Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Montville board moves signage policy to second reading after hours of testimony urging retention of Pride and celebration messages
Summary
After more than an hour of public comment opposing a draft policy that would remove celebration months and related messages from school electronic signs, the Montville Township Board of Education voted to move the proposal to a second reading, allowing amendments following public appeals to preserve inclusive messaging.
The Montville Township Board of Education voted to send a proposed policy restricting content on school electronic signs to a second reading after extended public comment Tuesday night.
The first-reading measure under discussion would limit sign content to a narrow set of “school business” categories and — in a provision that drew the strongest criticism — would eliminate messages identifying or celebrating holidays, cultural heritage months and other celebration months from the marquee rotation. Supporters said the policy is intended to keep signs focused on time‑sensitive school events and essential notifications; opponents said the restriction would silence important community recognition and harm students who rely on public signals of belonging.
“Removing the sign is not eliminating expression, you are eliminating safety,” parent Rich Lorenzo told the board, urging members to rethink an administrative provision he described as mean‑spirited and harmful. “To every LGBTQ+ student in Montville, I see you.”
Volunteer and PTC leader Kristen Piper described the signs as a small but important fundraiser for Lazar PTC and said the messages raise student morale. “These messages bring joy,” she said, noting birthday shout‑outs raised thousands over several years. Parent Brian Mills, who identified himself as gay, added: “A Pride sign is not about politics. It’s about people. Specifically young people who are trying to understand who they are.”
Board members debated the policy’s wording at length. One board member said the intent was not to prevent schools from running inclusive events or to stop principals from promoting school activities, but acknowledged section 3.4 of the draft — which explicitly excludes holidays and celebration months — had been received as exclusionary by many in the audience. Another board member said restricting messages could clarify the sign’s purpose: “I just think we need to expand that to include things about cultural, educational, informative things that we’re doing as a district,” a board member said, arguing for clearer, less prescriptive language.
After discussion, the board voted to move the policy to a second reading so members and the policy committee could consider revisions. The roll call showed a mix of yes and no votes; several members said they would propose amendments and ask the policy committee to meet before the second reading.
The board chair said the second reading will provide an opportunity for targeted edits and for the administration to clarify how the signs would be used should a revised policy be adopted. The board did not adopt the policy at the meeting; the matter will return to the board agenda after committee review.
