School Committee Votes to Censure Hopkinton Member

By Cynthia Drummond for BRVCA
January 4th 2024

RICHMOND – At a special meeting on Wednesday, members of the Chariho School Committee voted by a margin of 7 to 4 to censure Hopkinton member Polly Hopkins for violating the rules of conduct for committee members. (The 12th member, Tyler Champlin of Hopkinton, was absent.)

Charlestown member Andrew McQuaide made the motion to censure Hopkins, first reading Hopkins’ Nov. 7 social media post about Chariho teacher Sandra Laub, that led to a complaint and then, the special meeting and the vote.

“Someone should check on Sandra Laub,” Hopkins wrote. “After her notorious role paying Golda Meir, she leapt onto the anti-racist bandwagon and whole-bodily supported the ARTF [the Anti Racist Task Force] at Chariho. She must be splitting in 2 between support of Israel and Hamas. Comrades should support comrades. Snort.”

The conduct violations concern provisions of the “Code of Basic Management Principles and Ethical Standards for School Committee Members”. Section 3F states that members’ concerns about district employees’ performance or character should be brought to Chariho Superintendent Gina Picard or committee Chair Catherine Giusti.

McQuaide elaborated on Sections 16 and 17 of the code.

“The Chariho School Committee accepts the obligation to operate the public schools in accordance with the fundamental principles and standards of school management, which principles include, but are not limited to, the following: 16: Avoid criticizing employees publicly, 17: Strive to promote harmonious working relations with all School Committee members and school staff that are based on mutual respect, fairness and openness,” he read.

The complaint to the School Committee was made by the teachers’ union representative, NEA Chariho President Vin Levcowich, who was contacted by Sandra Laub.

Levcowich presented his complaint to the committee at its previous meeting.

“I am here today to address an abhorrent and hateful public statement made by a member of this committee about a certified educator in this District,” he wrote. “School Committee member Polly Hopkins posted the following despicable comment to Facebook.”

Describing Hopkins’ words as “hateful,” Levcowich asked the committee to consider its code of ethics and “practice what they preach when one of their own clearly violates their principles and ethics.”

McQuaide said it appeared that Hopkins did not regret her post.

“I am not aware of any instance, since becoming aware of this, in which member Hopkins has shown any remorse for her statement,” he said.

Hopkins, in response, read a written statement.

“Thank you, Andrew,” she said. “This attempt at ridiculous political shenanigans is why parents are becoming increasingly enraged, and engaged, in our school district and its politics. An accusation has been made that I broke a rule. I did not. It is important that we address these issues through open dialogue, respectful debate and collaborative efforts rather than resorting to censuring fellow members.”

Several committee members condemned Hopkins’ post, and a few defended her right to free speech.

Richmond member Kathryn Colasante said she had not interpreted Hopkins’ post as hate speech.

“I do not look at this as being hateful towards the teacher,” she said. “I really think it was a political discussion. If I thought it was hateful towards any person, then I would agree with this censure.”

Hopkinton member Larry Phelps also opposed the censure.

“We have the right to speak online and social media,” he said. “It’s our right under God and the constitution. I’m not going to vote ‘yes’ to do this. It’s just a dog and pony show to me and you feel brave and strong that you did something tonight.”

Linda Lyall, of Charlestown, said she was waiting for an explanation from Hopkins as to why she had made the post.

“I don’t even know what, Polly, what was the purpose of this, and I don’t know if you want to answer that, because you never explained yourself in your comments and I guess you’re not sorry that you posted it,” she said.

The Public Comments

The first person to comment was the subject of Hopkins’ post, Chariho teacher Sandra Laub.

“It [the post] conflates my support for social justice causes with my supposed support for Hamas, a terrorist organization that calls for the slaughter of Jews and the destruction of Israel. That is a false and slanderous statement. It impugns my identity as a Jew, affects my standing in the community, my credibility as a teacher and therefore, my ability to do my job effectively,” she said.

Also condemning Hopkins’ post were Hopkinton Town Council member Stephen Moffit and Rep. Megan Cotter, who represents Exeter, Hopkinton and Richmond.

“I believe it is essential to maintain a respectful and inclusive environment that fosters growth and supports all individuals,” Moffit said. “Unfortunately, Ms. Hopkins’ actions have demonstrated a violation of principles, impacting students, staff members and members of our community.”

Cotter said,

“The member in question, using social media to target Chariho teachers and spread suspicion and lies, some comments are hidden in private Facebook groups while other comments are open for all. It is clear that the statement about Ms. Laub was carefully crafted and she [Hopkins] stands by what she says.”

Richmond Town Council member Michael Colasante said he supported civil discussions.

“I wasn’t sure if I was going to get up and say anything, but being kind of, like, right in the thick of this, people have asked me ‘what’s the difference in the 32-year gap from sitting on the council the first time to sitting 32 years later the second time’. What I have to say is that there is very little civility, there’s little decorum and there’s little class today.”

He was less than civil a few seconds later.

“Other people have a right to defend themselves,” he said. “Everybody does. It’s free speech and when somebody’s going after you, they really don’t understand the true intention of your heart, damn you!”

The Vote

Four committee members, Phelps, Patricia Pouliot, Kathryn Colasante and Hopkins voted against censure and the remaining seven members voted in favor, so McQuaide’s motion, which was seconded by Charlestown member Craig Louzon, passed.

Hopkins, who sat with her head down through most of the meeting, offered no apology, but maintained that her post had been submitted to a private group and had not, therefore, been public. She ended her comment with an account of a visit she had made to the site of the Dachau Nazi concentration camp.

“This is a political commentary on the current events,” she said. “It has nothing to do with religious. I’m sorry, Mrs. Laub. I didn’t know you were Jewish. I don’t look at people that way.”

Does the Censure Mean Anything?

Contacted Thursday, Guisti said the censure was symbolic, but meaningful.

“Really, all last night did was give the rest of the School Committee the opportunity to either say they agreed with Polly and what she said or to rebuke it as having crossed the line,” she said. “It does not take away any power from Polly, it does not take away the way she can interact as a School Committee member. I don’t think Polly took anything away from that meeting. It was just an opportunity for the rest of us to affirm, with the general public, that she went too far.”

Jessica Purcell, who represents Richmond on the committee, explained why she had supported the censure.

“I think it was up to us to govern ourselves and draw a line in the sand about what’s acceptable and what’s not,” she said. “In this case, a teacher felt targeted and they were looking for action, so they came to us. The censure doesn’t have much of an impact, and far as preventing anyone from doing anything, or taking any of their rights away, but it does set a standard that we uphold our rules of conduct.”