other logos, pictures or messages which they determine to be in violation of the Board’s nondiscrimination or harassment policies, or disruptive to the school’s learning environment.

This is the language from the student handbook, though the underlining and boldface are exclusive to the email.  One wonders if Coordinator Blansett's shirt in the photo would pass muster.

This dress code is all pretty much fiction.  Somebody made up these words, and they've been blindly carried forward.  That quoted text doesn't appear to come from another document. It's not the dress code adopted by the school board. It's not from an R-document produced by the administration to comply with the district's policy -- that R-doc doesn't exist. 

Here's the actual dress code policy JICA in its entirety, adopted in the 1990s and still governing:

The students produced the following draft to replace this (click to enlarge):

I was writing up the DEIJ stuff and not really paying attention to the dress code presentation by the students.  I perked up when I heard that visible bra straps were no longer a violation.  I used to wonder about that when I was in high school.  The actual language isn't as clear as I'd like:  

Students Cannot Wear:

• Visible underwear (straps of undergarments worn under clothing are not a violation)

 Exposed nipples are not allowed.  The policy is gender neutral -- this applies to everyone.

Todd Allen named interim superintendent of Newmarket School District

In other news, former ORCSD Assistant Superintendent and ORHS Principal Todd Allen was named Interim Superintendent of Newmarket School District.  Three administrators, the superintendent, assistant superintendent and a principal, all left around the same time, but there doesn't appear to be any scandal.

Allen retired from Oyster River last year. If he really wanted the big chair, he could have stuck around, as Superintendent Morse's retirement is on the horizon, In fact, Todd can still apply when the time comes.

Rachael Blansett Named First ORCSD DEIJ Coordinator

  Rachael Blansett, New ORCSD DEIJ Coordinator.  

Congratulations to Rachael Blansett (pronouns she/her), who was chosen tonight as Oyster River's first Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Justice Coordinator.  The board deliberated in non-public session for 30 minutes before unanimously approving Rachael to the position.  Assuming she accepts, Ms. Blansett will attend the next board meeting, June 15, and officially start August 1.

Rachael identifies as a "black/bi-racial, queer, femme social justice educator."  She has a Master of Education in Student Affairs from Iowa State.  Since August 2021 she's been employed jointly by Sterling College (Bar Harbor, Maine) and College of the Atlantic (Craftsbury Common, Vermont) at a salary of $53-$57K.  She'll be offered at least $95K by ORCSD, about a 75% increase. 

Rachael and her friend have a podcast named 2 Happy Heaxes that's a bit shocking to some Oyster River folks, easily making her the more controversial candidate.  I originally used that word in the title here, which offended some folks so I've changed it.  I just wanted to get the discussion going, and that seems to have worked.

The board asked some questions in public before the non-public session. Member Smith praised Racheal's concern for "educational accessibility."  Member Turell praised Rachael's experience "designing DEIJ specific curricula, like leading workshops or discussions about implicit bias or different lenses on this work" but was concerned with "her relative lack of experience in K-12 system and especially working directly with faculty on something that's not DEIJ focused but rather weaving DEIJ through an existing history or math or art curriculum."  The superintendent replied, "In terms of her relative lack of K-12 experience, we could have focused in on K-12 experience, but based on the candidates we had we would have lost completely the lived experience." 

I found this exchange telling. The superintendent appears to be saying we wouldn't get a member of a marginalized group if we insist on actual K-12 experience, and we're prioritizing the former.  (The possibility of not hiring anyone this round was not mentioned.)  And I’d agree with Yusi that workshop or discussion prep is very different than experience with classroom curricula.

The superintendent added, "She's going to define this role in the upcoming year,  The greatest gift Oyster River can give her is a strong understanding of who we are. [...] So we need somebody who not just supports the teachers, but who understands those student concerns, and is able to hear the students, but also help the teachers address those issues.  I feel she will grow to be a powerful leader...She has the potential to be an incredible leader.  I know that she has the potential to support our staff and students."

My concern here is by putting the onus of defining the position on Ms. Blansett, we're making it harder for her to succeed.  

I reviewed some of the publicly available material in the last post.  For now, let's look at her bio for her current job and the recent podcast titles on her site. Click the images to enlarge.

Rachel Blansett's Bio from College of the Atlantic

Racheal Blansett's recent podcasts

We may be wading into some controversial waters. I don't know if Rachael plans to continue her podcast. The question mark in the original title of this post was my concern about how the role will unfold, and whether Rachael will be indeed happy in the position. Much will depend on the community reaction; I was surprised that there were no public comments at the board meeting, 

I am totally impressed with the graphic art of these thumbnails.

The superintendent chose Rachael Blansett over the other finalist, Lu Ferrell (pronouns they/them).  Dr. Morse said Rachael was the overwhelming choice of teachers, with only one expressing a preference for "the other candidate".  I heard the students also expressed a preference for Rachael, as did I.

Rachael is also a New Hampshire Listens / UNH Carsey School of Public Policy Fellow.  I don't know if that's a paid position, or if Rachael will continue to hold that title while employed at ORCSD.  There's some controversy that New Hampshire Listens facilitated the rather secretive process that resulted in a recommendation to add a DEIJ Coordinator, that was ultimately filled by a New Hampshire Listens Fellow.  Board Member Turell is also employed by the Carsey School, in a different area. 

My existing concern was that the district was too small to support such a position, that maybe the DEIJ coordinator should be shared across several districts, like Rachael's current job. We now see a related concern, that just posting a large salary doesn't guarantee we'll get the experience, both lived and in the classroom, that we desire. We probably could have hired Rachael for a fair bit less.  

Good luck, DEIJ Coordinator Blansett. I wish you success in your new role.

[EDIT: 6/2/22] Be sure to check out the ORHS student magazine Mouth of the River article by Zoe Selig on the new DEIJ coordinator.

Two Finalists Vie for DEIJ Coordinator

 

Lu Ferrell (left) and Rachael Blansett
Finalists for ORCSD DEIJ Coordinator

Distributed information, click to enlarge

The two finalists for Oyster River's Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Justice Coordinator (draft job description) are Lu Ferrell and Rachael Blansett.  They did full day tours and interviews Monday 5/10 and Wednesday 5/12 respectively, including 45 minutes to meet the community. 

TL;DR: Rachael identifies as a "black/bi-racial, queer, femme social justice educator" while Lu is more circumspect, offering "intersectional DEIJ professional" who serves on "the Transgender Policy and Climate Committee and the Queer Professional Development Working Group."  I think Lu has more experience overall. Rachael seems much more fun than Lu, so if it was up to me, I'd choose Rachael easily. 

Neither has any experience in primary or secondary education, or much curriculum experience, which the superintendent has indicated is the primary component of the job. They had similar qualifications and similar ideas as to what the job may entail (lots of relationship building, which I guess means lunch). Both have Masters of Education degrees in Student Affairs. They're both currently New Hampshire Listen Fellows. I'll guess landing a job that pays "$95,00[sic] - $105,000 with exceptional benefits" represents a pretty big bump for either of them. Rachael is probably the more controversial of the two, with her podcast 2 Happy Heauxes and their alter-egos, "two bitter bitches," bound to raise some eyebrows.

The two finalists were selected by the fifteen member DEIJ Coordinator Hiring Committee of parents, students, teachers and administrators.  There were forty-two applications, eighteen complete with video and essay components. Six candidates were brought in for interviews, and Lu and Rachael were the selected finalists.  Superintendent Morse will recommend a candidate to the board, who then vote on final approval.  I didn't see it on the May 18 agenda.

I attended the Community sessions to meet the DEIJ Coordinator finalists on Monday and Wednesday. I was late both times for the 5:45-6:30 meetings. I missed most of the candidates' statements, but was there for the questions and some "informal time."  I jotted down a few notes which I'll share after reviewing the publicly available information.

We can start with the distributed summaries, included above.  I presume these blurbs were prepared by ORCSD from some source material, so, except for the final quotes, cannot be considered writing samples from the candidates. I also presume the candidates provided graduation dates, which are sadly lacking here. Just reviewing these I'd take away that Lu has more experience and a somewhat broader focus than Rachael, who seems more focused on racism.  

Both are fellows of New Hampshire Listens/Carsey School @ UNH.  Lu told me that being a Fellow was a paid contract position.  I didn't get an answer as to how one becomes a fellow. New Hampshire Listens was central in facilitating the meetings that led to a recommendation to hire a DEIJ Coordinator.  Board Member Turell, an enthusiastic supporter of the position, is also employed by the Carsey School, in an unrelated capacity (solar power financing, I believe).  The appearance of a conflict of interest has been pointed out by some community members. I've always believed Member Turell consistently acts in the best interest of the Oyster River School District, and I have no reason to believe otherwise here. 

Let's try Google.  Just the front page search results offer interesting portraits (click to enlarge).

Lu Ferrell, pronouns they/them, selected links:

Lu Ferrell  

https://carsey.unh.edu/person/lu-ferrell

https://northeastextensionlgbtqsymposium.com/speaker/lu-ferrell/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/luferrell/

https://tnhdigital.com/19789/news/unh-celebrates-national-coming-out-week/

https://www.lgbtcampus.org/index.php?option=com_ccboard&view=postlist&forum=9&topic=756&Itemid=

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=191573385837187

Rachael Blansett, pronouns she/her, selected links:

Rachael Blansett

https://www.linkedin.com/in/rachael-blansett-7573ab72/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/rachael-blansett-7573ab72/ Are You Down With the Cause?

https://www.linkedin.com/in/rachael-blansett-7573ab72 White Tears In the Classroom

https://www.coa.edu/live/profiles/4219-rachael-a-blansett/templates/details/staff.php

https://www.2happyheauxes.com/thecreators

https://www.sterlingcollege.edu/blog/rachael-blansett-appointed-diversity-inclusion-fellow/

https://rachaelblansett.wordpress.com/personal-mission-statement/

https://vtdigger.org/press_release/sterling-college-and-college-of-the-atlantic-appoint-rachael-blansett-to-the-position-of-diversity-inclusion-fellow/

Rachael's podcasts aren't that exciting, but some of the language is probably not what Oyster River parents want their Oyster River children to hear. I presume it isn't the language Rachael would use with students, but the students are bound to find the podcasts sooner rather than later, so it's gonna come up.

I've been making slow progress on this post since last Wednesday.  It's time for me to just summarize my notes and get this out.

Last Monday, at Lu Ferrell's session, I asked what were we to infer given only women ORCSD administrators (Filippone, Noe) and board members (Turrell, Day, Smith) showed up for the community session. On Wednesday Chair Williams attended Rachel Blansett's session, modestly introducing himself as a district parent and board member.

Lu Ferrell is on the cutting edge of verbing nouns, using "misgendered" and "microaggressed."  Lu admits, "this work is hard to measure." [Lu shares our superintendent's penchant for the phrase "this work."]  Lu's conception of the role includes: professional development for staff, empowering students, utilizing my UNH connections and getting DEIJ in the strategic plan.  Lu says it's a misconception that DEIJ is only for marginalized students. "No, it's for all students."

Rachael Blansett lists five areas of qualification: race, gender, sexuality, ability and class.  For the role, Rachael mentions building relationships, gathering contexts, professional development opportunities for faculty, student support, syllabus/lesson plan audits, determining gaps, needs, priorities, getting to know the community, and getting known. If hired, Rachel plans to work on getting up to speed on early education (primary grades).

That's all I have. It looks like one way or another, we're getting a DEIJ Coordinator.  I saw some language where the superintendent can choose not to hire this year if he thinks no candidate is sufficiently qualified.  But it's probably more likely we're getting one of these two as DEIJ coordinator.  I hope it's Rachael.

Matt Bacon and Heather Smith Elected to ORCSD Board

Newly elected ORCSD Board Members Matt Bacon and Heather Smith

Congratulations to Matt Bacon of Madbury and Heather Smith of Durham, both elected to at-large seats with three year terms on the Oyster River School Board.  They replace venerable members Tom Newkirk and Al Howland, both of whom chose not to seek reelection after 10 years of service on the board.

It was a hotly contested race with five well qualified candidates. There was record turnout of 3313 voters.  Of the 4963 votes cast (each voter gets two votes but not everyone uses both) Bacon received 27.1% and Smith received 25.5%.  Next was Giana Gelsey of Madbury with 19.8%, followed closely by Debra Harmon of Lee with 18% and Marie D'Agostino of Lee with 9%.  

It appears about 72% of the voters were in Durham. Typically that number would be 55%-60%. That's estimated from the individual town turnout numbers, but there likely were some folks showing up for the Durham dam vote who didn't bother to vote for school board.

All the school district ballot questions passed, including the budget with 76% voting YES, the negotiated contracts with the ORESPA and ORPaSS and the solar array fund set aside, for a total appropriation of $52.5M.  The budget includes $130,000 for the new DEIJ coordinator position, one of the main issues in the race.

My analysis: Smith won by working the hardest, wanting it the most, and general excellence.  Bacon won because he's the nicest guy in the room. Gelsey, the most progressive candidate and the candidate I most strongly endorsed, failed to win enough public support for her platform of challenging Concord's attacks on public education in the state.  Harmon might have pulled it out, but her support was centered in Lee and she caught an unlucky break with the turnout in Durham.  Former school board chair and school business administrator D'Agostino was the most qualified candidate, but couldn't overcome her lack of engagement with the district to date.

Bacon and Smith were both endorsed by school board chair Michael Williams, setting a questionable precedent in Oyster River.  Member Cisneros got in the game as well, endorsing Harmon and D'Agostino.

In Lee, Rebecca Hawthorne beat incumbent Cary Brown 438 to 193, which is 69.4% versus 30.6%. All Lee ballot questions passed as well. Congratulations Rebecca; we're looking forward to great things.  

[EDIT: I had a rant here about selectmen loitering in the polling place but it turns out they're either allowed or required to be there. I apologize for the accusation, selectmen.   I still don't think elected folks whose names are on the ballot in contested races should be hanging around near the booths or the counting machine, even if they are legally permitted or obligated to be present in some capacity.  Thanks to Michael Rury, who was kind enough to point out to me that under RSA 652:14 "selectman" is one of the officially designated election officers. In fact, Part 2 Article 32 of the NH constitution requires the selectboard to be present for state elections, and this is carried over to municipal elections as well. I still think there's something not right here that should be changed.]

In Durham the dam referendum failed by a three to one margin, meaning the dam will be removed per the initial town council decision.  The dam controversy caused the disproportionate turnout in Durham, 2365 voters compared to the average of 1081.

Turnout in Lee was 709, 22% of registered voters, compared to 758 in 2021 and 1220 in 2020 (when the Middle School was on the ballot).   Turnout is estimated at at least 221 voters in Madbury (maximum number to vote on any question) or at least 3313-2365-709=239, ORCSD minus Durham minus Lee.  

[That 239 may be exact, if the turnout numbers include ORCSD ballots that were handed to a voter who didn't mark it at all, meaning every voter. Except I bet if you just returned your town absentee ballot and didn't return your school district absentee ballot, you're probably in the town turnout but not ORCSD's. If you returned both, even if one was blank, you're in both counts. Just guessing here.]

Please enjoy this spreadsheet summary of the recent district election history, followed by the detailed unofficial results for which I thank Todd Selig and Durham Friday Updates.  I fixed a couple of minor errors and added the percentages myself.

SCHOOL DISTRICT UNOFFICIAL RESULTS (Durham, Lee, and Madbury Combined Ballots from all three precincts.)

ARTICLE 1:

For Moderator (Vote for not more than one)

Richard Laughton  2530  ELECTED
Write-in                     10

ARTICLE 2:

For School Board At-Large (Vote for not more than two)

Matthew Bacon                   1343   27.1%   ELECTED
Heather Smith                     1268   25.5%   ELECTED
Giana Gelsey                        985   19.8%  
Debra Harmon                      893   18.0%
Marie Therese D'Agostino    449     9.0%

Write-in                                   25     0.5%

(Percentages of the 4963 total votes cast.)

ARTICLE 3:

Shall the District raise and appropriate as an operating budget, not including appropriations by special warrant article and other appropriations voted separately, the amount set forth on the budget posted with the warrant or as amended by vote of the first session, for the purposes set forth therein, totaling $52,133,325.

Should this article be defeated, the operating budget shall be $51,721,541 (Default Budget) which is the same as last year with certain adjustments required by previous action of the District or by law; or the District may hold one special meeting in accordance with RSA 40:13, X, and XVI to take up the issue of the revised operating budget only. The School Board recommends this appropriation. (Majority vote required)

Note: Fund 10 = $50,668,275 (regular operating budget); Fund 21 = $824,050 (expenditures from food service revenues); Fund 22 = $600,000 (expenditures from federal/special revenues); Fund 23 = $41,000 (expenditures from pass through funds).

YES  2205    76.2%   PASSED
NO     689     23.8%

ARTICLE 4:

Shall the District vote to approve within the provisions of New Hampshire RSA 273-A:3 the cost items included in the collective bargaining agreement reached between the Oyster River Educational Support Personnel Association and the Oyster River School Board which calls for the following increases in salaries and benefits at the current staffing levels:

2022 - 2023 $86,981
2023 - 2024 $75,527
2024 - 2025 $77,505
2025 - 2026 $81,588

and further to raise and appropriate the sum of $86,981 for the 2022-2023 fiscal year, such sum representing the additional costs attributable to the increases in salaries and benefits required by the new agreement over those that would be paid at current staffing levels? The School Board recommends this appropriation. (Majority vote required).

YES  2501   82.3%   PASSED
NO     537    17.7%


ARTICLE 5:

Shall the District vote to approve within the provisions of New Hampshire RSA 273-A:3 the cost items included in the collective bargaining agreement reached between the Oyster River Para-Educators and Support Staff and the Oyster River School Board which calls for the following increases in salaries and benefits at the current staffing levels:

2022 - 2023 $183,009
2023 - 2024 $131,958
2024 - 2025 $136,126
2025 - 2026 $157,347

and further to raise and appropriate the sum of $183,009 for the 2022-2023 fiscal year, such sum representing the additional costs attributable to the increases in salaries and benefits required by the new agreement over those that would be paid at current staffing levels? The School Board recommends this appropriation. (Majority vote required).

YES   2481   81.6%    PASSED
NO      559    18.4%

ARTICLE 6:

Shall the District vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $125,000 to be added to the Facilities Development, Maintenance, and Replacement Trust which was established in March of 2017. This sum to come from June 30 fund balance available for transfer on July 1. The School Board recommends this appropriation. (Majority vote required). No amounts to be raised from taxation.

YES   2509  83.2%   PASSED
NO      508   16.8%

Total ORCSD votes cast today: 3313

School Board Members Put Foot on Scale on Election Eve!

Voting Guide

Before I get into the news, if you just want to know how to vote or where to access information on the candidates, please see my last post:

 Voting Guide to the Tuesday, March 8, 2022 Oyster River Cooperative School District Election.

The guide is unbiased until the end where I tell you my picks: Giana Gelsey and Matt Bacon for School Board, YES on the all the questions, and for Lee Select Board, the wonderful Rebecca Hawthorne over the Trump-adjacent incumbent Cary Brown.  Durham folks, you're on your own with the dam.

Two Board Members Endorse Candidates

In a surprising and arguably unseemly election eve development, Chair Michael Williams and Member Brian Cisneros, acting as individual citizens not board members, have each endorsed two candidates, collectively endorsing everyone except Giana Gelsey. The last board member endorsing a candidate I noted in this blog was March 5, 2013's Breaking News: Jim Kach Endorses Carl Piedmont, so not the best footsteps guys.  [EDIT: Actually Mr. Kach was an ex board member at the time, so not then crossing this particular line, sorry.]  Since the gloves are off I'm not going to link to either endorsement until after the election.

Candidate Giana Gelsey

The endorsements came after my strong endorsement yesterday (Sunday) of Ms. Gelsey, who I described as "a bold, progressive voice in the mold of previous school board members Maria Barth, Kenny Rotner and Ann Wright."

Despite there being five candidates for two open seats in this time of political turmoil, except for some technical difficulties the race has been pretty uneventful. OK, I'll say it: it's been boring. All five candidates have run positive races, are extremely qualified, and have the best interests of the district at heart, so whatever happens at the polls tomorrow, the community can't lose.

Though the candidates are behaving very well, two board members have decided to put their thumb on the scale with endorsements. This is of course perfectly legal; they're citizens like everyone else.  While it's common in more partisan contexts, it's been mostly avoided in Oyster River School Board races.  I don't know if there are policies that speak to the issue.  One thing is for sure; come next meeting Brian or Michael or both will be looking across the table at someone they didn't endorse -- awkward. 

My guess is the two members would prefer not to push back against attacks on public education by the governor and legislature, the position most closely associated with Ms. Gelsey.  

A search of the minutes shows some other reasons why Brian might not be partial to Ms. Gelsey.  [EDIT: I see on my phone these images are unreadable unless you magnify; in this first Ms. Gelsey calls out Member Cisneros for misspeaking about COVID and asks him to "recant and apologize."]

There's also this disagreement on saying the Pledge of Allegiance, Brian in favor, Giana against (along with the rest of the board -- there was no second of Brian's motion):

Ms. Gelsey apparently did not endear herself to some board members when she organized a petition of over 200 community members to call for mask mandates in accordance with science at the beginning of the school year.  Despite being restricted to 90 seconds each, they read it to the board:

[interposed comments removed]

I don't know why anyone at the board table wouldn't want to hear this support from the rational, science-believing folks, especially after some of the less than polite anti-mask comments.  I was sure cheering them on from home -- finally voices of reason at the podium.

Sure Giana Gelsey is a troublemaker.  But it's good trouble, the kind we all give lip service to supporting. Tomorrow we get to back it up with our vote.