Choosing a chair is choosing a direction

To the editor:

I didn't resign as vice chair of the Rochester School Board lightly. I stepped away because I care about Rochester's schools and because I believe governance must be open, fair, and accountable. When it isn't, staying quiet doesn't protect the district. It protects dysfunction.

In the wake of recent events, it is important to speak plainly about one issue that sits at the center of our challenges and that affects every school district in New Hampshire: how a school board selects its chair and why that decision carries far greater consequences than many realize.

The board chair isn't a ceremonial position. The chair decides what goes on meeting agendas, runs meetings, controls who gets to speak, and acts as the main point of contact with the superintendent. That's real power. When that power isn't clearly limited or thoughtfully assigned, it can easily be misused.

When the process for choosing a chair lacks transparency, power shifts away from the full board and toward one individual. Decisions stop feeling collaborative. Dissent feels unwelcome. Outcomes start to feel predetermined. Even without bad intentions, the result is the same: trust erodes.

Recent events showed how quickly things can unravel when governance becomes centralized instead of shared. When disagreement is shut down instead of discussed, when process is used to control rather than guide, and when decisions are made behind closed doors instead of in the open, the board loses credibility with the community.

Process isn't bureaucracy. It's the guardrail. It keeps any one person from holding too much authority. It protects the superintendent from political pressure and protects the community from decision making driven by power rather than purpose.

School boards can't demand accountability from others while ignoring it themselves. Choosing a board chair should never be rushed or treated as routine. It should involve clear expectations, open discussion, and a shared understanding that no one person runs this district. The board governs together or it fails together.

Rochester can do better. The board can be clear about what it expects from a chair before voting. It can limit how long one person holds that role. It can commit to training that reinforces the difference between governing and managing. Most importantly, it can recommit to collective leadership instead of concentrated control.

I resigned because staying in a leadership role without those guardrails would've meant accepting a system that no longer reflected the values this community deserves. That decision wasn't personal. It was necessary.

This isn't about personalities. It's about trust. When governance breaks down, students feel it first. Families lose confidence. And the focus shifts away from educating children to managing conflict.

Rochester's schools belong to this community, not to any individual or faction. Leadership must be earned through transparency and restraint, not taken through process manipulation. Until the board treats the selection of its chair as the serious responsibility it is, Rochester will continue to pay the price.

- Karen Stokes,

Rochester