To the Editor:
I am writing as a progressive Democrat to encourage all others to reelect Republican Mary Powell-St. Louis to the Region 18 School Board.
Despite my readiness to argue politics, I assume that all people, regardless of political persuasion, want what is best for their children—and for other people’s children. I have no doubt that Gavin Lodge does so. Indeed, that is why it is so alarmingly disappointing that he and the Lyme DTC have resorted to lying and fear rhetoric to depict Dr. Powell-St. Louis as a figurehead for the banning of books in our schools.
The truth of the matter is that Mary Powell-St. Louis became a physician, moved to Lyme in 1998, sent three children through the LOL school system, served two terms on the BoE since 2015, earned a Masters in Public Health at Yale, earned an MBA from Babson, was recruited by Pfizer as a physician researcher and now serves as director for clinical trials in vaccine research. Her colleagues on the Board routinely praise her expertise, reasonableness, and ability to work across the aisle.
To the contrary, the Lyme DTC would have you believe that Dr. Powell-St. Louis accomplished such an impressive record so that, in 2024, she could prevail upon the Board of Education to override longstanding District policies and initiate book bans in our school libraries.
Look, I love a good thriller as much as anyone, but that absurd tale needs considerable workshopping. Who in their right mind could find it believable? And shame on the Lyme DTC for propagating such falsehood about an intelligent and successful woman and mother who has honorably given so much to her community.
The citizens of Lyme deserve a contest of ideas, not a barrage of deception. And to my fellow progressives and Democrats: If honesty and character matters in public officials, it must always matter. We must expect it from people on our side of the political spectrum as much as we demand it from our friends on the Right. Lying and spreading falsehoods is not a democratic virtue nor a Democratic principle. If we excuse it for our candidates, we cannot object to its use by our opponents.
As a father of two intelligent and spirited young women with strong moral compasses and of two equally fine young men whom my wife and I have taught to respect all genders, I know far too well how deleterious—but how regrettably common—it is to tolerate lies about women. I urge all of you who vote not to let the Lyme DTC’s duplicity set the stage for when elections return to our town. We are better than that, and our daughters and sons are watching.
On November 7, vote for honesty in elections and for respect of women in public service. Vote for Dr. Mary Powell-St. Louis.
Sincerely,
Stephen Olbrys Gencarella,
Lyme, CT.
I’m writing in response to Stephen Olbrys Gencarella, and to tell him I agree that Lyme residents “deserve a contest of ideas, not a barrage of deception.” It’s important to me that I answer his challenge myself. And since I also agree with him “how deleterious…it is to tolerate lies about women,” I want to set the record straight.
These are facts:
1. Mary Powell-St. Louis was one of the earliest and most prominent signers of the June petition asking the Old Lyme library to review the book, “Let’s Talk About It.”
2. She attended the “Stop Book Bans” rally in Old Lyme in June, and was witnessed filming attendees of the rally in an effort to document their opposition to book bans.
3. She later attended a meeting of the Board of Directors of the Lyme Public Library in solidarity with an Old Lyme resident who challenged the inclusion of “Let’s Talk About It” in the Lyme Public Library.
I agree that candidate Powell-St. Louis is tremendously accomplished and serves as a pinnacle of our community spirit of generous volunteerism.
As Mr. Gencarella so rightly states in his letter, “Lying and spreading falsehoods is not a democratic virtue nor a Democratic principle. If we excuse it for our candidates, we cannot object to its use by our opponents.” In that spirit, I encourage all Lyme voters and citizens to know that the book banning movement is indeed on this ballot, the actions cited above were taken to impede the flow of free thought in our region, and this is why I jumped into this race.
I very much appreciate your responding, Mr. Lodge.
In your own campaign literature, you claim that book banning “could soon evolve to target our school libraries.” But your list of (1) – (3) is conjecture, not evidence. Prove to me that Dr. Powell-St. Louis intends to reverse longstanding district policy and ban books in Lyme / Old Lyme schools, especially if she is, by your own admission, “a pinnacle of our community spirit of generous volunteerism.” If you cannot prove the accusation, then you are spreading falsehoods about an accomplished woman and mother in order to win an election.
I am glad we agree that such deceptive tactics are beneath our party. We also agree, I assume, that principled progressives stand with women when men lie about them. Please be on the right side here.
I apologize for not responding to this earlier. Not exaggerating to say I’ve been out knocking doors all weekend long to meet voters at their doors and am just now plugging back into some news here in the final hours of the race.
For proof of #1 – https://archive.ph/3T6gI#selection-1527.0-1527.23
For proof of #2 – multiple attendees of the “stop book bans” who can attest
For proof of #3 – https://townlyme.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/LPL-minutes-07-26-2023.pdf
Actions speak loudly and all point to wanting to limit the free expression of ideas and independent thought. This movement is dictating to parents what teens and tweens can and cannot access in the safety of the public library…which is at the doorstep of region 18’s Board of Education.
The actions (particularly cited in #3) point to this movement, of which full participation is documented (see items 1-3) take their talking points and suggested actions from outside special interest groups that are diametrically opposed to the values and spirit of Lyme, CT.
This is the “outside” politics I’m talking about.
And this is the reason I am running – to keep these outside, corrosive politics out of our region, and get back to independent, open-minded fostering of our students, teachers and schools.
Thank you again for responding, Mr. Lodge.
At this point in the evening, I suspect minds are made up, but for the sake of argument, let’s look carefully at your new evidence.
In (2), who precisely are these “multiple attendees” and where is their proof that Dr. Powell-St. Louis was “filming attendees of the rally in an effort to document their opposition to book bans”? Surely you do not expect a rational person simply to take your word that there are many people out there with both concrete proof of her filming—and of her intentions. Produce that evidence. Otherwise, this is pure conjecture collapsing into rumor. That’s how witch-hunts start. It’s beneath our party.
In (3), the minutes you provide only note that she was a guest at a meeting. There is absolutely nothing in those minutes that record any action by Dr. Powell-St. Louis. I’m sorry, but the very document you say is a smoking gun does not back up your claim. And given the seriousness of the accusation you make, you have to produce abundant evidence, or you are spreading falsehoods about an accomplished woman and mother in order to win an election.
Finally, in your own account in the DTC’s recent newsletter, you write: “I feel that our local Board of Education is exemplary. They provided excellent leadership throughout the Covid-19 pandemic and have maintained an exceptional region that includes the 2023 Connecticut Middle School of the Year. I would like to play a role in maintaining that excellence to serve our next generation of creative and critical thinkers.”
This is evidence of your clear and effusive approval of the current BoE, which of course includes Dr. Powell-St. Louis. Since you yourself have lauded her many contributions to excellence, why should we not expect you to vote for her?
Stephen Olbrys Gencarella says “The citizens of Lyme deserve a contest of ideas, not a barrage of deception. And to my fellow progressives and Democrats: If honesty and character matters in public officials, it must always matter…”
I could not agree more, so I wonder why Mary Powell-St. Louis uses blue on her campaign signs? is she trying to hide the fact that she is an ultra conservative Republican, the proud member of a party that refuses to accept Joe Biden as the honestly elected President.
She and her husband own the land where Trump’s biggest supporter Timothy Mellon posted radical political attacks on an electric road sign along Rt. 156. Her record as a person who would ban books in school is clear, She is a doctor but what is her position on the rights of women to make their own health care decisions, including sex education and abortion? What about guns in schools? Does she think more armed guards with automatic weapons in school will make children safer?
Mr. Gencarella wants a contest of ideas, so why has the electorate not heard from Mary Powell-St. Louis on these important matters. She should be honest and open about the right wing position she espouses.
Mr. Frank,
I am also glad to know we agree that Lyme deserves a contest of ideas and I hope you will add your voice for a restoration of routine competitive elections in our town to hold all public officials accountable.
I will try to address two issues from your post that are most relevant to my letter.
First is the assertion that “Her record as a person who would ban books in school is clear.” As I have noted several times in exchanges here, that is certainly not clear. Indeed, it’s the problem: The Lyme DTC, Mr. Lodge, and certain others keep accusing Dr. Powell-St. Louis of something serious without proof of her intentions and by ignoring her long history of public service and her eight year record on the BoE.
Accordingly, we are told to believe that a woman will cause something terrible to happen when there is no precedent for it. And again, that is witch-hunting. It has to stop. We progressives are better than such dirty campaigning and its blatant attack on accomplished women and mothers.
Second, your response here nationalizes a local BoE election. But Mr. Lodge—who, it should be noted, has not yet answered my questions above—said in this newspaper: “Talking points, moral panics, and movements with political agendas from outside Region 18 are an unnecessary distraction from the business at hand.” I have to assume, then, that he himself would object to your bringing in all those demands. Or, more likely, you’ve given away the Lyme DTC’s game: They were the ones who brought in a political agenda from outside Region 18 in order to attack Dr. Powell-St. Louis’ character.
So, for clarification, let me ask Mr. Lodge one more question: Are we having a local election—you know, about who is most qualified as a BoE member to make calls about the bleachers on the turf field, for example—or are we now relitigating the 2020 national election?
Either way, we progressives must agree that women cannot be treated with the ugly inconsistency of a double-standard.
How about a little timeline? Let the voters decide who is lying and who is spreading falsehoods:
FEBRUARY 2023 – National Republicans make headlines banning books in Florida, Texas and elsewhere. At the CPAC convention they double down in the name of “Parental Rights.” (Indeed, prior to that at least 64 laws across 25 states that restrict what children can learn and do at school were passed with most officially called “Parents Rights” Acts or something similar.)
MARCH 2023 – Old Lyme Republicans send out a policy letter noting that one of their key priorities is – you guessed it, “Parental Rights in the school curriculum and policies.”
APRIL 2023 – Old Lyme Democrats hold a Freedom to Read rally in town. Lyme and Old Lyme Republicans (including Mary!) show up: filming the event. Some attempt to shout down speakers.
MAY 2023 – Various members of the Old Lyme Republican Town Committee sign a letter to the Phoebe Griffin Noyes library taking issue with a sex-ed book in the Teen/Tween section and asking for decisions about book choices to be “reimagined.” They include a picture of fully clothed cartoon aliens in outer space explaining what a polyamorous relationship as part of the rationale.
JUNE 2023 – The request from May is denied. Thereafter, a group of Republicans and their allies descend on the library and spend multiple days reviewing all of the selections in the “Teen/Tween” section.
JUNE 2023 – Even more members of the RTC, including Mary, send a second letter to the library requesting a different cartoon book be removed from the Teen/Tween section – one that is subtitled “A Teen’s Guide”. Similar requests have explicitly been adjudicated in past court cases to be First Amendment violations.
JULY 2023 – Republican RTC chair Randy Nixon pens a defense of the letters to the library (albeit filled with factual errors). He notes, “Why should the Librarians or the Board of our public library make these decisions without consulting with parents?”
SEPTEMBER 2023 – A member of the Old Lyme RTC “family” (their words, not mine) attends the Candidate forum in Soundview and demands Democrats defend their anti-censorship position.
SEPTEMBER 2023 – Democratic Board of Education Members Steve Wilson and Mary Powell St. Louis attend a special meeting of the Guilford Board of Education dedicated solely to the efforts to ban certain books from the school curriculum. Mr. Wilson states that he wants to note for the Regional 18 BoE record his criticism of the BIPARTISAN, UNANIMOUS decision to refrain from banning books. He states, “They were unanimous votes, and there were no dissenting opinions… and I want to say I hope we don’t do that here ever.” When a Democrat on the Board suggests that perhaps the unanimous vote was warranted because all agreed book banning was wrong, Mr. Wilson replies that found that implausible.
OCTOBER 2023 – A member of the RTC “family” (their words, not mine) attends the Board of Education meeting, and calls for the resignation of the Democratic BoE members who opposed the library censorship – going so far as to accuse them of breaking the law for lobbying to keep the library books in place.
NOVEMBER 2023 – So far so good… unless you count a flurry of LTEs like this one trying to paint this all as some sort of Democratic plot to create something out of nothing.
But please, tell me more about how it’s all in our heads…
Mr. Rubino,
In your response of 563 words, fewer than 25 directly reference Dr. Powell-St. Louis. I don’t know how to respond to something this unhinged from reality other than to remark that the villainous character you have invented here is not believable. Even Mr. Lodge recognizes Dr. Powell-St. Louis’ long career of “generous volunteerism.”
If I understand your argument correctly, you believe either that Dr. Powell-St. Louis does not have the right of free assembly or that she is guilty by association with Republicans in Florida and Texas?
Surely you agree that we Democrats are better than to witch-hunt accomplished women and mothers who have served their community for decades. I voted for you, readily, in 2020, and I thought you were a reasonable man. Please do not make me regret that decision.
I don’t think anything I am suggesting about Ms. Powell St. Louis is “villainous” – I just think the body of evidence suggests we differ when it comes to the issue of what is and what isn’t censorship. And I take issue with your characterization of this being a “barrage of deception” when there are very concrete reasons for this to be a campaign issue. Ms. Powell St. Louis signed a letter seeking relief that federal courts have explicitly found to be a violation of the First Amendment. (See, for example Sund v. Wichita Falls). Maybe you disagree with the conclusion of those courts. I don’t. And I think it’s perfectly appropriate to voice concerns when a candidate in charge of approving curriculum takes a stance on censorship that has specifically been found to violate the constitution. Maybe she didn’t know that at the time. But now she does. And that hasn’t changed her opinion.. One of he co-signers of that letter called for the resignation of all Democrats who opposed it at a BoE meeting last month. She sat silent. Those who agree with her and this stance should surely vote for her. Those who think this issue is outweighed by other attributes should likewise vote as they please. But those who think this is an issue and who disagree should not be dismissed as irrational. I understand that you fall into the former camp. You should understand that many people fall into the latter.
Mr. Rubino,
You continue to tell me what other people have done, which heightens my concern of guilt by association. Where is the concrete proof that Dr. Powell-St. Louis intends to reverse longstanding district policy and ban books in Lyme / Old Lyme schools?
Dr. Powell-St. Louis has a distinguished record of public service to the Lyme community—Mr. Lodge himself agrees and recognizes it above—and eight years of experience in curriculum approval and related school policies and facilities matters. Indeed, her recent judgment regarding the cost of the bleachers for the turf field and middle school just prevailed after BoE Democrats reversed their original stance.
That’s the problem of the absurd villain narrative you are propagating about Dr. Powell-St. Louis: It doesn’t hold up to her record and past practice. Accordingly, you are asking us in Lyme to believe a woman will cause something terrible to happen when there is no precedent for it. That is witch-hunting. It is beneath our party.
I understand that this attack on Dr. Powell-St. Louis’ character is the bet the Lyme DTC took to spur interest and win the sole election in town. And that is precisely what disappoints me as a progressive Democrat. We contest ideas and facts with honesty. We do not demonize women and mothers simply because there is an (R) or (U) after their name. I have to imagine—and hope—that you agree.
I am not sure why you are framing this as a demonization of an individual woman. And I’m not sure where her character has come into this at all. She may have a very solid past record of service to her community and I am sure she is a fine doctor. I have never denied that. I am equally sure Rand Paul and Ronnie Jackson are fine doctors with impressive records of community service. But that doesn’t mean I can’t disagree with them on policy. I have made the same criticisms publicly of all who have signed the letter to the library including the (male) Old Lyme candidates who have done so and the members of the current BoE. To be clear – I own the book that all this fuss is about. I think that efforts to hide it from anyone – especially the teens for whom it is intended – show poor judgment on an issue directly related to the education of our youth. If she did nothing else, signing on to that letter is for me disqualifying. I get it. You don’t think it’s a big deal. But I am a human rights lawyer. We tend to take the First Amendment pretty seriously. And as for “concrete proof” I am not sure I even understand that argument. Are we not allowed to extrapolate regarding how we believe candidates will vote based on their statements and actions? Given that the Mary and the signatories of the letter specifically state that they reached out to the Middle School to ensure that the book was not available there, “as it shouldn’t be”, I think it is more than reasonable to be concerned that the schools are not off limits. And to me, signing the letter the very same week that the Board of Education discussed whether they should change the Board’s role in curriculum review “to ensure the age-appropriateness of content” while also discussing how “our school policy is weak compared to state and federal law” is telling. Sorry, but the “concrete proof” standard seems a little contrary to the way we vote. (But if you really want something concrete, I also disagree with Ms. Powell St. Louis and Steve Wilson on their “concrete” (and rushed) vote to arm school guards over the vocal opposition of nearly everyone who testified..) ALL of that said, I’ve actually wanted to meet you since I read your LTEs last month. Happy to grab a coffee and have a real-life conversation if you are so inclined.
Mr. Rubino,
Thank you for continuing this conversation. This is a response to your reply of November 6 below.
The hour is late on Election Eve, everyone has by now made up their minds, and my response here is embedded in a deep bracket, so we may be the only two who look at this. That said, please feel welcome to reach out to me; you can find my email with one google search.
I know your credentials and respect them. I also appreciate your vigilance regarding human rights. I trust you know my credentials, and so you must know that in my professional practice, I see serious threats to free speech, the free flow of information, and academic freedom. If genuine book banning were to occur, I promise that I would stand shoulder to shoulder to repel it—as would countless Republicans and other people of good faith. But no, this thing that people keep imagining is going to happen in L/OL schools is not it.
Keep reading, because I want you to understand I am not in any way dismissing you. Rather, I think it’s plausible that you, as an Old Lyme resident, are missing some nuances of how this “book banning” story relates to the political situation in Lyme, and especially with the current town parties. I would be happy to explain those nuances and the historical context to you in detail in person. It may change any high opinion you have of the Lyme DTC.
If you look carefully at their campaign literature, it is clear that the Lyme DTC planned a character assassination to give Mr. Lodge a chance at winning. It may work. But you and I know campaigns well enough to know this game is straight out of the Negative Campaign 101 playbook: When your record does not equal that of your opponent, attack their character.
Mr. Lodge just doesn’t have anything to run on that comes remotely close to Dr. Powell-St. Louis’ eight years on the BoE. He himself wrote about the BoE being “exemplary,” all but conceding that point. And go look at the “evidence” above that he puts forward to prove her purported malfeasance. It not only fails to make the grade but his smoking gun is so bad he shot himself with it.
Given Mr. Lodge’s lack of expertise and record, the Lyme DTC needed something. They went with an over-the-top ridiculous fear rhetoric, namely that after eight years of exemplary service on the BoE and numerous other community activities which Mr. Lodge himself praises, Dr. Powell-St. Louis is finally going to reveal her nefarious plot in 2024. It’s ludicrously cartoonish. No reasonable person would buy that fiction. And it’s just not believable to anyone who knows her. For that matter, I don’t know her beyond the past few days and it’s not believable to me.
I’m not saying the political gamble won’t work, but it was a bad faith attempt to attack the character of a good person who just happens to hold different opinions on certain policy than you and I do.
I will always hold my side to the standards and principles we claim to value. And as I have said many times—and no doubt you agree, we progressives are above witch-hunting and the demonizing of women and mothers simply because they have an (R) or (U) after their name. Dr. Powell-St. Louis has proven herself to be a dignified, calm, respectful, honest, and professional woman. I want more of that in public service. So the decision to vote for her isn’t even a choice for me given the alternative.