RHS to go by 'Rutland'
RHS to go by 'Rutland'
By Gordon Dritschilo Staff Writer
18 hrs ago
0
Facebook
Twitter
Email
Print
Copy article link
Save
Rutland voted to be Rutland on Tuesday.
More specifically, the Rutland City Board of School Commissioners voted to seemingly end the mascot debate by accepting the administration’s proposal to simply have city schools go by “Rutland” rather than adopt a replacement for “Rutland Raiders,” and to have the administration to come back with associated imagery in June.
The meeting featured last-ditch arguments and was almost derailed by procedural confusion before a late-arriving board member sorted matters out.
The board voted in 2020 to retire the “Raiders” nickname in response to complaints it had connotations that were offensive to Indigenous Americans. It voted the following year to change it to “Ravens.” A new slate of board members was elected amid the public backlash to that move, and the recomposed board voted to change it back in early 2022. That change didn’t last out the year, though.
Gov. Phil Scott signed a bill that effectively banned mascots that refer to ethnic stereotypes, and the board once again voted to retire the Raider name in August. They charged the administration to return to the board in January with a suggested replacement.
Rutland High School Principal Greg Schillinger addressed the board last month and said that a multi-phase process had ended with a sizable plurality of students voted to simply be known as “Rutland,” with no mascot or nickname.
The board voted 6-3 to accept the proposal at that meeting, but the motion was ruled to have failed on procedural grounds.
On Tuesday, Commissioner Marybeth Lennox-Levins, who had previously expressed disappointment that the school would not have a mascot, questioned whether the decision really represented the will of the student body.
Schillinger said the process began with anyone from the student body and public being able to submit suggestions. He said “Rutland” was suggested 34 times, with the second most frequent suggestion only garnering 12 mentions. Schillinger said he took the eight most frequently suggested options, which took him down to ideas that only got three mentions. He put them out to the student body to narrow the field, he said.
“Rutland” got 32% of the vote in that round, he said, with the next highest only getting 12%. The top four were then put back out for another round of voting. “Rutland” came in first with 43.3% of the votes and the second-place option got 26%.
“I want to do what the kids want to do,” Lennox-Levins said. “I look at it the other way around — 57% wanted something, wanted a mascot. ... We can make numbers say whatever we want. ... I just want to be confident this is what they want.”
Schillinger replied that what students want is for the issue to be done.
“I think there are a significant number of students who want to be done with this conversation,” he said. “They want the adults to be done with this conversation.”
The adults weren’t quite done yet, and a discussion followed on whether and how to vote on accepting the administration’s proposal.
Commissioner Cathy Solsaa argued they did not need to vote because they already were called “Rutland.” Commissioner Karen Bossi countered that something needed to be “written in stone” otherwise the argument about whether to have a mascot would be revisited when it came time to approve artwork in June.
Board Chair Alison Notte said the only motion they had on the floor involved extending the administration’s time to return to the board.
Board member Sara Atkins-Doenges offered an amendment to that motion, approving just “Rutland” as the school’s moniker, and it was approved with only Solsaa dissenting.
Under Robert’s Rules of Order, the board’s next step would have been to vote on the motion as amended, but Notte said the board had to vote on the original motion, which she deemed in conflict with the amendment.
This led to raised voices and crosstalk about what to do next until Commissioner Peter Fagan, arriving late, explained that the original motion no longer existed due to the amendment. The board then approved the amended motion unanimously.
“I knew we had to vote again,” Notte said.
gordon.dritschilo
@rutlandherald.com
gordon.dritschilo@rutlandherald.com