BOE Stonewalls Public Comments

“I don’t know what they’re afraid of. All we’re trying to do is to get some answers to things, so we can better understand the decision”

Last Thursday’s Board of Education workshop started like any typical workshop. In the moments before the session started, though, something was different; the chairs before the rows of long tables started to fill up. In fact, within minutes most of the seats were soon full. Citizens came with the anticipation of the opportunity to ask their questions. They wanted answers; they sought explanations to a string of unpopular decisions by the board; they sought clarification of process and policy. But, most of all they sought transparency.

After breezing through its agenda, The Board of Education denied Citizen Joene DePlancke the opportunity to ask her questions. According to Chairperson Kathy Jones, though, public commentary is reserved for the board’s regular meetings, the next of which will be held Tuesday, October 11th. In a recent opinion piece published on this site, DePlancke wrote that she initially tried that method, but said she was told by Jones that the board doesn’t answer questions at regular board meetings. During Thursday’s workshop Jones said she had received a request from Ms. DePlancke earlier in the week to hold a Board of Education Town Hall meeting.

Member Gary Hyde said he would agree to the idea and that he wouldn’t mind “airing some things.” He also thought it would be a good idea to consider a town hall after he sees the recent recall results– a group of citizens is currently exploring the possibility of recalling certain board members. Member Michael Bramlett asked Jones how a town hall would be different from the board workshop sessions and regular meetings. Jones said she didn’t know, but noted the same rules of regular meetings would apply to a town hall. Jones added that these rules are handed down from the state, implying that she was unable to change them. She said that the board would consider a town hall and get back to DePlancke at a later date. Jones’ comments came across half-hearted at best and the mention of the request seemed a pallid gesture intended to pacify DePlancke.

As the board finished its discussions and before making a motion to go into executive session, Ms. DePlancke raised her hand, asking if she would get a chance to speak. “That is not the way the meeting is conducted,” Jones said, denying the request, and added, “

You’re on the agenda for Tuesday night and we look forward to hearing from you.”

In response, DePlancke said she thought the workshop would be an informal setting where the board could discuss certain issues with the public. Jones reiterated that the board’s rules come from the state. En Masse, the board then left the room and Jones invited those in attendance to stay if they wished, but after the executive session was finished, the board would simply adjourn the meeting. The citizens accepted the invitation and stayed. After the board left the room, DePlancke stood in front of the group and addressed some common concerns. The focus of the discussion was the recall process and whether to pursue the recall of several board members, which may fail, or to simply work toward voting them out of office. According, to the conversation the recall process would cost taxpayers approximately $26,000. FYN has tried to contact Probate Court Judge Anita Mullins to confirm this cost, but was unable to reach her.

The citizens at the meeting Thursday evening were a cross-section of voters and seemed to represent the public dissatisfaction with the Board of Education. And, the main grievance against the board appeared to be its lack of transparency.

“I don’t know what they’re afraid of. All we’re trying to do is to get some answers to things, so we can better understand the decision,”

DePlancke said, adding, “

The decisions may be perfectly fine, but we just don’t quite understand how some of the decision are made.”