"Are we going to make a policy for furries too?" asked Committee Member Lori Wycall. "When I was subbing there were [students] wearing ears and tails in the middle school..."
The day after this meeting, at a regular meeting of the Westerly School Committee, Westerly resident Lauren Nocera testified about both the substance and the conduct of the meeting. His comments, and the response of the committee members, is worth noting. Also not that before Nocera's comments, committee members Lori Wycall and Diane Chiaradio Bowdy had left.
Here's the testimony and the committee member's response, edited for clarity:
Committee Member Christine Cooke: I very much appreciate a lot of what you just said. And I will say to my colleagues, I had reservations about having a workshop and I should have been more vocal about it. The next meeting should not be at Babcock Hall. We should have an open forum. We should have our attorney present at these meetings. And we only did an hour. I know we're trying to workshop it, but I just don't know why we're separately doing this. And I don't know if my colleagues agree with me and we don't have them all here because a couple of them had to leave early, but let's do this in a regular meeting and not hide behind Babcock Hall. I mean, it was live-streamed and on Facebook, but there was no public comment. To [Lauren Nocera's] point, I couldn't even find my way to the meeting as a school committee member. It is painful to hear [this] testimony. We've had a lot of testimony in the past on this subject. We can expect to have more, but we need to let the process play out... That's just my two cents.
Committee Member Michael Ober: As I remember, the workshop was for us to discuss [the issue] and get an idea of where we were. We wanted to workshop it because we wanted to talk amongst ourselves, say what we wanted, and start the process. I envisioned more meetings where we would have public comments and people telling us what they thought and maybe having some experts there. But I thought [this meeting] was for us to talk amongst ourselves [and] come to some sort of idea of what we were doing. "Is this where we want to go? What are we thinking?" And then go from there. I mean, at one point we were thinking, "Maybe we shouldn't even be here." This was the beginning of the process - that's how I looked at it.
Committee Member Leslie Dunn: Thank you for sharing all that. I look forward to receiving the documents you mentioned that can help navigate this if we choose to go forward. I thank you for being respectful and for giving that courtesy to everybody. ereI agree with what [Michael Ober] and [Christine Cooke] were saying: Workshopping [the policy] was a way for us to figure out what we wanted to do next, talk about our concerns, and what we need to do. The beginning [of the] conversation was, "Why are we here and do we even need to do this?" I would be open to having the issue on an agenda where we give people the opportunity to talk about it - or to move past it and leave things as is. Thank you for bringing those points up.
Committee Chair Robert Cillino: To answer Ms. Cooke's question, the workshop was my idea as the person who leads the ship here. We had a committee member [Lori Wycall], who wanted to [review and change] that protocol, so we have to put it on the agenda. We know it's without a doubt a hot-button topic, 100%. I can tell you that any policy that we make is always going to come here first for what we call the first read and is going to be exposed to the public at that time. It can't be voted on that night. There has to be at least two weeks in between where we can hear from people, the community, experts, and everyone else. I don't think anybody up here thought we would get this done in one night. I thought we needed a point to start. That was my intention with the workshop and I think there's a long road in front of us.
Committee Member Michael Ober: I agree that if you don't know Babcock Hall, you can get lost very easily. I know it a little and I still get lost every so often by trying to follow the signs. We need to keep that in mind.
Committee Member Christine Cooke: But Mr. Ober, one of the first things I did on the school committee was move these - I used to call them the secret meetings. No one knew where they [were happening]. They were all hidden in State Street, it was like a traveling roadshow and nobody knew where the heck to go. I was instrumental in getting these meetings held in this environment so that they're live streamed, they're on cable, and people can see them. I am a big fan of open forums. I know we don't want to listen to people and that's kind of why you don't have an open forum because you don't want to get distracted. I let this [meeting] go and I shouldn't have because I usually bang the drum. We need an open forum at every single meeting. It should be an opportunity for someone to give testimony. All our meetings are public. Unless there's an executive session, we should have an open forum. That's my opinion.
Superintendent Mark Garceau: The door that was locked, was that the front of the building or were you in the back?
Lauren Nocera: My GPS took me to the back door, not the front door, and the back door is labeled Babcock Hall. There was no sign on that door. It's the one near the football field, the backside.
Superintendent Mark Garceau: Understood. We will try to do better by that. 23 Highland is where Babcock Hall is. But the door should be open. I appreciate you bringing that to our attention. We'll try and do better.
The day after this meeting, at a regular meeting of the Westerly School Committee, Westerly resident Lauren Nocera testified about both the substance and the conduct of the meeting. His comments, and the response of the committee members, is worth noting. Also not that before Nocera's comments, committee members Lori Wycall and Diane Chiaradio Bowdy had left.
Here's the testimony and the committee member's response, edited for clarity:
Lauren Nocera: I'm a Westerly resident. I am glad to be here tonight. I am new to living in Westerly, but not new to working in collaboration with Westerly or the school district. I spent quite a bit of time working with the previous superintendent on issues in Bradford around things like food insecurity and some of the other key areas that you brought up tonight. I know how strong this district is and how oriented it is toward supporting all of its students. I attended yesterday's meeting and I had a couple of pieces of feedback. The one I'm referring to is the public meeting that was held at the school building on the transgender policy. One of the things I was impressed about was how thorough the discussion was, how respectful the discussion was, and how there wasn't a lot of hyperbole or loud voices or whatever.
I've watched a lot of these conversations in a lot of communities and the tone in the room was different. I appreciated that. That said, what I know, and what evidence tells us, is that these discussions, regardless of how civil they appear to be, are dangerous to transgender and gender diverse kids and their families. There's ample evidence of that I'd be happy to put together. I'm a clinical social worker and I'd be happy to put together some of the evidence that just these discussions create a lack of safety in these communities.
It's worth noting that what I heard from committee members was that they want to make sure that everybody gets to hear all sides of the issues. If we want to do that, even when we know these discussions are dangerous to kids, we must speak up when things are just inaccurate or false.
My one disappointment about what I heard yesterday [when], a few times, information was put forth as if it were fact that it is just not fact. Making an analogy between people who are furries and students who are transgender - it's just not the same and we all know it's not the same. If we create public fora where these discussions happen, and we cannot speak up when facts are just not facts, then kids and families learn that truth doesn't matter. That is an example where you don't have to call somebody a bigot or somehow create some big kerfuffle, but it is acceptable to say, "I just want to make sure I understand what you're saying. Are you saying that you think children who are trans or gender diverse are analogous to adults who are having a certain kind of sexual behavior? That's just not accurate. I want to say, for the people at home, that's not accurate."
We have the responsibility to call out the truth... Also, as an aside, I think it's inappropriate to be talking about elementary-age children and these adult concepts of sexuality that don't belong in that conversation. I was disappointed that no one felt empowered enough to say that, so I'm going to say it tonight. "That's not true. It's not okay. And it is inappropriate to sexualize this conversation in that way. We as reasonable professional adults have an obligation to do that."
Another question was asked, "What's the difference between a 7-year-old and a 14-year-old?" It was not a rhetorical question, it was a legitimate question to colleagues. You don't have to have gone to graduate school, you don't have to be a teacher, and you don't have to be a parent to know there's a vast developmental difference between a 7-year-old and a 14-year-old.
I know there's going to be additional conversation about this moving forward. I would ask that when people hear things in meetings that just aren't based in fact that politely, respectfully, and within the context of the safe space that you guys have created, you acknowledge these things are not true. Because when we don't, it sends the wrong message...
Also, being new here, but having been involved in a lot of issues at public meetings in the past, there were a couple of things that confused me as a new constituent and I wanted to share them with you so that it might be clearer for folks coming up behind me. We all believe, on every side of whatever issue we're on, that there needs to be transparency and clarity around how a process works. As a new person, one of the things that was confusing to me yesterday was that my GPS took me to what it said was 28 Highland Street and when I got there, there was a sign that said Babock Hall, and a door that was locked with no sign on it.
I understand that this issue has been complained about before. I'd like to publicly put on the record: Please put signs on all of the doors that are labeled Babcock Hall. Additionally, as somebody who used to be a clerk for a public meeting, I would appreciate it if there were directions that were clearer on the actual public posting. It's not that hard to write a little narrative that helps people understand, even on this building [where] there was no signage. It would've just been nice and more accessible to all of us if there had been signs throughout the building. I'd like to encourage that.
The other thing, from a process perspective that concerned me yesterday was that there was no attorney in the room. Understand, I'm the child of an attorney. I have a public policy degree. I never make statements about law absent of counsel being in the room. I would hope that when this happens a second time - because I understand that the process will include additional meetings if you continue this because you could also just put this on the agenda next time and shut it down - but if you choose to continue it, please ask the legal counsel to be in the room because if not, you have two problems. One, there was a lot of hand wringing and back and forth and lists of things they needed to be asked of counsel. Two, the spirit of the Open Meetings Act is that policy gets made in public, not via email with counsel on the backend. I would respectfully request that there be counsel in the room to answer those questions at the time of the visit so that is transparent to the public.
Three, if you continue this, please do not have this the only meeting where experts in the community and interested parties get to tell you what we think about it. If you're going to have another workshop, I would respectfully request that there be an opportunity for public comment and expert testimony at that meeting because it's very difficult to have a robust, thoughtful conversation [without that]. I think all sides could agree that they want an opportunity to talk about this in a meeting that is specific to that and not at the end of the night on an 18-minute agenda.
It would be my request that as you move forward - and I would encourage you to stop this, I think you've vetted this long enough - but if you choose to move forward, I respectfully request a process that is more transparent and more participatory. As every single one of the people mentioned yesterday, that original policy was developed by experts and you all acknowledged your lack of expertise. You're all educators and you're all here for the right reasons, but there are real experts on this particular topic, and inclusion of that in this process would be most appropriate.
Part two
The day after this meeting, at a regular meeting of the Westerly School Committee, Westerly resident Lauren Nocera testified about both the substance and the conduct of the meeting. His comments, and the response of the committee members, is worth noting. Also not that before Nocera's comments, committee members Lori Wycall and Diane Chiaradio Bowdy had left.
Here's the testimony and the committee member's response, edited for clarity:
Committee Member Christine Cooke: I very much appreciate a lot of what you just said. And I will say to my colleagues, I had reservations about having a workshop and I should have been more vocal about it. The next meeting should not be at Babcock Hall. We should have an open forum. We should have our attorney present at these meetings. And we only did an hour. I know we're trying to workshop it, but I just don't know why we're separately doing this. And I don't know if my colleagues agree with me and we don't have them all here because a couple of them had to leave early, but let's do this in a regular meeting and not hide behind Babcock Hall. I mean, it was live-streamed and on Facebook, but there was no public comment. To [Lauren Nocera's] point, I couldn't even find my way to the meeting as a school committee member. It is painful to hear [this] testimony. We've had a lot of testimony in the past on this subject. We can expect to have more, but we need to let the process play out... That's just my two cents.
Committee Member Michael Ober: As I remember, the workshop was for us to discuss [the issue] and get an idea of where we were. We wanted to workshop it because we wanted to talk amongst ourselves, say what we wanted, and start the process. I envisioned more meetings where we would have public comments and people telling us what they thought and maybe having some experts there. But I thought [this meeting] was for us to talk amongst ourselves [and] come to some sort of idea of what we were doing. "Is this where we want to go? What are we thinking?" And then go from there. I mean, at one point we were thinking, "Maybe we shouldn't even be here." This was the beginning of the process - that's how I looked at it.
Committee Member Leslie Dunn: Thank you for sharing all that. I look forward to receiving the documents you mentioned that can help navigate this if we choose to go forward. I thank you for being respectful and for giving that courtesy to everybody. ereI agree with what [Michael Ober] and [Christine Cooke] were saying: Workshopping [the policy] was a way for us to figure out what we wanted to do next, talk about our concerns, and what we need to do. The beginning [of the] conversation was, "Why are we here and do we even need to do this?" I would be open to having the issue on an agenda where we give people the opportunity to talk about it - or to move past it and leave things as is. Thank you for bringing those points up.
Committee Chair Robert Cillino: To answer Ms. Cooke's question, the workshop was my idea as the person who leads the ship here. We had a committee member [Lori Wycall], who wanted to [review and change] that protocol, so we have to put it on the agenda. We know it's without a doubt a hot-button topic, 100%. I can tell you that any policy that we make is always going to come here first for what we call the first read and is going to be exposed to the public at that time. It can't be voted on that night. There has to be at least two weeks in between where we can hear from people, the community, experts, and everyone else. I don't think anybody up here thought we would get this done in one night. I thought we needed a point to start. That was my intention with the workshop and I think there's a long road in front of us.
Committee Member Michael Ober: I agree that if you don't know Babcock Hall, you can get lost very easily. I know it a little and I still get lost every so often by trying to follow the signs. We need to keep that in mind.
Committee Member Christine Cooke: But Mr. Ober, one of the first things I did on the school committee was move these - I used to call them the secret meetings. No one knew where they [were happening]. They were all hidden in State Street, it was like a traveling roadshow and nobody knew where the heck to go. I was instrumental in getting these meetings held in this environment so that they're live streamed, they're on cable, and people can see them. I am a big fan of open forums. I know we don't want to listen to people and that's kind of why you don't have an open forum because you don't want to get distracted. I let this [meeting] go and I shouldn't have because I usually bang the drum. We need an open forum at every single meeting. It should be an opportunity for someone to give testimony. All our meetings are public. Unless there's an executive session, we should have an open forum. That's my opinion.
Superintendent Mark Garceau: The door that was locked, was that the front of the building or were you in the back?
Lauren Nocera: My GPS took me to the back door, not the front door, and the back door is labeled Babcock Hall. There was no sign on that door. It's the one near the football field, the backside.
Superintendent Mark Garceau: Understood. We will try to do better by that. 23 Highland is where Babcock Hall is. But the door should be open. I appreciate you bringing that to our attention. We'll try and do better.
Lauren Nocera: Thank you.
Part One:
The day after this meeting, at a regular meeting of the Westerly School Committee, Westerly resident Lauren Nocera testified about both the substance and the conduct of the meeting. His comments, and the response of the committee members, is worth noting. Also not that before Nocera's comments, committee members Lori Wycall and Diane Chiaradio Bowdy had left.
Here's the testimony and the committee member's response, edited for clarity:
Lauren Nocera: I'm a Westerly resident. I am glad to be here tonight. I am new to living in Westerly, but not new to working in collaboration with Westerly or the school district. I spent quite a bit of time working with the previous superintendent on issues in Bradford around things like food insecurity and some of the other key areas that you brought up tonight. I know how strong this district is and how oriented it is toward supporting all of its students. I attended yesterday's meeting and I had a couple of pieces of feedback. The one I'm referring to is the public meeting that was held at the school building on the transgender policy. One of the things I was impressed about was how thorough the discussion was, how respectful the discussion was, and how there wasn't a lot of hyperbole or loud voices or whatever.
I've watched a lot of these conversations in a lot of communities and the tone in the room was different. I appreciated that. That said, what I know, and what evidence tells us, is that these discussions, regardless of how civil they appear to be, are dangerous to transgender and gender diverse kids and their families. There's ample evidence of that I'd be happy to put together. I'm a clinical social worker and I'd be happy to put together some of the evidence that just these discussions create a lack of safety in these communities.
It's worth noting that what I heard from committee members was that they want to make sure that everybody gets to hear all sides of the issues. If we want to do that, even when we know these discussions are dangerous to kids, we must speak up when things are just inaccurate or false.
My one disappointment about what I heard yesterday [when], a few times, information was put forth as if it were fact that it is just not fact. Making an analogy between people who are furries and students who are transgender - it's just not the same and we all know it's not the same. If we create public fora where these discussions happen, and we cannot speak up when facts are just not facts, then kids and families learn that truth doesn't matter. That is an example where you don't have to call somebody a bigot or somehow create some big kerfuffle, but it is acceptable to say, "I just want to make sure I understand what you're saying. Are you saying that you think children who are trans or gender diverse are analogous to adults who are having a certain kind of sexual behavior? That's just not accurate. I want to say, for the people at home, that's not accurate."
We have the responsibility to call out the truth... Also, as an aside, I think it's inappropriate to be talking about elementary-age children and these adult concepts of sexuality that don't belong in that conversation. I was disappointed that no one felt empowered enough to say that, so I'm going to say it tonight. "That's not true. It's not okay. And it is inappropriate to sexualize this conversation in that way. We as reasonable professional adults have an obligation to do that."
Another question was asked, "What's the difference between a 7-year-old and a 14-year-old?" It was not a rhetorical question, it was a legitimate question to colleagues. You don't have to have gone to graduate school, you don't have to be a teacher, and you don't have to be a parent to know there's a vast developmental difference between a 7-year-old and a 14-year-old.
I know there's going to be additional conversation about this moving forward. I would ask that when people hear things in meetings that just aren't based in fact that politely, respectfully, and within the context of the safe space that you guys have created, you acknowledge these things are not true. Because when we don't, it sends the wrong message...
Also, being new here, but having been involved in a lot of issues at public meetings in the past, there were a couple of things that confused me as a new constituent and I wanted to share them with you so that it might be clearer for folks coming up behind me. We all believe, on every side of whatever issue we're on, that there needs to be transparency and clarity around how a process works. As a new person, one of the things that was confusing to me yesterday was that my GPS took me to what it said was 28 Highland Street and when I got there, there was a sign that said Babock Hall, and a door that was locked with no sign on it.
I understand that this issue has been complained about before. I'd like to publicly put on the record: Please put signs on all of the doors that are labeled Babcock Hall. Additionally, as somebody who used to be a clerk for a public meeting, I would appreciate it if there were directions that were clearer on the actual public posting. It's not that hard to write a little narrative that helps people understand, even on this building [where] there was no signage. It would've just been nice and more accessible to all of us if there had been signs throughout the building. I'd like to encourage that.
The other thing, from a process perspective that concerned me yesterday was that there was no attorney in the room. Understand, I'm the child of an attorney. I have a public policy degree. I never make statements about law absent of counsel being in the room. I would hope that when this happens a second time - because I understand that the process will include additional meetings if you continue this because you could also just put this on the agenda next time and shut it down - but if you choose to continue it, please ask the legal counsel to be in the room because if not, you have two problems. One, there was a lot of hand wringing and back and forth and lists of things they needed to be asked of counsel. Two, the spirit of the Open Meetings Act is that policy gets made in public, not via email with counsel on the backend. I would respectfully request that there be counsel in the room to answer those questions at the time of the visit so that is transparent to the public.
Three, if you continue this, please do not have this the only meeting where experts in the community and interested parties get to tell you what we think about it. If you're going to have another workshop, I would respectfully request that there be an opportunity for public comment and expert testimony at that meeting because it's very difficult to have a robust, thoughtful conversation [without that]. I think all sides could agree that they want an opportunity to talk about this in a meeting that is specific to that and not at the end of the night on an 18-minute agenda.
It would be my request that as you move forward - and I would encourage you to stop this, I think you've vetted this long enough - but if you choose to move forward, I respectfully request a process that is more transparent and more participatory. As every single one of the people mentioned yesterday, that original policy was developed by experts and you all acknowledged your lack of expertise. You're all educators and you're all here for the right reasons, but there are real experts on this particular topic, and inclusion of that in this process would be most appropriate.
Reading through this is like a transcript of the group project from hell.