Public participants were vocal about their opposition to the proposed changes, which could replace fully elected school committee members with a hybrid model involving both elected and appointed officials. Tom Meyers, a community member, emphasized the historical struggle for democratic participation and warned against diminishing the public’s right to elect their representatives. He urged the council to uphold democratic values.

Edwin Diaz, another resident, expressed confusion and concern over the proposal to remove voting rights in favor of appointments.

Multiple voices, including those of school committee members Lenin Roa and Jonathan Guzman, echoed similar concerns about the restructuring proposal. Roa argued that reducing elected representation could undermine community interests and minority representation, while Guzman pointed out procedural inconsistencies in the council’s discussions. Both emphasized the importance of allowing the existing elected committee to function without interference.

The public participation segment was marked by strong advocacy for maintaining an elected school committee. Mary Guerrero articulated concerns that a hybrid model could erode public trust, citing potential conflicts of interest. Ju Mani Gonzalez and Johnny Castillo voiced apprehensions about external influences on the discussions, emphasizing the need for grassroots input and community trust in governance.

Despite the overwhelming public opposition, some individuals, like Luis Robles, supported the hybrid model, arguing it could ensure a competent and balanced school committee in the future. He emphasized the need for unity and collaboration for the community’s greater good.

The council meeting also delved into procedural matters, with City Attorney Tim Hooton clarifying rules regarding the reconsideration of previous votes on a home rule petition. Hooton explained that the council had the option to suspend its rules to revisit the issue, which led to discussions about the legal and procedural correctness of prior meetings.

A council member tried to clarify the proposal under discussion, noting it was not the original one from the mayor or the school committee. They pointed out the lack of opposition in recent elections. They insisted the proposal was mischaracterized as fully appointed, when it was actually a hybrid model involving council appointments.

The urgency of the situation was underscored by a state legislature deadline, prompting debates on whether to expedite the proposal to avoid losing the opportunity for reform. The council engaged in a back-and-forth about governance and representation, eventually passing a motion to revisit the failed proposal with a 7-2 vote. The proposal included a school committee structure with three elected at-large members and three appointed by the council, with the mayor as chair.