Submitted by Republican Board of Education member Dr. Michael-Joseph Mercanti-Anthony
I was disappointed to read my former BOE colleague and current DTC Chair Christina Downey’s version of the current membership controversy on the BOE. (DOWNEY: Lies, Chaos and Determination – Setting the Record Straight on the Board of Education Vacancy Dec 8, 2024).
Given the lawsuits and hurt-feelings on all sides, I can understand the temptation to latch on to a version of events that better suits personal biases. Yet since Ms. Downey’s sequence is not only false but also calls into question my own integrity, I have no choice but to correct the record.
Here are the five “facts” of Ms. Downey’s article with appropriate corrections:
1. Ms. Downey claims that upon learning of the vacancy, we, the members of the BOE consulted the town attorney and were not told of any timeline restrictions. This is true.
2. The board did indeed interview six candidates as Ms. Downey writes. In fact, as part of a good faith effort, fellow BOE member Cody Kittle and I conducted separate individual conversations with Ms. Behette at the request of the Democrats on the board. After these additional conversations, I personally communicated to my Democrat colleagues that Ms. Behette was a non-starter for the Republican caucus. Alternately, I urged a compromise around one of the five other candidates, each of whom a majority of the Republican caucus found acceptable.
3. Ms. Downey writes that I and the three Republican members did not agree on a first choice of the six candidates. This is correct, we all had our favorites. Ms. Downey omits that we were all in universal agreement – and quite clear — that Ms. Behette was our unanimous last choice and a non-starter. Why? Because we knew she was not intending to be a good faith member of our caucus but rather would act as a fifth vote for the Democrats. At the time, I referred to that as a “railroad” and I still stand by the claim.
4. Ms. Downey claims that at the October 17 BOE meeting my caucus intentionally disrupted the meeting and devised a scheme where “a member” left abruptly. This is simply untruthful. I had to leave the meeting due to an important and sudden personal matter. Ms. Downey knows what the personal matter was, and I told her that I expect a public apology. To accuse me of playing politics and intentionally shirking board business (even if she did not use my name) is beyond the pale.
5. On October 21st, First Selectmen Camillo did indeed post an agenda to appoint a member, as he is legally allowed to do after 30 days. He posted the meeting because it was becoming clear that the Democrat BOE caucus was showing little intention to compromise and was instead moving forward with Ms. Behette’s appointment, against the wishes of the Republican BOE caucus. This prompted the BOE “emergency” meeting where the four Democrats quickly appointed Ms. Behette. If you watch the tape, you will note I urge them not to vote but instead consider a compromise solution on one of the other five candidates.
The original sin here is not First Selectmen Camillo’s involvement, but the BOE’s inability to find common ground on an acceptable member to the Republican caucus. Perhaps it could be argued that if there were no compromise choices available, we would have been at a legitimate stalemate. However, there were Republican candidates who went through the interview process who would have garnered bipartisan support and allowed the board to move forward in a collegial manner. Sadly, instead of a compromise solution, my Democrat colleagues chose to push forward the only candidate of the six that our caucus did not want.
One may dislike the structure of the BOE – with its stipulation of four Republican and four Democrat members. Yet given these rules it is appropriate to apply a certain level of deference to the party with the vacancy. Not absolute deference, but at least some. The optimal outcome in this case was to settle on a candidate that the Republicans could support and whom would have had at least some support from the Democrats on the board. That option was there for the taking.
The three members of my caucus did not say, “we must have this candidate” rather we said, “anyone but that candidate”. Unfortunately, the Democrats picked that one anyway.
Deference has been the tradition in other past BOE vacancies. Perhaps this notion seems quaint amidst the current high level of divisiveness in our town politics, but it is still the right thing to do. Partisans may say, “too bad Mike – you guys did not have the votes.” I do not believe it should not be this way at the local level on a board intended to have equal bi-partisan representation.
First Selectmen Camillo did not get involved after thirty days like he could have because he too was hoping we could work this out ourselves as a Board. In fact, I still think we can. There is nothing stopping us from reaching a sensible compromise here that returns the appropriate balance to the board, admits errors, puts all court matter behind us, and allows us to move on.
Public misrepresentations of the facts only make fulfilling such a goal harder to achieve.