Providence School Board candidate Andrew Grover objects to City's Candidate Guide
"...no other mayor/town manager in Rhode Island curates like this for city council seats or school board seats since those bodies are independent," says Grover.
[Updated at 1:38 pm to include a response from Michael Narducci, Providence’s Administrator of Elections.]
On November 5, 2024, Providence voters will elect a school board member from their designated school board region. This election is the first time Providence voters have had the opportunity to elect a school board member since the 1960s. Formerly, the Mayor would appoint each position, but voters approved a hybrid school board, with five elected and five appointed members from each city’s five regions.
The Providence Board of Canvassers has created a School Board Candidate Guide designed to “provide voters with general background information.” The general background information is one thing, but the questionnaire also asks an overtly political question, “Why do you wish to serve on the School Board?”
Andrew Grover, one of five candidates1 in Region 2, objected to the Candidate Guide and wrote to Michael Narducci, the City’s Administrator of Elections, asking him not to proceed with the plan in August. Grover is a teacher, Lego artist, and one of the five school board candidates endorsed by the AFL-CIO’s Providence Central Federated Council.2
“I received your request for information from School Board candidates to publish as a voters’ guide. After some thought, you may consider this to be my submission: I must urge you not to go forward with this plan.
“Providing voters with information is, on its face, not objectionable. However, a mayor’s or canvasser’s office collecting and publicizing information about candidates for elected school board seats goes into an uncharted sea; no other mayor/town manager in Rhode Island curates like this for city council seats or school board seats since those bodies are independent. One could ask why this is instituted for the school board but not the city council. I would imagine in the latter case, creating an informational website would step on the toes of an independent body. I do not see the difference for the school board. One may argue that the school board election is newer and that voters need more info, but this rationale does not seem sufficient to me to justify this unusual course of action.
“If anything, the newness of the School Board’s elected seats merits different concerns. Since the School Board has always been appointed by the mayor, but now these five seats will be electorally selected, it is extra important that boundaries are established. One sensible boundary would be that the city does not do anything for this election beyond what is ordinary for a board of canvassers to do for any other election.
“Respectfully, Andrew Grover”
A month later, Grover learned from a voter that the Candidate Guide was up and that the city wrote that Grover had not responded.
Grover again wrote to Administrator Narducci:
“While it is true that I think this site is inappropriate, it is NOT true that no response was provided and gives very much the wrong impression to voters.
“Please rectify this immediately with my actual response.”
Within a few hours, Administrator Narduci responded:
“Good afternoon Mr. Grover,
“The words ‘no response provided’ were listed under the names of all candidates who did not provide a response to the questions listed in July 30th’s email or its attached Microsoft Form.
“We asked candidates to provide their name, current occupation, educational background, community leadership positions, a 100-word biography, and a 100-word response to the question, “Why do you wish to serve on the School Board?”
“While your August 12th email was both received and noted, it did not provide a response to any of these fields.
“To avoid further confusion, please provide the text you would like to appear in place of ‘no response provided,’ and we would be happy to work to update the guide as soon as possible.
“We respectfully reiterate, as we have asked all candidates, that you refrain from personal attacks, the use of profanity, or any language that could be considered disrespectful in your response.”
After sending an email restating his desire to have his original statement included in the Campaign Guide, Grover received the following from Administrator Narducci:
“Unfortunately, we are unable to include any open-ended statements on the candidate guide. In an effort to provide the same equitable and timely opportunity to all candidates, we included all responses to the questions that were provided. Having not received a response that addresses any of the guide’s components, we would be happy to update your profile to read ‘no responses were received to the questions provided,’ in place of ‘no response provided,’ if that is preferred.”
Andrew Grover is mulling his next steps.
After I published, I received the following from Michael Narducci:
The candidate guide is designed to provide voters with general background information on candidates and has a set format and structure to it to ensure all voters could fully understand candidates experience and positions.
As noted in our correspondence with Mr. Grover, the words “No response provided” were included under the names of all candidates that did not provide written responses to the questions the City provided. We asked each candidate to provide their name, current occupation, educational background, community leadership positions, a 100-word biography, a 100-word response to the question “why do you wish to serve on the School Board?” and a headshot. The submission Mr. Grover provided was not responsive to any of these fields.
It is not appropriate or equitable to allow one candidate to provide an open-ended response that exceeds the word limit and does not respond to the given prompts. We have offered to provide a more detailed note in the guide of “no responses were received to the questions provided” in order to more accurately clarify that the email Mr. Grover sent was not responsive to the provided prompts.
Please also see the below examples of other government offices providing candidate guides:
Poughkeepsie, NY - https://www.poughkeepsieschools.org/Page/878
San Francisco - https://www.sf.gov/candidates
Multnomah County in Oregon -https://sos.oregon.gov/elections/Documents/pamphlet/book13.pdf
King County, Washington - https://kingcounty.gov/en/legacy/depts/elections/how-to-vote/voters-pamphlet.aspx
Los Angeles County - https://apps.lavote.gov/candidate-statements/
New York City - https://www.nycvotes.org/whats-on-the-ballot/
Toni Akin, Kobi J. Dennis, Michelle “Miche” Fontes, Andrew David Grover, and Christopher Ireland are the candidates in Region 2.
