At the February 11, 2025 Jericho Board of Education meeting, Vice President Jill Citron openly admitted that the board is bypassing proper procedures in its effort to rename Cantiague Elementary School. In a display of disregard for public input, due process, and financial accountability, Citron dismissed community concerns and misused legal doctrine to justify the renaming effort.
This statement confirms that the board is prioritizing a personal agenda over transparency and governance integrity.
Misuse of legal doctrine to justify a policy decision
Citron stated, “There’s a Latin phrase, res ipsa loquitur. I went to law school, and it means ‘the thing speaks for itself.'”
Res ipsa loquitur is a negligence doctrine, used in cases where an accident is so obviously the result of negligence that no further proof is needed. Examples include a collapsed bridge due to poor maintenance or a surgeon leaving a tool inside a patient.
Renaming a school is not an accident, nor is it an inevitable conclusion. It is a discretionary decision that requires justification, public input, and a structured process. There is no inherent presumption that renaming must happen.
If anything, the board’s lack of transparency and refusal to consider community input are what truly “speak for themselves” as negligence in governance.
Admission of procedural manipulation
Citron stated, “I’m happy to adopt a policy on naming after we do this renaming of Cantiague for Hank.”
This statement confirms that the board is making a major decision with no formal policy in place. Governance requires policies to be set before making decisions, not after. Admitting that the board will create a policy only after forcing through a renaming is an acknowledgment that the board is acting without proper guidance.
If the renaming is so obvious, why wasn’t a policy in place before rushing it through?
Dismissal of public discussion
Citron continued, “There should not need be for any discussion to honor this man who has given his blood, sweat, tears, and love to this district for over 30 years. I can’t believe there could be any discussion that this should not happen.”
Public institutions exist to serve the community, not personal preferences. The idea that a decision should not be debated violates the core principles of democratic governance.
No one disputes Henry Grishman’s contributions, but renaming a school is a significant decision that impacts the community’s history, finances, and identity. If a decision is truly justified, it can withstand public scrutiny. Dismissing discussion signals an unwillingness to engage in good governance.
When elected officials say discussion isn’t necessary, it’s time for the public to demand accountability.
Assumption that all policies must support renaming
Citron stated, “I can’t imagine any policy that could possibly exist that would not be in favor of renaming Cantiague for Hank.”
A policy can absolutely exist that prioritizes historical preservation, cultural significance, and community consensus over unilateral renaming efforts. Just because Citron personally cannot imagine opposition does not mean opposition is invalid.
This statement reveals a bias and a predetermined outcome rather than an open, democratic process.
The board isn’t acting in the public’s interest—it’s acting as if its personal preferences are beyond challenge.
The board’s words speak for themselves
Jill Citron claims renaming “speaks for itself.”
But what actually speaks for itself is the lack of public input, the absence of a policy, and the predetermined nature of this decision.
If renaming Cantiague Elementary is truly necessary, then it should be justified through process, public engagement, and transparency.
