The man leading the charge to keep the name Chippewa says a recent notice of motion by a trustee detailing the failures of the Board, shows the issue is being kicked down the road by the current administration for someone else to solve.
Steve Brown says "It's just not going to fly, there are too many people against it. The whole process was flawed."
A notice of motion, detailing Near North Board of Education's mistakes in handling the Chippewa rebranding, didn't get to a vote at Tuesday night's board meeting.
See: School board reconsiders ‘contentious’ renaming of Chippewa
The notice, submitted by Trustee Julie Ann Bertram, claims the initial motion in 2017 was for rebranding, not renaming and acknowledges the Board has not been transparent in its process.
"The Dec 2022 report states that the name “Chippewa” was twisted into a derogatory term by unknown individuals. The term Chippewa was found not to be “offensive” as stated in the report," says Bertram's notice.
"The motion was intended to get the issues that have plagued this process into the hands of the trustees to evaluate; Tuesday night was the first real chance Trustees had to speak about it," Bertram told BayToday. "As was clarified by the Chair during the Committee of the Whole meeting, the original December 2022 motion to rebrand and rename needs to be rescinded or amended before moving forward."
Bertram says it wasn’t voted on because of a procedural discrepancy. "It wasn’t clear to me what that was, but the next step is dealing with rescinding or amending the original motion."
BayToday requested an explanation from the Board office. Chair Erika Lougheed responded by email.
"In order for this motion presented to be considered, the original motion (Dec 13, 2023 – #2022-12-09 pg 9) would need to be ‘reversed’ or rescinded. To rescind a motion requires 2/3 majority of the vote. This is strictly a procedural issue with respect to Roberts Rules of Order, the framework in which the board works within. In short, we can’t have two sets of directions provided to the committee without removing the first set. This would be the case in any motion or similar situation, regardless of the content."
Bertram confirms to BayToday that she will reintroduce her motion, should the previous motion be rescinded.
On her Facebook page, Bertram explains further.
"I am in utter disbelief about how this process is being handled. This process is not working. Voices are being silenced, ironically in the name of social justice; it’s coming from unacknowledged privilege, of which I have been guilty.
“Through the renaming process at the committee, and after many discussions with Indigenous friends and NFN leaders, I came to realize that it was not considered offensive at all! So many voices are being ignored, and I have no idea why.”
The bungling by the current Board even has former board chair Jay Aspin, who has been silent on the issue until now, weighing in.
"Seems like the board wants to dig itself deeper into the hole that they have created with the parents, the public, and the students. The report states that 'The school name claimed as an equity issue was not brought to the board by an Indigenous person or group.' Then what is the motivation to start the process over again? Seems like this 'renaming; idea has been created by the administration. As is constantly clarified in the report....this is a 'rebranding' issue, not a 'renaming' issue."
Lougheed has hinted she may soon step down as chair.
She told BayToday, "Despite what may be manufactured to be understood otherwise, my job is to chair the board, not make the decisions. I have no reaction (to Bertram's motion). I publicly said I’d do this job for one year."
If she's true to her word, that year expires during the Board's meeting on November 14.
"Do a proper assessment of what the people really want," argues Brown. "It was an epic failure by the Board on the process, and they'll fail again."
Brown says he'd like to see the issue put off until the next election to allow the public a voice.
"As far as I'm concerned, they'll all get voted out because of the way this is being handled."
He says he's not giving up and will continue to speak up and fight the lack of transparency.
Brown will have lots to work with. Although the notice of motion provides significant evidence that suggests the process they went through was flawed and that the school ought not to be renamed, it ends with a resolution that "the initiative be suspended unless/until appropriate Indigenous consultation and collaboration informs the Board of Trustees who will then direct the Director of Education to continue the renaming process."
Because the committee is termed an ad hoc administrative committee rather than a committee of trustees, information on such an important body is impossible to find and not even the Board's website contains any information.
A question regarding membership was not answered by the publishing deadline, but it's believed the renaming committee is chaired by Superintendent Gay Smylie, with two trustees, Louise Sargent and Julie Bertram, and the principal of Chippewa Krista Tucker Petrick, along with at least one private citizen. The committee operates with such secrecy that it will not allow the public or media to attend its meetings, despite repeated requests by Steve Brown to attend as strictly an observer.
The legality of the committee secrecy is under question by Bertram's motion, and flies in the face of candidates' promises of transparency during the last election.
Sources say it appears now that the push to rename Chippewa is coming from the administration, not trustees, and that there is a growing division within the Board.
The notice of motion outlines many of the mistakes the board has made in the last year. Here is the list contained in the notice of motion.
- Whereas the September 26, 2017 resolution was to rebrand, not rename
- Whereas the Dec 13, 2022 report did not contain indigenous representation
- Whereas the Rename Committee has not been transparent in its process
- The school name claimed as an equity issue was not brought to the board by any Indigenous person or group
- No formal poll was taken at Chippewa Secondary School about renaming it
- The Dec 2022 report states that the name “Chippewa” was twisted into a derogatory term by unknown individuals
- The term Chippewa was found not to be “offensive” as stated in the report
- On Jan 10, 2023 the previous motion to establish a “Naming” Committee became a motion to appoint 2 Trustees to a “Renaming” Committee
- The only data the Renaming Committee received was from the public survey showing “Chippewa” in one form or another as the most recommended name.
- Media Releases about the renaming process were not discussed or seen by the renaming members until after they were published
- Public accountability is a cornerstone of Ontario’s education system – the Chippewa Renaming Committee called an Ad-hoc committee does not fall under exceptions to the Act (s 207(2))
- Stakeholders want NNDSB to make transparent decisions and provide sufficient information to the public.
The renaming committee was supposed to submit its report last May, but fierce opposition has stalled that and the committee appears in disarray with no resolution in sight.
