A heated dispute followed a Richmond school trustee candidates’ meet-and-greet

The Richmond District Parents Association (RDPA) hosted a “Debate/Meet-and-greet” for school trustee candidates on Sept. 29 at McRoberts Secondary. The event was intended mainly to help parents and students understand candidates’ priorities if elected in the Oct. 17 election. It included questions from parents and other attendees, followed by an opportunity to meet candidates in person. Twenty-four of the 28 trustee hopefuls attended. The programme opened with remarks from the RDPA, followed by three-minute introductions, five yes-or-no questions for all candidates and five questions from attendees. Up to six candidates could answer each attendee question, with one minute per answer; each candidate could answer no more than two questions.

A witness said a heated confrontation took place after the event between candidate Debbie Tablotney and another attendee. RDPA vice-president Connie Huang confirmed to the Richmond News that a participant and Tablotney “appeared to have some disagreement.” Huang said RDPA volunteers quickly stepped in and separated them. She said the subject of the disagreement was unknown and she could not confirm whether it concerned a SOGI (Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity) question asked earlier or another issue. Huang said the priority was to separate the individuals and ensure Tablotney could leave safely. Volunteers accompanied her for the rest of the evening until she got into her vehicle.

Tablotney later gave the Richmond News a different account and said she was not accompanied to her car. She said the man who approached her after the event was the same person who had asked a SOGI-related question during the question-and-answer period. She described him as “quite aggressive” when asking the question. Because candidates were limited by time, she told him she could speak with him after the event. Tablotney said he was even more aggressive when he approached her afterwards, while she was behind a table, and nobody separated them. She said she told him she would talk to him but he could not yell at her; he then became nasty and moved towards her. She added that candidates David Yang and Martin Li stood in front of the man and told him to “back off.” The moderator also intervened and asked the man to leave, and security came over. Tablotney said there was no scuffle and no need to separate them: they told him to leave, and that was the end of it. Asked whether she felt unsafe at any point, she said no. She said he was angry and would not listen, but she did not think he was going to hit or otherwise hurt her; he was simply aggressive.

During the question period, attendee Steven Qian asked about a SOGI-related school district policy. He said parents do not necessarily have to be informed about a child’s sexual orientation and gender identity, and asked whether candidates would, if elected, bring forward a motion to change Policy 106 so parents could be more involved in issues concerning their children’s sexual orientation and gender identity at school. He also asked whether parents should have the “final say” in a child’s sexual identity education. Hongyun Chen, Vivien Lee, Willy Sinconegue, Dean Billings and Kay Hale all explicitly answered yes. Chen said parents should “definitely know” about their children’s sexual orientation and “definitely be involved.” Lee said a policy change would not take away children’s freedom; she said it would protect parent-child relationships and restore parental authority. She added that it would discourage teenagers from using gender orientation to identify themselves and help them refocus on character, academics and family relationships. Lee said that once children turn 19 and mature, they can “make their own choice.” Hale was wavering between yes and no, but agreed that younger children “don’t have to be consulted” and parents “should be advised.”

Tablotney said she would answer neither yes nor no. She said the policy does not state that parents have no right to know these things about their children, and presented a copy of it. She said it is carefully worded and in fact provides that a child’s name and gender are kept private unless the child or parent gives permission. She told Qian he “needs to read the policy.” She said her concern was that many people complain about it without having read it, and that she would not answer yes or no because she did not think the policy needed changing.

Attendees were not part of the “debate” process, so after asking a question they were asked to sit down and wait until the event ended to continue the discussion. Other questions included whether candidates supported providing more lunch meals for students and bringing back competition medals for sports days.