A married couple banned from the Rainbow District School Board's main office and high schools — but not its elementary schools — for the past four years say they hope a trustee's recent resignation forces that ban to be lifted.
Upset after the board decided to close their children's school in 2010, Dylan and Anita Gibson began attending Rainbow school board meetings, videotaping them and making presentations to trustees.
They were issued a trespass notice in October 2012 after what they say was an innocuous incident following a school board meeting in September of that year.
Then in 2014, despite the ongoing ban, both Dylan and Anita ran — unsuccessfully, it turned out — to become Rainbow board trustees.
Last week, veteran Rainbow board trustee Tyler Campbell stepped down after conflict of interest allegations. The board has a choice of either appointing his replacement or holding a byelection.
Rainbow District School Board chair Doreen Dewar told Sudbury.com she prefers the appointment option because it would be less costly. But the board would vote on the preferred option.
In 2014, Anita Gibson placed second in the race to become trustee in Area 2 behind Campbell, with 42.5 per cent of the vote.
Some supporters, including Rainbow board trustee Larry Killens, say Gibson is the most obvious choice to take over Campbell's seat because she came in second against him in the 2014 election.
In an email statement issued Dec. 7, the Gibsons said they hope the situation with Campbell brings about a change in attitude from the board.
“Removing the trespass notice and addressing the issues surrounding it will allow the RDSB and its communities to openly discuss the best way forward and who should represent Area 2 during this crucial time,” the statement reads.
The Gibsons say the ongoing trespass order against them has caused the dismissal of Anita as an appropriate candidate in the eyes of some members of the public, citing comments on social media to back up their point.
“The board has locked us in the naughty cupboard and now refuses to acknowledge we are in there,” the statement said.
“It dooms us to gossip and innuendo. This is a display of destructive behaviour from those who manage and govern the safety and well-being of our children.”
Their statement also explains in detail what they say happened in September 2012 that led to the ban — at least what they think led to the ban, as the board has never fully explained that, the Gibsons contend.
Ironically, it involves a conversation with Campbell, the very trustee whose position is now up for grabs.
“In a nutshell, Trustee Campbell was unnecessarily and overly aggressive when he insisted that I answer his questions about a personal comment I had made to my husband (quietly) as we exited the building after a board meeting,” the Gibsons' statement said.
“The comment was not intended for Mr Campbell. I did not appreciate his wagging his finger in my face. I was annoyed, but quickly got over it. It was nothing extraordinary; it was a conversation. Mr. Campbell was aggressive and I answered him back in kind. And then it was over. Or so we thought.
“(What did NOT happen) There was no physical interaction between Ms. Gibson, Mr. Campbell or Mr. Gibson. All parties were involved in discussions, and only Mr. Campbell chose to invade personal space.
“Moreover, the discussion was concerning board business and was not discourteous in any fashion. There has never been any legal action against me, I have never been arrested, charged or found guilty of any crime.”
Sudbury.com attempted to discuss the Gibsons' case with the Rainbow board two years ago, before the trustee elections.
Rainbow board director of education Norm Blaseg said at the time he couldn't discuss trespass orders against any specific parents.
In general, though, he said trespass orders are issued when an individual's presence on board property is “detrimental to the safety or well-being of others.”
When presented with a hypothetical scenario of a trustee candidate who is under a trespass order from board property being elected, Blaseg said Rainbow would have to “revisit” the circumstances that led to the individual being banned.
“Every scenario has a context,” he said. “I would have to take a look at all of the contextual pieces.”
