By HOLLY GASKILL
In a forum Tuesday evening, candidates for Norwell Community Schools’ two open board seats were challenged on financial oversight, decision making and community relationships.
All three candidates were present for the forum — Cathie Peterson and Jeremiah Tomlin are both running to succeed Angie Topp in the Lancaster Township seat, and Todd Nash is unopposed for Gene Donaghy’s Jefferson Township seat.
Moderator Erin Prible, executive director of the Wells County Chamber of Commerce, led with two questions about the district’s tax rate and their perspective on recent facility projects. The district administration has echoed a desire to maintain the tax rate despite increasing assessed property values.
All three candidates gave similar statements — while maintaining facility improvements is important, the district must consider fiscal responsibility to taxpayers. Regarding recent improvements like the Ossian Elementary School “refresh,” Nash commented that it was “cosmetics,” and that “at the end of the day, that’s not what makes your school great.”
Peterson, a real estate broker, added, “I firmly believe in being good stewards of our community’s tax dollars. I think we need to really just make sure that we’re focusing more on needs and not necessarily wants.”
Tomlin also referenced his experience as a construction at Hagerman, saying, “I’ve never seen construction costs drop, not once. In fact, (construction costs are) significantly more expensive in 2024 than in 2020 when everybody thought the world was ending. So I can’t speak in favor of freezing all improvements and hoping for a sunnier day, because I just don’t see it.”
Alongside this, the candidates next discussed their perspectives on growing enrollment to increase a revenue source for teacher salaries and educational programs. Both Peterson and Tomlin acknowledged the desire to grow but believe the district should first consider students who live within the district and choose to attend school elsewhere.
Tomlin referenced a conversation he had before the forum, where someone claimed 235 students in the Norwell district attend Bluffton-Harrison Metropolitan Schools. “If 10% of our 2,300 kids are going to Bluffton, what can we do to make that five in two or three years?” he questioned.
“If we create a culture that people want to be a part of, and where people are staying here, then other people are naturally going to want to gravitate to our community as well,” Peterson stated. “Why are we losing our students to other local schools?”
Nash, on the other hand, acknowledged the balance between increasing enrollment and the additional costs associated with a growing student body.
The next set of questions addressed the authority of the board — “only in the context of school board meetings,” and “policy-making not administrative,” as was read from the prepared questions. The candidates were asked about the distinct role, how they would make decisions and any potential policy goals they had.
Peterson first acknowledged the importance of confidentiality with school board issues, but added, “We are elected officials, and I do believe that we have an obligation to our community members to be able to answer questions within reason, to be able to go back to the board and ask questions that are pertinent.”
Not looking to revise any current policies yet, Peterson noted that the administrators and teachers working first-hand with students should inform the policy-making process.
“They’re in the trenches, they’re in the day-to-day and they know better than I do,” Peterson said. “I think they know better than most of us … As far as policy-making, I do believe that that’s what our role is. I just need to believe that our policy-making is geared in the direction of what’s best for everyone, not just for some, and that we’re ultimately thinking about our children at the end of the day.”
Nash similarly affirmed that confidential board matters shouldn’t be discussed outside of meetings and that he felt the current board has balanced its functions well. “If they (administration) need somebody to basically watch over them, we probably need somebody different,” he concluded.
Tomlin also acknowledged the “criticism” and “gossip” that follows board decisions and said he didn’t want to be a part of that discourse. “As a new board member, I’m going to have to sit back, listen, do a lot of learning, have a lot of conversations with the existing board, with the community members, see what’s not working before I decide I want to change something policy-related,” he said.
The final questions tackled the candidates’ perspectives on engaging with the community — the first of which addressed the board’s response to unfair public criticism of the administration or staff members. In previous district strategic planning meetings, community members have included social media criticism among the challenges the district faces.
Both Nash and Tomlin felt the board should assess the situation and respond or not respond accordingly. “Sometimes you’ve got to let things go,” Nash said. “And at times, though, I think if it becomes large enough, or you think it’s going to get worse, then you’ve got to step in.”
Peterson differed, saying she didn’t feel it is the board’s responsibility to “police social media” and that conversations should happen in privacy.
The candidates then discussed how they would continue to “enhance transparency” within the district — all of whom immediately stated that finding the district’s minutes and agendas online was not user-friendly. Peterson said she’s begun posting the agendas and minutes on her social media to increase visibility.
Furthermore, Tomlin said it was unclear how and when to give comments during the board meetings. Nash, however, wanted to encourage people to speak directly with administration and teachers outside of board members, noting that the public speaking format is often intimidating. Peterson added she’d like more “town hall-style” meetings for general feedback.
The last prepared question allowed the candidates to share their perspectives on Norwell’s partnership with organizations like Campus Life, Alive and Well, and LifeWise Academy, which were quite positive. Each has children involved in at least one of the groups.
In closing, each candidate spoke about their inspiration and vision for running for the board of trustees.
Peterson summarized her campaign with three words: accessibility, transparency and accountability. She highlighted her desire to see her own children live in Wells County and hopes to see the district engage more with the community.
“I really feel now is the time that we need to focus on the good that we have, and focus on growing that,” she said. “And as I said before, that’s going to draw other people to the good that we have and make them want to be a part of what we have.”
Tomlin expressed a similar hope for his children and referenced Winston Churchill, “First we build the buildings, and then the buildings build us.” He stated he wants to offer specifically create opportunities for the bottom and top 25% of students, helping the highest achievers reach new heights and providing additional support to those who need it.
“I love where Norwell has continued to try to be better over the years, and I’m excited to be a part of it tomorrow,” he concluded.
Nash also shared his love for the district, all that it has accomplished and the ways he sees it can still grow. “I just saw a need — I filled it,” he said, referring to his decision to run for the vacant seat. “I think I bring to the table an ability to find problems and solve them. I don’t have a large agenda.”
No one submitted questions during the open-ended time for audience participation.
holly@news-banner.com
