School board members fight over agenda change and ability to bring up dissent at meetings

Correction: An earlier version of this story misidentified the board member who motioned to add “Future Agenda Suggestions” to the agenda template. The story has since been corrected.

The sudden disappearance of “New Business” from the Beaufort County School Board agenda template in late February prompted one board member at Tuesday night’s heated board meeting to suggest several replacements that would give board members an option for publicly voicing concerns, all of which were swiftly struck down.

The failed attempts left board member Joseph Dunkle feeling further stifled and dismissed by the majority bloc of board members, who generally align themselves with Superintendent Jeff Moss.

“It’s an attempt to silence the dissenting opinions just to try to make us all be good little board members,” Dunkle said. “(I’m) trying to preserve the ability for a public officer to be able to have a public voice during their public meeting.”

Dunkle often finds himself on the losing side of votes, along with board members David Striebinger, Christina Gwozdz and JoAnn Orischak, all of whom have been critical of Moss and of board leadership in the continued aftermath of Moss’ 2015 ethics violations.

Board chairwoman Patricia Felton-Montgomery, a former superintendent from New Jersey who was elected to the board in November and immediately installed as its leader, along with board vice-chairman Earl Campbell and secretary Geri Kinton, approve the agenda for each meeting.

The New Business section allowed board members to introduce a topic for discussion on future agendas. Felton-Montgomery removed the section on a recommendation made at the state school boards conference in February. Boards were advised to remove New Business because it does not list points of discussion in advance of the meeting in accordance with open records law.

When Felton-Montgomery announced the change in February, some board members questioned her authority to unilaterally remove the agenda section and expressed their concern over losing an option to publicly bring up matters of concern. Felton-Montgomery denied that the action was meant to stifle dissension and said the reason for removing the agenda section “seems pretty straightforward to me.”

Felton-Montgomery, however, has retained the Chairman’s Report section of the agenda, which, much like the New Business section, allows her to speak without listing those points of discussion before the meeting.

To Dunkle, this issue is about having an agenda that gives the board members the same speaking opportunity as the chairwoman and the superintendent.

Dunkle is continuing to fight this procedural crusade because he and a handful of other board members say the current policy for adding items to the agenda isn’t working.

For instance, if Dunkle wants to add an item to the agenda, he and at least two other board members must submit that request in writing to the board’s officers no later than 11 days before the meeting.

But the policy for when — and if — that item appears on an agenda is not clear.

A request Orischak sent in early February to discuss the board securing its own legal counsel has yet to be added to the regular meeting agenda.

Felton-Montgomery said the reason the item has not appeared on a regular meeting agenda is because it will be added to the work session agenda, a two-day workshop slated for April 21 and 22 — which would put it at more than two months after Orischak’s initial request.

“You have work sessions so you can discuss things more in-depth,” Felton-Montgomery explained after initialing refusing to answer a reporter’s questions about why Orischak’s request has not been put on the agenda.

Orischak disagreed with the chairwoman’s reasoning, though, citing transparency issues.

“Anything done (in) the work session is done out of the public eye,” she said, noting that while the work sessions are open to the public, the public does not usually attend them.

Furthermore, there is no board policy currently in place to determine what topics end up in work session and which go on board meeting agendas, Orischak said.

Felton-Montgomery, however, would not clarify how she determines what goes on which agenda.

In an effort to give board members another option to bring up topics during the board meeting that aren’t on the agenda, Striebinger moved Tuesday night to add a new section, “Future Agenda Suggestions,” to the agenda template.

His idea was met with frustration by some board members who argued the addition would make meetings even longer than the three to four hours they typically last.

Board member and former chairwoman Mary Cordray said she did not want to meet until 10 p.m. on a regular basis.

Campbell simply suggested bringing board business to the next meeting.

“Where?” Dunkle asked, holding up the agenda, which currently offers no designated section to address new concerns. “Where on the agenda would I bring a concern?”

The motion failed, 6-5, with Dunkle, Striebinger, Orischak, Gwozdz and Evva Anderson voting in favor of it.

New member Cynthia Gregory-Smalls, who was installed Tuesday night, voted with the majority.

Dunkle then made a motion to add a new section, “District Reports,” to the board’s agenda.

His request, and the purpose behind it, frustrated some board members who interpreted it as repetitive. The motion failed again, 7-4, with Anderson voting against it.

Felton-Montgomery said she has never seen a board agenda with “District Reports” on it.

She also said that, “When we serve up here, we’re serving as a whole board, not as individual district representatives.”

That rationale didn’t sit well with Dunkle.

“I’m elected by the citizens of District 4, and I represent the citizens of District 4, period,” he said.

This story was originally published April 5, 2017 at 5:59 PM with the headline "School board members fight over agenda change and ability to bring up dissent at meetings."