A lioness, a godfather, and a new elementary school: Why is Stoughton fighting with its cable access channel?
While voters eventually approved the new school in April, Lyons's shows leading up to the decision are part of a local controversy that continues to simmer. The local access station has sued the town and its leaders in federal court, alleging that they violated its civil rights and the
shared access agreement by trying to interfere with its operations because it dislikes critical programming.
Stoughton officials have denied the allegations, arguing that it's SMAC that violated the access agreement — a document that allows SMAC to record and air government meetings.
Advertisement
The town says the station exhibited an undue political bias against funding for the new school — including by airing programs such as 'A Lioness & You on the Watch' and 'The Stoughton Godfather,' a local talk show that begins with 90-year-old host Peter Ventresco photoshopped into iconic images from 'The Godfather.' Local officials also said the station has failed to provide the select board with updates as required in the agreement.
Advertisement
The lawsuit raises thorny First Amendment questions about the relationship between a public access channel and its local government at a time when such organizations are at greater risk of shutting down, thanks in large part to lost revenue as
Founded in 2009, SMAC is funded all but entirely by cable fees received by the town, thanks to laws that require cable companies such as Comcast and Verizon to pay for public access programming in exchange for operating in local communities. It is an independent nonprofit and is required by federal law to be apolitical and open to all viewpoints. SMAC had a budget of $467,000 last year.
The current feud traces back to an earlier, failed vote for the school proposal in June 2024. The new school is estimated to cost a total of $113 million — roughly $47 million of which will come from state grants — which required residents to vote on a debt exclusion.
Opponents said the project will put an even greater strain on residents who are already struggling to keep up, while supporters argued that the proposal is the best and cheapest option for its aging schools.
The real breaking point came after residents voted down the initial proposal, which prompted Town Manager Tom Calter to form a working group of residents. They produced a detailed report about the project ahead of the revote this year.
Advertisement
'I find it easy to get information out,' Calter said. 'The problem is that factual information has to compete with misinformation.'
Calter and other supporters of the school proposal said that opponents didn't characterize the project accurately, claiming, for instance, that the project did not include the costs of tearing down one of the existing elementary schools and building a new road and bridge.
Lyons, treasurer of the Stoughton No More Tax Hikes political committee that opposed the proposal, said that her critics were misunderstanding the group's arguments.
'Saying that I'm full of misinformation? It's preposterous,' Lyons said.
When SMAC tried to cover the second meeting of the Calter-appointed working group, a member told SMAC to leave, despite the meeting being open to the public. Calter said the meeting didn't have to be recorded because it wasn't subject to open meeting law.
'Video recording or live streaming the meetings would be contrary to the mission of the working group,' Calter wrote in a public letter at the time, adding that he was worried that clips without context would be released before the final report.
The move alarmed SMAC, which sued the town just days after residents approved the school proposal in April, alleging that Calter and Select Board members Steve Cavey, and Joseph Mokrisky were not just trying to hide opposition to the school project but also actively trying to steer SMAC's programming. The station also alleged that Select Board members intimidated SMAC staff and had previously tried to gain influence over the station's operations.
Advertisement
'SMAC is under a duty to be independent, and it is independent,' said Joseph Zoppo, an attorney representing the media organization.
Town officials denied that they tried to steer programming but argued that SMAC needs to remain unbiased.
'We want them to be able to broadcast ideas, even ones that we don't agree with,' Cavey said. 'But what we do need from them is to be able to take that role seriously.'
Turning SMAC away from the meeting also troubled some residents, other officials, and station hosts, including Lyons. She filed an open meeting law complaint with the state
attorney general's office, but the office did not find that Stoughton violated the law.
'How dare the town manager not allow SMAC to videotape those working groups so that the working public, or anyone for that matter, could then go to SMAC and watch it at their own convenience,' Lyons said in an interview. 'They're the ones spreading misinformation and outright lies.'
Crossover between local politics and SMAC helped fuel the town's concerns that the station has a political bent. Lyons and David Lurie, who up until last month was a SMAC board member, advocated
against the school proposal and serve on the town's finance committee. SMAC board chair Bob Mullen is the town moderator.
'I'll never argue what SMAC puts up there,' Calter said. 'But it's pretty easy to argue that they had their thumb on the public policy scale with respect to this project.'
Calter singled out the programs from Lyons and Ventresco, the latter of whom he called a 'cynic' who 'does no homework.'
Mullen and Lurie declined to comment and referred the Globe to SMAC's attorneys, who said SMAC board members don't make editorial decisions,
that the station aired plenty of pro-school programming, and that a lot of people in town hold positions at multiple institutions.
Advertisement
Ventresco said, 'I never lie, I put the truth out,' and said a lot of misinformation comes from the town. He added that he is supportive of the outgoing and incoming superintendents in town and supports a new school, just not the one voters passed.
The outsized attention on SMAC comes as there are few other sources of information in town.
The local newspaper, the Stoughton Journal, was combined with neighboring weekly papers in 2019, and the paper stopped printing in 2021, when its coverage went fully online at Gannett's Wicked Local website, a spokesperson said.
As the fight between SMAC and Stoughton charges on, some residents want permanent change to what they see as too much overlap and dysfunction in town government and at SMAC. Others point to the difficulty in getting independent and reliable information.
'It's not like it used to be back in the day. People could get information,' said Mark Hausseman, 77, a retired Stoughton resident who the SMAC board tapped in 2020 to evaluate a former station manager. 'I think that's one of the problems.'
Aidan Ryan can be reached at
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
DeSantis OKs law shielding addresses of federal, state, local officials from public view
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis approved a bill that shields home addresses and telephone numbers of "certain state and local officials," including state lawmakers and members of Congress, "along with their spouses and children" from public disclosure. The bill (SB 268) seamlessly swept through the Florida Legislature this year, passing both chambers with only four votes against it. It got little attention until mid-June, where lawmakers raised the need for the public records exemptions after two Minnesota lawmakers were attacked in their homes. DeSantis signed the bill into law without comment on June 27. It had been sponsored by a Democrat: state Sen. Shevrin Jones of Miami Gardens. Minnesota shooting: Assassination suspect arrested after fatal attack on Minnesota lawmakers "The Legislature ... finds that the harm that may result from the release of such personal identifying and location information outweighs any public benefit that may be derived from the disclosure of the information," the bill says. The law, which goes into effect July 1, grants exemptions to the following: the governor, the lieutenant governor, members of the Florida Cabinet, state representatives and senators, U.S. representatives and senators, property appraisers, supervisors of elections, school superintendents, school board members, mayors and city and county commissioners. First Amendment advocates raised concerns it could hinder journalists and voters from finding out whether lawmakers actually live in the districts they were elected to represent. Officials' cities of residence and ZIP codes are still publicly available, however. "This was a major blow to accountability and a dangerous precedent in a time when transparency is already under siege," the Florida First Amendment Foundation said in a statement. "While the bill will do little to deter bad actors, it makes it extremely difficult for people to check whether their elected officials actually live in their districts." The Legislature found it a "public necessity" to shield more personal information to prevent threats. Lawmakers' safety drew national attention after a gunman murdered Minnesota Democratic House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband at their home in mid-June. The same person also shot and critically injured Democratic state Sen. John Hoffman and his wife in their Minnesota home. More: Who are Melissa Hortman and John Hoffman, the Minnesota state lawmakers shot on June 14 Florida law governing access to public records is known for its broad scope. In 1992, 83% of Florida voters supported a constitutional amendment that allowed public access to records and also ensure open government meetings. Florida's Chapter 119 generally mandates that records made or received by public agencies are available for inspection, unless specifically exempted. And every year, lawmakers create more exemptions; there are now well over 1,000. But in federal court, Florida has also been criticized for its lengthy public records process under Gov. Ron DeSantis. DeSantis lawsuit: Judge questions DeSantis administration's response time for public records requests American Oversight, a government accountability watchdog organization, sued DeSantis and his administration in 2024 for failing to respond to public records requests in a "timely and lawful manner." In May, the group reached a settlement and said the governor's office began providing tracking number and signing employee names in emails. This reporting content is supported by a partnership with Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners. USA Today Network-Florida First Amendment reporter Stephany Matat is based in Tallahassee, Fla. She can be reached at SMatat@ On X: @stephanymatat. This article originally appeared on Tallahassee Democrat: DeSantis signs law shielding elected officials' home, phone details
Boston Globe
11 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Trump administration appeals order protecting Harvard's foreign students
International students make up more than 27 percent of Harvard's total enrollment. Advertisement Harvard argued that Trump was unlawfully using his power to 'pursue a government vendetta' against the school. It has two lawsuits pending against the administration; one over foreign students and the other focused on billions of dollars in government-funded research cuts. Burroughs, who is presiding over the lawsuit related to foreign students filed in May, issued another preliminary injunction on June 20 halting the administration's effort to prevent Harvard from enrolling foreign students. Yet, later that day, the president The president's announcement came after the Trump administration announced in May it was immediately revoking Harvard's ability to enroll foreign students, and ordered those already attending the school to either transfer or leave the country. Advertisement Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem said the punishment was in response to Harvard's failure to provide information the administration had demanded on April 16 about the criminality and misconduct of foreign students on its campus. However, in its lawsuit, Harvard called it 'the latest act by the government in clear retaliation for Harvard exercising its First Amendment rights to reject the government's demands to control Harvard's governance, curriculum, and the 'ideology' of its faculty and students.' The administration has been locked in an escalating legal and financial battle with Harvard since April when the elite school rejected a list of demands to address what the administration says is a longstanding culture of antisemitism, racial discrimination, and political bias at the school. Harvard's suit alleges that the administration demanded an unprecedented amount of information related to international students, then claimed Harvard's response was 'insufficient,' without explaining why or citing any regulation that Harvard had failed to comply with. Harvard alleges that the revocation of its ability to enroll international students is 'a blatant violation' of its First Amendment and Due Process rights and argues it would have an immediate and devastating impact on the university Trump has accused Harvard and other elite universities of fomenting anti-American ideology and failing to Shelley Murphy can be reached at
USA Today
12 hours ago
- USA Today
Parents can opt kids out of LGBTQ+ lessons after court decision: What it means for schools
The nation's highest court has spoken, but the debate over kids' exposure to LGBTQ+ literature and culture in America's schools is far from over. Religious and conservative parents' rights groups are rejoicing while teachers, authors and civil rights advocates sound an alarm that schools could soon become less inclusive after the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to allow parents to pull their children out of classes with material they object to on religious divided court sided with a group of Maryland parents who complained that their school district refused to allow them to opt out their kids of English language arts classes when books with LGBTQ+ characters are included. Parents from Montgomery County Public Schools – which include Muslims, Roman Catholics and Ukrainian Orthodox followers – argued the district's policy banning them from opting out intruded on their First Amendment right to freely exercise their religious beliefs. On June 27, the Supreme Court agreed with them in a 6-3 decision, saying American parents should be able to remove their kids from the lessons to protect their families' religious ideologies. Books with LGBTQ+ teachings and characters "unmistakably convey a particular viewpoint about same-sex marriage and gender," Justice Samuel Alito wrote on behalf of the court's majority. The court has long recognized the rights of parents to direct their children's religious upbringing, he said. The American Civil Liberties Union, which has backed the Maryland school district's policy, said the school district's curriculum, which began to include storybooks for elementary schools with LGBTQ+ characters in 2022, is secular, age-appropriate and designed to be inclusive. The ACLU called the decision "deeply disappointing." "This decision complicates our work creating a welcoming, inclusive and equitable school system," Liliana López, a spokesperson for the district, said in an email to USA TODAY on behalf of the school district and the Montgomery Board of Education. "It also sends a chilling message to many valued members of our diverse community. Public schools are facing heightened scrutiny over what's taught in their classrooms, increased pressure from conservative parents and additional surveillance over the programs and curriculum they offer to LGBTQ+ youth they serve. The court's decision represents the celebration and panic for parents across the political spectrum. The Supreme Court's decision advances President Donald Trump's and several conservative parent rights groups' disdain against LGBTQ+ programming in schools. The Trump administration has backed the Maryland parents in the case, saying the schools had put 'a price on a public benefit of public education at the expense of foregoing your religious beliefs.' GOP leaders: Are calling for religion in public schools. It's not the first time. What could it mean for school culture? Fears of an unwelcoming environment in public schools for LGBTQ+ students erupted after the decision. LGBTQ+ students already face a high chance of rejection, bullying, discrimination and violence at school. These students are at high risk of mental health challenges like depression, anxiety and attempts of suicide, according to data from Child Mind Institute. Attorneys from the ACLU said the Supreme Court's decision could have "far-reaching consequences for public schools' ability to create an inclusive and welcoming environment that reflects the diversity of their communities." The decision advances the mission of Trump and his education department to ban programming about LGTBQ+ and other social and racial justice issues in schools. This year, the Trump administration has demanded public schools ax publicly funded programs that support diversity, equity and inclusion in schools. The DEI programming includes those that offer LGBTQ+ students support. The U.S. Department of Education cannot directly control classroom curriculum, which is in the hands of the states. But it has said it will slash their federal funding for violating a federal civil rights law if they do not comply with the order. (Thousands of schools in more than a dozen states have objected.) With the Supreme Court decision, the outcomes "could wreak havoc on public schools, tying their hands on basic curricular decisions and undermining their ability to prepare students to live in our pluralistic society," said Daniel Mach, director of the ACLU's Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief. Mach called religious freedom "fundamentally important." But he said that freedom "shouldn't force public schools to exempt students from any secular lessons that don't align with their families' religious views." Parents who say schools shouldn't be the ones to teach their kids about these issues anticipate a more welcoming place for their families. 'This is a historic victory for parental rights in Maryland and across America. Kids shouldn't be forced into conversations about drag queens, pride parades, or gender transitions without their parents' permission," said Eric Baxter, vice president and senior counsel at The Becket Fund, a nonprofit, public-interest legal and educational institute with the mission of protecting free expressions of faiths. "Today, the Court restored common sense and made clear that parents—not government—have the final say in how their children are raised." Meanwhile, teachers are bracing for how the ruling could affect their lesson plans, students and classrooms. 'By creating new, unnecessary legal rules that burden hardworking educators and disrupt their ability to teach, the Court is effectively inserting itself into the day-to-day education decisions about what students can learn and what educators can teach," according to Miguel Gonzalez, a spokesperson for the National Education Association. LGBTQ+ advocates See Trump's actions on Pride Month as 'bullying' What about religion in schools? Religious groups have applauded the Supreme Court's decision. Their support comes during a GOP wave calling for more religion in schools. Oklahoma's top education official has ordered public schools to teach the Bible. He also wanted state funding for a controversial religious charter school before that idea was shut down by the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year in a deadlocked 4-4 decision. Louisiana leaders directed schools to display the Ten Commandments, but that has been blocked by a federal court. Texas leaders proposed a curriculum that incorporates biblical lessons. Parents and faith leaders have filed a lawsuit against it. Some school administrators and civil rights advocates have fought back, saying these mandates violate students' rights. Cecillia Wang, a national legal director of the ACLU, said she is worried about the court's decision to side with parents on this case because it could affect schools' ability to implement lessons in the future that may "trigger religious objections." "For the first time now, parents with religious objections are empowered to pick and choose from a secular public school curriculum, interfering with the school district's legitimate educational purposes and its ability to operate schools without disruption – ironically, in a case where the curriculum is designed to foster civility and understanding across differences," Wang wrote in an email. How about book bans? The Maryland parents who sued the school district said they don't want the books removed from schools. But Elly Brinkley, a staff attorney for free speech advocacy group PEN America, said further book bans across the nation's public schools are likely as a result of the court's decision. "By allowing parents to pull their children out of classrooms when they object to particular content, the justices are laying the foundation for a new frontier in the assault on books of all kinds in schools," Brinkley said. "This will exacerbate that devastating trend." A majority of the 16,000 books banned in schools since 2021 are LGBTQ+ themed, according to data from PEN America. The group's data shows book bans nearly tripled during the 2023-2024 school year, with over 10,000 books banned in public schools. Parents who have argued for book bans across the nation often say that the content is inappropriate for a school setting. Or they disagree with the content in the literature and don't want their kids to be exposed to it. A group of authors and illustrators named in the Maryland case said they disagree with the court's decision. Those include the authors and illustrators of LGBTQ+-themed books: "Uncle Bobby's Wedding," "Jacob's Room to Choose" and "Love, Violet." "We believe young people need to see themselves and families like theirs in the books they read; this is especially true for LGBTQ+ children and LGBTQ+ families," they wrote in an email. "And all children need to learn how to share their classrooms and communities with people different from themselves. Books can help them understand one another and learn to treat each other with acceptance, kindness and respect." United States public schools Banned over 10K books during 2023-2024 academic year, report says Contributing: Maureen Groppe, Thao Nguyen; USA TODAY Contact Kayla Jimenez at kjimenez@ Follow her on X at @kaylajjimenez.
