Beaufort News

Sudden removal of agenda item has some school board members feeling stifled

The Beaufort County School Board, front row, from left, Vice Chair Earl Campbell, Chairwoman Patricia Felton-Montgomery and Secretary Geri Kinton. Second row, from left, JoAnn Orischak, Bill Payne, David Striebinger, Joseph Dunkle, Mary Cordray, Evva Anderson and Christina Gwozdz.
The Beaufort County School Board, front row, from left, Vice Chair Earl Campbell, Chairwoman Patricia Felton-Montgomery and Secretary Geri Kinton. Second row, from left, JoAnn Orischak, Bill Payne, David Striebinger, Joseph Dunkle, Mary Cordray, Evva Anderson and Christina Gwozdz. Submitted

Was it an attempt to align Beaufort County school board procedures closer to established standards for public notification? Or, perhaps, a veiled attempt to curb dissent?

What’s the significance of an agenda item, anyway?

That’s the issue central to the swift disappearance of “New Business” from last week’s board agenda, an item that had been a staple near the end of every board meeting.

Though the move might appear innocuous on the surface, “New Business” had become an outlet for board members to publicly raise concerns about something not on the night’s docket or to propose a topic to examine at a future board meeting.

“It’s really the only place where board members can bring matters forward that are important to them,” said board member JoAnn Orischak.

Complicating matters was that last week’s removal came in conflict with board policy that specifically lists “New Business” as part of a meeting’s normal order of business.

“We have policies, which includes a way to change policies,” said board member Joseph Dunkle. “And this was not followed at all.”

Said David Striebinger, who chairs the board’s policy committee: “In the bigger scheme of things, it’s rather minor. The big issue is board officers can’t unilaterally change board policy.”

The change will be taken up at the policy committee’s next meeting on March 13, Striebinger said, likely as part of a larger review of items. Removing “New Business” from the blueprint is one thing; whether it might be replaced with something else is unclear.

“We do need a way to let members (propose) things on future agendas,” said Striebinger, who suggested the heading could simply be renamed to “Future Agenda Items.”

Board chair Patricia Felton-Montgomery doesn’t seem swayed. “We have a mechanism for board members to add something to the agenda, and that will continue,” she said this week.

Under current language, any new topic must be requested by at least three board members to reserve a spot on an upcoming agenda. Any such requests must be submitted at least 11 days in advance of the scheduled meeting.

It seems straightforward enough. Orischak noted, though, that even when a submission meets the criteria, it hasn’t ensured the topic would be placed on the next meeting’s agenda.

“I don’t think that’s a guarantee,” she said, noting she’s still waiting on her request to discuss looking into the board securing its own legal counsel rather than sharing with the superintendent.

And on a panel only months removed from headline-grabbing infighting — spilling into a “cease and desist” letter of rebuke to Orischak last December — some scars haven’t necessarily healed.

“I was hoping with new officers, new leadership, a new year, a couple of new members, we would all be more in tune,” Dunkle said.

Said Orischak: “My instinct is sometimes people didn’t appreciate what was asked for on a future agenda. This would be one way to quiet that, certainly.”

Nonetheless, she said, the practice of using “New Business” to propose future items in a public forum goes back long before the recent discord.

Felton-Montgomery, a former superintendent in New Jersey and installed as chair immediately upon taking her board post in January, stood by her conduct since taking the gavel.

“Whenever something is changed, people have questions — and appropriately so,” she said. “I think you’ve seen I’ve let everybody have input.”

The dispute arose following a conference last month for the state’s school boards, when boards were advised that “New Business” should not be on an agenda without specific items to be addressed. That allows the public time to prepare comment should anyone choose to address the board.

“You’re introducing something without giving proper notification,” Striebinger said. “I think that’s wise (to rectify).”

The Beaufort City Council and Hilton Head Island’s Town Council make regular use of “New Business,” specifically listing each item for action — the first reading of a proposed ordinance, perhaps, or consideration of a resolution.

The Beaufort County Council has used “New Business” just once in 2017, specifically to adopt a caucus and meeting schedule for the year. New Business has yet to appear this year on the Bluffton Town Council agenda.

“It seems pretty straightforward to me,” Felton-Montgomery said. “We have some important issues to deal with, and this is by no means meant to (stifle) board member involvement. We really need to go on to other things.”

Jeff Shain: 843-706-8123, @jeffshain

This story was originally published March 2, 2017 at 6:35 PM with the headline "Sudden removal of agenda item has some school board members feeling stifled."

Get unlimited digital access
#ReadLocal

Try 1 month for $1

CLAIM OFFER