EAST MONTPELIER — There were no winners at U-32 Middle and High School on a night when a tie technically went to the “Raiders” — leaving the team name intact for now — as a divided school board wondered what to do next and anxious community members suggested it should be game over.
If the latter opinion prevails, and it could, the record will reflect the final score was 6-6 Wednesday night, thanks to the tie-making vote cast by Chair Flor Diaz-Smith.
Diaz-Smith forged the tie by voting in favor of a failed motion to find the school’s decades-old “Raiders” name and accompanying “knight” mascot violate a policy the board adopted six months ago. In the end, that vote was more symbolic than consequential. The motion, which would have failed if Diaz-Smith hadn’t weighed in, failed anyway, prompting her to propose the school board equivalent of overtime.
Asked what next by residents concerned about the possible name change, Diaz-Smith initially indicated the matter was yet to be settled, and the board would revisit the issue at its next regular meeting in August.
Or would it?
School Director Jonas Eno-Van Fleet wasn’t so sure.
Eno-Van Fleet was on the other side of the tie and openly wondered whether it might be the last word with respect to whether the district is violating a state-mandated policy governing “nondiscriminatory mascots and school branding.”
“Is it necessary that a motion that ties be reconsidered, or is that a choice that we’re making?” Eno-Van Fleet asked. “I think it’s a choice. Is that a choice that the … board wants to make?”
Diaz-Smith said she thought so.
“I just don’t feel like right now we are sending a signal one way, or the other, to the community,” she said, noting the board was deadlocked, three members — all from Berlin — were missing and it would be nice if the “full board” had an opportunity to participate in a “hard decision.”
It might be nice, but Eno-Van Fleet suggested it wasn’t necessary and, given the board’s history, probably unrealistic.
“With all due respect, we haven’t had the ‘full board’ (present at a meeting) in years,” he said.
One of the missing members Wednesday night — Vera Frazier — hasn’t attended a meeting since last September, and that was a rare appearance.
While a Diaz-Smith viewed the tie as a reflection of unfinished business, Eno-Van Fleet said the vote answered the central question before the board.
“The motion was not adopted,” he said. “That’s a signal. That’s the way parliamentary procedure works. That’s the way Robert’s Rules (of Order) work.”
After listening to Eno-Van Fleet, Diaz-Smith told more than three dozen residents who attended the meeting in person and online, not to mark their calendars yet, while suggesting the board could discuss how — or if — to proceed, at its upcoming retreat.
The civil exchange between two board members capped a sometimes spirited and occasionally emotional discussion that spanned more than 90 minutes and saw board members express differing views, while those in attendance were all on the same pro-Raiders page.
The “Raiders” name, those who spoke agreed, has stood the test of time, is cherished by many in Berlin, Calais, East Montpelier, Middlesex and Worcester and shouldn’t be change based on ambiguous policy language they argued was open to interpretation.
Rob LaClair was one of them.
A former lawmaker who once served on the U-32 School Board, LaClair said he was among the students who selected the “Raiders” name when the U-32 opened in 1971.
“The ‘Raider’ name has always been something to be proud of (and) to be aspired to,” he said. “I find it troubling that somebody is taking a word that has been out there for so many years and now trying to make it into something it’s not. It is something to be very proud of. I’m proud to be a ‘Raider.’”
LaClair had company Wednesday night and several, like Worcester resident Julia DeRosia, came dressed in “Raiders” gear.
DeRosia said she was saddened by the negative lens through which some board members view a name that means a lot to her, her children and so many others.
“Do not take this away from them,” she said, fighting back tears. “They’ve lost enough.”
Others maintained making a change on the strength of a never-pursued complaint from outside the district didn’t make sense, and complained the cost of addressing what would amount to a self-inflicted identity crisis wasn’t worth it.
East Montpelier resident Barbara Korecki recalled how she and other members of the visual arts department suggested modifying the mascot 25 years ago.
“We felt that perhaps it was not visually inclusive enough of all U-32 does,” she explained, noting proposed tweaks included enhancing the image by replacing the knight’s lance with a musical instrument, adding books and a paintbrush on its saddle and maybe a heart on its jacket.
“I think the ‘Raider’ is an important symbol to U-32 and I would never want to change it, but I think that U-32 is so much more than a knight or somebody on a horse and you can represent that visually by embellishing the ‘Raider,’” she said.
While Korecki suggested tweaking the knight, Worcester resident Bonnie Pollard Allen, wondered whether the policy could be modified.
“Change the policy, not the mascot,” said Pollard-Allen, who described herself as a “Raider parent” with two children currently attending the school where their father and five of their siblings graduated.
Pollard-Allen said all “love the ‘Raider’ name,” some feel they aren’t being listened to, and none understand the need for the change.
“I feel sad that this is even an issue,” she said.
LaClair worried the board hadn’t considered the issue carefully enough.
“I don’t know the process that you’ve gone through, but I will tell you as somebody from the outside looking in it doesn’t seem very inclusive, it doesn’t seem very transparent and it seems very, very rushed,” he said.
That observation is at odds with what has been a months-long discussion, that chipped away at what began as a pretty clear consensus the “Raider” name violated the policy.
Public reaction played a role in those shifting opinions and, while some said they appreciated the robust discussion the topic generated, at least one said some went too far.
School Director Natasha Eckart, once a proud Raider who cherished her time at U-32, said her belief the team name violates the policy provoked some troubling reactions.
“Some of the responses that we got did me harm,” she said. “I do not feel safe.”
Eckart was among those who remained convinced that U-32’s team name was at odds with a policy that prohibits mascots and other branding that “… directly or indirectly references or stereotypes the likeness, features, symbols, traditions, or other characteristics that are specific to … any person, group of persons, or organization associated with the repression of others.”
“I don’t think we need the name ‘Raider’ to continue to be a proud, unified community,” she said.
No one argued the point, though School Director Chris McVeigh suggested “Raiders” was “ambiguous” and cited examples historical examples of raids — the raid on Harper’s Ferry and the raid on Entebbe — whose sole goal was to liberate, not repress.
Some, including Eno-Van Fleet and School Director Daniel Keeney, suggested they wouldn’t be averse to changing a policy that, at a minimum, moves names like “Raiders” into a gray area.
That motion was never made, and McVeigh said he wouldn’t support it.
Instead, School Director Ursula Stanley offered a motion to find that the “Raiders” name and the knight mascot violate the board’s policy after some said it didn’t, others said it might and a few insisted it surely does.
Board members Eric Andersen, Lindy Johnson and Mckalyn Leclerc joined Eno-Van fleet, McVeigh and Keeney in voting against the motion.
Stanley and Eckart were joined by board members Kari Bradley, Joshua Sevits, Maggie Weiss and, ultimately, Diaz-Smith voting in favor of the motion.
The 6-6 vote raised more questions than it answered for a board concerned that it will distract from the district’s recently launched strategic planning process.
david.delcore
@timesargus.com
