I attended this evening’s Boquet Valley Central School Board meeting in which they went over the results of the exit survey of voters. It was primarily a meeting of the school board with the committee on facilities.
The School Board seemed to be divided into two factions: those who cared whether members of the public had a place to sit and those who did not. And this is a key element of the core theme that emerged: real vs. imaginary regional identities.
My impression is from the demeanor of some of the school board members that it was only grudgingly an open meeting, and that Dina Garvey, President of the School Board—in particular—would have much preferred this to be a private meeting and seemed unhappy that the room was full of people. The room was too small for the audience it attracted. (My general impression of Garvey at this meeting is that she is too burned out to function as a public official and should resign. She radiated Weltschmerz.)
There was not much useful information to be had from the district’s voter exit survey because of how it was structured: it told the school board basically what they already knew before the proposal for a new school went before the voters, which is that people had significant issues with the location and the cost. Having filled out the survey, I suspected that the structure of the questions would hamper its utility but was open-minded enough about the possibility that they had gotten interesting feedback to attend the meeting. The survey results turned out not to be what was interesting about the meeting.
My touchstone moment of the meeting, where things got interesting, was when Evan George made reference to concern in Westport that losing the school as an “anchor” for the town and opined that this “can’t be our concern as a school board.” My note in the moment: Question: have they started from the wrong problem definition? The lack of interest in aligning the process and goals of the communities whose votes they need.
I still can’t quite believe he said it. What he meant by it was something like that the interests of the kids come before the interests of the towns. But if the School Board starts from the premise that they have no interest in the wellbeing of the towns in the district, no wonder they can’t get voter support. But also, what he articulated is a lack of understanding of how neighborhood schools function in a community. The educational system is not something you can just rip out of the town and neighborhood and operate separately without damage to the system you are trying to save. In that one statement, George explained to me why he should not be on a school board.
If we were to do a wordcloud of what was said in the meeting, the words “misinformation” and “social media” would be in big type. The contention was that the new school construction proposal was voted down because of unspecified misinformation on social media. If that was indeed the case, in a room packed with voters who cared enough to show up at a standing-room-only meeting, one would assume that someone at the table at the front of the room would have bothered to explain how voters had been misled. The fact that no one was willing to articulate to the many voters in the room how they had allegedly been led astray seems to me to reveal that “misinformation on social media” was pretext for ignoring feedback and pushback that the school board didn’t want to hear. If we are misinformed, this was your chance to correct the record.
One board member went so far as to suggest that we should all be writing our concerns to the school board and to the district rather than posting on social media, implying that opposition to school board proposals was illegitimate if not articulated first to them. This is a customer service perspective, which seems oddly out of place here.
But also, these are small towns. This is a small district. I don’t contact Josh Meyer with concerns because when I did that as a parent in the Westport district when he was our principal, his responses were at best feckless. In my experience, addressing concerns and problem solving are not the kinds of things Josh Meyer does. That’s just not who he is. You write to him and he might write back in two weeks with a response that does not address the problem you raised. (I was mystified when he was promoted to Superintendent.)
And under the best of circumstances, conveying my concerns to the school board had a small effect. The school board has limited authority to deal with individual concerns. School Board: Your voters are not statistics. We are people with particular experiences and may have good reasons for not privately relaying concerns before expressing them on social media.
This school board will never ever be able to get any of the range of proposals past its voters except maybe fixing the two existing schools because they need people to vote out of regional identity, and while Westport and Elizabethtown are regional identities that real people have allegiance to, the “Boquet Valley” as regional identity is almost entirely a fiction of Josh Meyer & School District merger politics. You can’t get the votes to pass school budgets over the objections of tax rebel without regional identity allegiance, and the “Boquet Valley” identity isn’t real.
(My younger child was in the cohort that was the first group to graduate under the new district and school name, although we were out of the country by that point. So our exposure to "Boquet Valley" as a concept is that it is usually sarcastic and in implied scare quotes.)
Under the influence of Josh Meyer, the Board wants the community to invent and invest in a regional identity that does not exist and are denying the validity of the regional identities that do exist. They are pitting the interests of the students against existing regional identities rather than leveraging existing regional identity to support students.
Towards the end, it seemed briefly like Evan George was going to pivot: He began a sentence with “I want to thank…” and for a moment it seemed like he was going to thank us for coming to potentially discuss the results of the survey, which discussion was not possible because it was not on the meeting agenda. But then he only thanked the facilities committee (appropriately) but spoke as though in a meeting without an audience.
What the meeting in the end conveyed is not that the school board wants dialog on how to move forward, but rather that the board contingent that doesn’t care if the audience has a place to sit wants monologue in which they propose Things and then we vote for them without there being any expectation that they as a school board have responsibility for the health of communities within this imagined Boquet Valley community.
The minutes of this meeting should be an interesting document representing a very pure form of cognitive dissonance: a public meeting is convened to discuss voter opinions in which none of said voters who attend are allowed a voice even though about 50 of us were in the room; sublime.
***
For context, I used to run a website supporting the Westport School budget and used to have get-out-the-vote lists of likely voters and their known or inferred stance on funding education. Those are long out of date, but the underlying factions represented in those notes haven't changed. There is a contingent that will always vote against school budgets regardless of what is on offer, and to pass a budget you need a coalition of the rest.
My original unedited notes are HERE.