May 28, 2009
SCHOOL BOARD STALEMATE: Candidates Narrowed, But No Winner
Audience, Board Exchange Heated Words; 20 Minutes of Silence Precedes Adjournment
By Tony Rutherford
Huntingtonnews.net Reporter
Huntington, WV (HNN) – The Cabell County Board of Education remains
deadlocked in a stalemate over appointment of a nominee to fill an
unexpired term. Although the field has been narrowed, confusion now
exists as to whether the remaining candidates are two or three.
During a lengthy (three hours plus) process, school board members attempted, even with the assistance of Superintendent William Smith to agree on a method of breaking the tie. The process began by having the four members each place two of the candidates on the floor for the purpose of potentially finding a consensus.
Each board member was allowed to provide the strengths of each candidate.
Bernie Thomas selected Mary Neely and Carla Parker. Suzanne Oxley selected Carla Parker and R. Steven Thomas. Ted Bar selected Rick Duncan and Mary Neely. Bessie Holley selected Rick Duncan and Nancy Newfeld.
To narrow the field, members were asked to vote for two candidates. Mary Neely received four votes, Carla Parker and Rick Duncan received two each. However, this exercise had a prior stipulation that it would not be the vote to fill the seat.
Having narrowed the candidates to Neely, Parker and Duncan, none of the candidates received a majority. Ms Parker tied with Mary Neely. Ms. Holley nominated Mr. Duncan like at the previous board meeting, but he did not receive a second.
After the process, both Ms. Oxley and Mr. Thomas felt that Mr. Duncan had been eliminated for lack of a second. And, that the board should vote on the election of Ms. Parker or Ms. Neely.
Board Member Bessie Holley stated, “Duncan should have been left,” arguing for an up or down vote.
Member Thomas immediately questioned, “Where are we now?”
Bottom line: The board could not work their way past the impasse, but as the meeting ran longer emotional frustrations started growing.
At first, during the meeting, Holley and Barr were both prone to drift from the subject by telling stories, some of which could be interpreted as metaphor implying their position.
Ms. Holley, a former teacher, stressed that the position would be only for 13 months. She said many candidates had20in their applications agendas that could not be accomplished during a short term. She felt the choice should be one who could work with the current board and school administration.
Ted Barr, chairman, expressed his frustration during suggestions for more open discussion on the candidate’s qualifications. “We’re exposed everything but our underwear and we’re still at an impasse,” Barr said. The Chairman continuously utilized a mix of sarcastic humor to express the seriousness of the dilemma. “We might ask Senator Byrd,” “We don’t have King Solomon’s wisdom up here” and calling down a displeased audience member with “You’re the guests, we’re the host. We got enough problems up here.”
Both Barr and Holley took exception to newspaper press reports about
their inability to come to a decision, defending their conduct of the
last meeting that ended with no seated candidate.
Occasional suggestions came from audience members who suggested that the four had actually compromised during the narrowing of candidates i.e. Mrs. Neely had received a vote from all members. Efforts by Oxley to have the three candidates voted on by ranking them one, two , three were rebuffed by Holley and Barr. An option to draw names from a hat was turned down by Barr as it would not fulfill the requirement that the replacement be voted on.
Now, instead of utilizing metaphors, board members began turning to “hard sell” tactics attempting to convince another member to change their opinion. These speeches became both personal and emotional.
For instance, Ms. Holley boldly suggested that the more experienced and older candidate should step aside and let the younger candidate take the seat.
Ms. Neely then stepped to the microphone and firmly voiced that she may be a little older but “I still got a lot of fight in me.”
After Ms. Oxley brought up that Ted Barr’s grandson works for Mr. Duncan, this sparked an exchange by board members. “You have a close relationship with this candidate,” Oxley told Barr. Explaining that the vacancy came from a conflict of interest, Oxley adamantly insisted the position should not be filled with someone who could have a perceived conflict of interest. “There’s nothing personal,” Oxley told both Barr and Duncan.
Barr turned defensive insisting that the grandson’s job at Dairy Queen did not create a conflict nor did his friendship with Duncan.
Meanwhile, after stating, “I don’t see how Rick Duncan on the board can hurt the board,” Ms. Holley drifted into a lecture that the nomination process had driven a “wedge” through the board which had previously worked together. 0I believe in destiny. This will not be the same board. Is it worth it?”
HNN quietly asked Mr. Duncan if he would be willing to withdraw his name in the interest of unity. Duncan said, “No comment.”
Ms. Parker asked whether the Cabell Board of Education could submit the final three names to the State Superintendent. She contemplated that if the Cabell Board sent a letter prior to the expiration of its decision making time frame, the state representative might agree to select one of the three submitted names.
However, Barr told Parker that she had been eliminated.
Following adjournment, more confusion ensured. Audience members and other candidates thought the list had been narrowed to Neely and Parker, since Duncan did not receive a second.
Member Bernie Thomas admitted to confusion too. “It looks like we’re making up the rules as we go,” he said.
Karen Nance who attended the meeting supported Mrs. Oxley’s rationale.
“I believe that Mrs. Oxley was correct in that there was nothing
personal in her decision. But, because there was a question of Dr.
Borowski’s integrity [due to his wife’s position] , she was trying to
choose someone where there would not be any question at all in
anybody’s mind.”
Mrs. Parker told HNN, “I’m confused. I don’t know,” when asked about Barr’s statement that she had been eliminated. Barr insisted that the 2-2 vote eliminated Parker, but he did not remember a similar 2-2 vote on Neely. “She was a tie [too],” Parker and others recalled. “I felt that not receiving a second to be voted on was lower than receiving a vote and getting a tie. I wasn’t elected in by majority, but I was not eliminated by majority.”
The nurse continued, “I still would like to do this [but] I would like a fair process and I don’t think right now it’s a fair process. I don’t think they know what they are doing,” Parker said.
Mrs. Neely said, “A decision should have been made. You have to be a team player. There’s gotta be give and take in everything. I’ve never seen anything like this before in all the boards I’ve been on.”
Perhaps, during the meeting, which included a pre-adjournment 20 minutes of awkward silence from the board, Ms. Holley made the most significant statement --- “The legislature should look at and address the issue. Write up some rules” for filling a vacancy to prevent deadlocks.
And prior to adjournment, Ms. Oxley stated that the Board of Education must follow Robert’s Rules of Order.
Share This Story:
Make HNN Your Homepage (IE Users Only)
SCHOOL BOARD STALEMATE: Candidates Narrowed, But No Winner
Audience, Board Exchange Heated Words; 20 Minutes of Silence Precedes Adjournment
By Tony Rutherford
Huntingtonnews.net Reporter
Huntington, WV (HNN) – The Cabell County Board of Education remains
deadlocked in a stalemate over appointment of a nominee to fill an
unexpired term. Although the field has been narrowed, confusion now
exists as to whether the remaining candidates are two or three.
During a lengthy (three hours plus) process, school board members attempted, even with the assistance of Superintendent William Smith to agree on a method of breaking the tie. The process began by having the four members each place two of the candidates on the floor for the purpose of potentially finding a consensus.
Each board member was allowed to provide the strengths of each candidate.
Bernie Thomas selected Mary Neely and Carla Parker. Suzanne Oxley selected Carla Parker and R. Steven Thomas. Ted Bar selected Rick Duncan and Mary Neely. Bessie Holley selected Rick Duncan and Nancy Newfeld.
To narrow the field, members were asked to vote for two candidates. Mary Neely received four votes, Carla Parker and Rick Duncan received two each. However, this exercise had a prior stipulation that it would not be the vote to fill the seat.
Having narrowed the candidates to Neely, Parker and Duncan, none of the candidates received a majority. Ms Parker tied with Mary Neely. Ms. Holley nominated Mr. Duncan like at the previous board meeting, but he did not receive a second.
After the process, both Ms. Oxley and Mr. Thomas felt that Mr. Duncan had been eliminated for lack of a second. And, that the board should vote on the election of Ms. Parker or Ms. Neely.
Board Member Bessie Holley stated, “Duncan should have been left,” arguing for an up or down vote.
Member Thomas immediately questioned, “Where are we now?”
Bottom line: The board could not work their way past the impasse, but as the meeting ran longer emotional frustrations started growing.
At first, during the meeting, Holley and Barr were both prone to drift from the subject by telling stories, some of which could be interpreted as metaphor implying their position.
Ms. Holley, a former teacher, stressed that the position would be only for 13 months. She said many candidates had20in their applications agendas that could not be accomplished during a short term. She felt the choice should be one who could work with the current board and school administration.
Ted Barr, chairman, expressed his frustration during suggestions for more open discussion on the candidate’s qualifications. “We’re exposed everything but our underwear and we’re still at an impasse,” Barr said. The Chairman continuously utilized a mix of sarcastic humor to express the seriousness of the dilemma. “We might ask Senator Byrd,” “We don’t have King Solomon’s wisdom up here” and calling down a displeased audience member with “You’re the guests, we’re the host. We got enough problems up here.”
Both Barr and Holley took exception to newspaper press reports about
their inability to come to a decision, defending their conduct of the
last meeting that ended with no seated candidate.
Occasional suggestions came from audience members who suggested that the four had actually compromised during the narrowing of candidates i.e. Mrs. Neely had received a vote from all members. Efforts by Oxley to have the three candidates voted on by ranking them one, two , three were rebuffed by Holley and Barr. An option to draw names from a hat was turned down by Barr as it would not fulfill the requirement that the replacement be voted on.
Now, instead of utilizing metaphors, board members began turning to “hard sell” tactics attempting to convince another member to change their opinion. These speeches became both personal and emotional.
For instance, Ms. Holley boldly suggested that the more experienced and older candidate should step aside and let the younger candidate take the seat.
Ms. Neely then stepped to the microphone and firmly voiced that she may be a little older but “I still got a lot of fight in me.”
After Ms. Oxley brought up that Ted Barr’s grandson works for Mr. Duncan, this sparked an exchange by board members. “You have a close relationship with this candidate,” Oxley told Barr. Explaining that the vacancy came from a conflict of interest, Oxley adamantly insisted the position should not be filled with someone who could have a perceived conflict of interest. “There’s nothing personal,” Oxley told both Barr and Duncan.
Barr turned defensive insisting that the grandson’s job at Dairy Queen did not create a conflict nor did his friendship with Duncan.
Meanwhile, after stating, “I don’t see how Rick Duncan on the board can hurt the board,” Ms. Holley drifted into a lecture that the nomination process had driven a “wedge” through the board which had previously worked together. 0I believe in destiny. This will not be the same board. Is it worth it?”
HNN quietly asked Mr. Duncan if he would be willing to withdraw his name in the interest of unity. Duncan said, “No comment.”
Ms. Parker asked whether the Cabell Board of Education could submit the final three names to the State Superintendent. She contemplated that if the Cabell Board sent a letter prior to the expiration of its decision making time frame, the state representative might agree to select one of the three submitted names.
However, Barr told Parker that she had been eliminated.
Following adjournment, more confusion ensured. Audience members and other candidates thought the list had been narrowed to Neely and Parker, since Duncan did not receive a second.
Member Bernie Thomas admitted to confusion too. “It looks like we’re making up the rules as we go,” he said.
Karen Nance who attended the meeting supported Mrs. Oxley’s rationale.
“I believe that Mrs. Oxley was correct in that there was nothing
personal in her decision. But, because there was a question of Dr.
Borowski’s integrity [due to his wife’s position] , she was trying to
choose someone where there would not be any question at all in
anybody’s mind.”
Mrs. Parker told HNN, “I’m confused. I don’t know,” when asked about Barr’s statement that she had been eliminated. Barr insisted that the 2-2 vote eliminated Parker, but he did not remember a similar 2-2 vote on Neely. “She was a tie [too],” Parker and others recalled. “I felt that not receiving a second to be voted on was lower than receiving a vote and getting a tie. I wasn’t elected in by majority, but I was not eliminated by majority.”
The nurse continued, “I still would like to do this [but] I would like a fair process and I don’t think right now it’s a fair process. I don’t think they know what they are doing,” Parker said.
Mrs. Neely said, “A decision should have been made. You have to be a team player. There’s gotta be give and take in everything. I’ve never seen anything like this before in all the boards I’ve been on.”
Perhaps, during the meeting, which included a pre-adjournment 20 minutes of awkward silence from the board, Ms. Holley made the most significant statement --- “The legislature should look at and address the issue. Write up some rules” for filling a vacancy to prevent deadlocks.
And prior to adjournment, Ms. Oxley stated that the Board of Education must follow Robert’s Rules of Order.
Share This Story:
Make HNN Your Homepage (IE Users Only)
