By Stefanie Jackson – The Northampton school board declined to respond to recent accusations that it had acted improperly for fear of engaging in an unending “war of words,” as Superintendent Eddie Lawrence called it.
It was the rush to renew the superintendent’s contract without strict adherence to state law that led former school board member Nancy Proto to criticize the school board’s actions in an opinion published in the Eastern Shore Post June 26.
On May 28, at 10:30 p.m. or “the 11th hour,” according to Proto, the school board “slid by the public eye” its vote to issue Lawrence a new two-year contract. The late-night action did not conform to Virginia Code 22.1-60 because school board members had not received 30 days of notice that a vote on the superintendent’s contract had been scheduled.
The school board took corrective action June 11 when it voted unanimously to waive the 30-day notice and voted 5-1 for Lawrence to continue as superintendent for two more years, with school board member Charlena Jones opposed.
But the school board did not take corrective action on its apparent violation of another state law, Virginia Code 2.2-3712, on closed meeting procedures.
Before the May 28 vote on the superintendent’s contract, the school board conducted a closed session to discuss his annual performance evaluation.
All school personnel matters are private, and a closed session to discuss a performance evaluation was appropriate, but the closed session agenda should have disclosed the topic of discussion and it did not.
The May 28 closed session agenda made a general reference to “discussion of consideration of employment, assignment, appointment, promotion, performance, demotion, salaries, disciplining, or resignation” of employees. It did not specify the superintendent’s performance and contract would be discussed.
Virginia Code 2.2-3712 states that “a general reference to … the subject matter of the closed meeting shall not be sufficient to satisfy the requirements for holding a closed meeting.”
Since May 28, the Northampton school board has held three meetings during which closed sessions were conducted; all three meeting agendas lacked specificity on the topics to be discussed in the closed sessions.
The public was not made aware that the superintendent’s evaluation and contract would be discussed, meaning citizens had “no opportunity for public input” before the vote, Proto said.
Her comments were not heard until the June 25 meeting, which included further criticism of school board members for not evaluating the superintendent based on the goals they approved.
For example, improving writing test scores was a goal for this school year, but when benchmark tests were administered in the fall, Northampton students underperformed.
About 87% of Kiptopeke Elementary School students, 77% of Northampton Middle School students, and 66% of Northampton High School students were on the bottom two performance levels for writing, Proto wrote.
“What about reading? What about math? Did anyone ask? Who’s watching the store!?” she asked.
“This evaluation is a joke,” Proto continued. “It appears to be a copy and paste from last year” and a “token action by the Board under the pretense of exercising due diligence to justify the action of renewing the superintendent’s contract when, in fact, it had already been predetermined.”
“This Board failed in its responsibility to the public to conduct a comprehensive, professional evaluation of the instructional leader of this district,” Proto said.
Cathy Buyrn, of Cheriton, wrote, “The method for accepting and reading public comments into the record is not working. My first opportunity to make a public comment about the meeting is today; almost a full month after the meeting. This lag in public access and participation is unacceptable.”
She also criticized school board member comments on the continuation of public education during the coronavirus pandemic.
“I was sickened by the discussion of the May 28th school board meeting where Ms. (Jo Ann) Molera suggested sending the police or social services to the homes of students who had not completed packets during the spring.
“That seems beyond tone deaf given the current state of tensions in the country and Mr. (William) Oakley’s suggestion that there was a need to ‘hunt them down’ was astounding,” Buyrn wrote.
Northampton’s school board and superintendent defended the school district during a June 30 work session.
Lawrence called Proto’s mention of falling test scores “unfortunate.”
Reading test scores began dropping statewide around 2008, which Virginia Superintendent of Public Instruction James Lane attributed to the elimination of school support staff during the Great Recession, Lawrence said.
Northampton schools’ math scores have shown some improvement, “but we can’t get excited when they tick up some, and we shouldn’t get so upset when they tick down some, because they’re going to do that as this testing program the state has adopted changes,” he said.
Chair Maxine Rasmussen said, “It isn’t just about test scores, and we need to see our students as more …”
The school board ultimately decided not to respond to recent accusations in writing. They opted instead to stay “positive” and write a summary of the top achievements of Northampton schools and students from the last year.
The decision was not reached without contention.
Rasmussen asserted that school and student achievements happen because of leadership “at the top” by the school board and superintendent.
“That’s not true,” Jones said.
School board member Randy Parks said Lawrence recommended several actions the school board has taken.
“No, he didn’t,” Jones said.
“Yes, he did,” Parks shot back. “The behavior therapist? How do you think he convinced the rest of us about a social worker?”
Rasmussen seemed to agree that Lawrence influenced tough decisions to hire additional staff. “For every person that we add … it means that the rest of the teachers don’t get raises … it means somebody else is going without,” she said.
The school board also explained its seemingly rushed decision to renew Lawrence’s contract.
Vice Chair William Oakley said if the school board intended to quietly renew the contract, unnoticed by the public, “I think we would have done it sometime in February or March. We wouldn’t have waited for the last minute before the bell rang, fight’s over.”
Since January or February, Lawrence’s contract was brought to the attention of the school board three or four times, but a vote was delayed due to circumstances of the coronavirus pandemic, Rasmussen said.
The final vote was taken June 11, a little more than two weeks before the contract was set to expire June 30.
School board member Randy Parks added, “They expect us to change leadership in the middle of a pandemic? Come on, it doesn’t make any sense.”
He also noted that the superintendent’s power is limited. “We have to remember, as part of our government, is he does nothing, basically, unless we approve,” Parks said.
And once a vote is taken and an action is approved “it’s ours as a board,” Oakley added.
Virginia Department of Education guidelines state that once a school board passes a motion, members should publicly support the decision whether they voted for or against it, he said.
Jones confirmed Oakley was correct.
“We don’t go out in the community and say, ‘Well, I didn’t like it, but they voted for it,’” Oakley said.
The Northampton school board agreed to write about the accomplishments of schools and students instead of the alleged failures of the superintendent, but not without comment from Parks, who warned that the school board’s silence could be interpreted as confirmation that the school district has a “lousy superintendent.”
