Recent commentary about village board meetings has focused on tone and personalities. That framing avoids the real issue. The true measure of effective local government is not whether disagreement is comfortable, but whether it is handled through a fair, fact-based and consistently enforced process.

Disagreement on a village board is expected. What is not acceptable is when disagreement is expressed through repeated interruptions, personal characterizations or unsupported accusations. Once a board member or a member of the public is recognized to speak, they are entitled to finish without interruption. Responses and rebuttals come afterward. This is not about politeness — it is a basic requirement of orderly governance and a cornerstone of public trust.

Statements not backed by fact are not helpful to public discussion. If there is a factual error, it should be identified specifically so it can be examined and corrected. Broad claims of misinformation, assertions that someone “doesn’t understand,” or attacks on credibility without evidence do not advance decision-making. Disagreement is not the same as misinformation, and treating it as such shuts down legitimate debate rather than resolving it.

Much has been said about the importance of “collaboration.” Collaboration, however, must not be confused with compliance. It does not mean silence in the face of pressure. It does not mean allowing one voice to dominate while others are interrupted or worn down until they agree. Collaboration means respectful debate grounded in facts, where all members are permitted to speak freely and without intimidation, and where votes are cast based on judgment rather than coercion.

No board member should feel that respectful treatment is contingent on voting a certain way. Productive collaboration cannot occur when disagreement is met with dismissiveness, personal attacks or repeated attempts to overpower opposing viewpoints. A functional board allows disagreement to be expressed fully, challenges it on the merits and resolves it through a transparent vote. And when some members consistently sit in silence while colleagues are interrupted, disparaged or spoken over, that silence does not remain neutral — it shapes the culture of the board and signals what behavior will be tolerated.

These standards apply equally — and critically — to public comment. Village board meetings are a public forum, not a controlled conversation. Members of the public have the right to speak within established rules and time limits, regardless of whether their comments are critical, uncomfortable, or unpopular. Interrupting or cutting off speakers because their viewpoints are unwelcome undermines public trust and discourages civic participation. Disagreement with content is not grounds for interruption.

The role of the chair is central to whether these principles succeed or fail. The presiding officer holds the gavel, not to win arguments, but to protect the process. That role requires restraint, attentiveness and a willingness to safeguard speakers even when their views are challenging or unpopular. Chairs are human, and meetings can be tense, but the authority of the position carries a responsibility to slow things down rather than escalate them, and to rely on neutral procedure rather than personal commentary to maintain order.

Public trust is built not only through outcomes but through conduct. Residents deserve to see their elected officials disagree openly without being diminished and to see leadership that protects the process rather than personalities.

It is convenient to blame the challenges we have at board meetings on personality conflicts, but that narrative obscures the real question: are our public meetings structured in a way that allows honest disagreement, equal treatment and fact-based decision-making? In our community, people may disagree strongly, but we expect one another to speak plainly, listen fully and treat each other with basic respect. Disagreement is not dysfunction — intimidation and interruption are. Collaboration does not mean silence, and facts do not include personal accusations. A public meeting ceases to be legitimate when interruptions, pressure or selective enforcement replace fair process.

The gavel exists to protect debate, not dominate it. When decorum is enforced unevenly or not at all, trust erodes, participation shrinks, and the meeting fails the public it is meant to serve. And when colleagues are interrupted or disparaged while others sit in silence, that silence does not remain neutral — it becomes part of the culture that allows the behavior to continue.

Public trust is not built by quieting dissent; it is built by protecting facts, fairness, and the right of every voice — elected officials and residents alike — to be heard without pressure.

——

Aurora White is a Saranac Lake village trustee. She lives in Saranac Lake.