Independent counsel tells MCSD board how controversial conduct might affect accreditation

The independent counsel hired to advise the Muscogee County School Board about how its controversial conduct might affect the school district’s accreditation has presented his report.

A team from Alpharetta, Ga.-based AdvancED will visit Columbus from Oct. 29 through Nov. 1 to assess the school district and determine whether to renew its accreditation for another five years.

One of the seven standards AdvancEd uses to assess school districts is about governance and leadership. The standard says: “The school operates under governance and leadership that promote and support student performance and school effectiveness.”

AdvancED will evaluate the board based on three indicators within that standard:

▪ “The governing body establishes policies and supports practices that ensure effective administration of the system and its schools.”

▪ “The governing body operates responsibly and functions effectively.”

▪ “The governing body ensures that the leadership at all levels has the autonomy to meet goals for achievement and instruction and to manage day-to-day operations effectively.”

Charles E. Cox Jr., a lawyer from Macon, told the board this during its monthly meeting Monday: “I struggled exactly how to make recommendations to this board. Everybody up here is an accomplished person in their own field. I don’t think anything productive is gained by trying to, or at least by me trying to, point a finger at any board member and say, ‘You shouldn’t have done this. You should do this.”

Nonetheless, after interviewing board members individually, reading emails and media reports and watching videos, Cox found the following concerns, he said.

▪ Lack of agreement about the binding nature of the code of ethics.

▪ Several board members expressed concern about the conduct of other board members. “And just in case you’re feeling like you’re on the winning side,” Cox added, “it went both ways.”

▪ Lack of agreement about the board’s role in management and oversight versus the superintendent’s role, specifically in the area of hiring and firing.

▪ Executive sessions conducted unnecessarily.

▪ Confidentiality of executive sessions breached.

Harmony

“There’s a lot of frustration by several board members that felt frustrated trying to do their jobs,” Cox said. “I hope, as we walk through this, a path to alleviate some of that frustration will be following what’s in the code of ethics and following the guidance the laws and regulations give us and how a board should operate.”

The board’s spirit of harmony needs improvement, Cox noted.

“More than one board member said I wish we could operate as one board working toward a common goal,” he said.

District 8 representative Frank Myers, the nine-member board’s most vocal critic, said, “I think everybody could be more civil with each other. I’m fine with that, but I’m not going to back up on the things I believe in to get along with everybody.”

District 5 representative Laurie McRae said, “There’s a distinction to be made between acting civil to each other and working together. … We all know that we disagree; it’s about the manner in which we disagree.”

Roles

“There’s a constant tension that’s not uncommon with boards, any boards that I’ve had dealings with: what the board’s role is in personnel decisions and what the superintendent’s role is in personnel decisions,” Cox said.

He reminded the board, “The Georgia Code provides that the fundamental role of a local board of education shall be to establish policy for the school system, with a focus on student achievement. The fundamental role of a local school superintendent shall be to implement the policy established by the local board. It shall not be the role of the local board of education or individual members of such boards to micromanage the superintendent. … But it shall be the duty of the local board to hold the local superintendent accountable in the performance of his or her duties.”

Conflict about those roles sometimes has swirled among MCSD board members when it comes to hiring and firing personnel.

“The Georgia Code provides that all teachers, principals and other certificated professional personnel and other personnel of a local unit of administration shall be employed in and assigned by its governing body on the recommendation of its executive officer,” Cox said. “… The superintendent makes a recommendation for employment, and the board then votes on that.”

Myers told Cox, “Last week, the chair told everybody in the room that we only make one hire, and that’s the superintendent. … If nothing else, I think it’s worth the money we paid you just to hear that, which is we have a function here. This is not a ceremonial board. We’re not here to have barbecue after the meeting.”

Cox emphasized, “The board votes on the recommendation of the superintendent. … Board of education members collectively and individually remain neutral and do not become involved in the review of applications for vacant positions and the screening process except in the recruitment and selection of the superintendent.”

Executive sessions

Disclosing matters discussed in executive sessions, meaning the portion of a public meeting that the law allows to be closed, is prohibited by state law, Cox said, “unless the privilege has been waived by majority vote of the whole board.”

Myers, a self-employed lawyer, said he enjoyed meeting with Cox and appreciates “what you’re trying to do,” but he disagrees with him about who may waive the attorney-client privilege.

“That back room is just poison and has been poison for years,” Myers said. “I get that the attorney-client privileged information should not be discussed in public. But one thing I think we all agree on is that when there is information passed in that room that violates a criminal statute, I don’t think anybody questions whether or not that can be repeated in public. And I have done that on numerous occasions with numerous law enforcement officials, and I want the board to know I will continue to do that.”

Myers said he reported to the Georgia attorney general “a year and a half ago violations of the Open Meetings Act.”

District 7 representative Cathy Williams said, “I want the public to rest assured that I have never taken part in any executive session meeting in which any criminal laws have been broken or even come close,” Williams said. “… I think I speak for the majority if not almost all of these school board members that would say, ‘That would not be tolerated.’”

Board chairwoman Pat Hugley Green of District 1 said the attorney general’s office has said in its reply to Myers’ allegation that the board has not violated the Open Meetings Act.

Hope

Cox concluded, “I hope that this different perspective will provide the board some insight and maybe cause you to look in a different way at how the code of ethics is supposed to operate, the guidance it should give you,” Cox said. “… I do truly believe that compliance with the regime and the system that’s set out in the code of ethics leads to a more healthy board environment, where decisions can be more of a joint process, because, ultimately, you want to move beyond having to count to five.”

District 4 representative Naomi Buckner told Cox, “I also had a good conversation with you too. I hope that it has made a difference. … I fear that is hasn’t.”

Superintendent David Lewis thanked Cox. He also thanked the board “for caring enough about our accreditation process and the future of our district to enlist your services. … I’m hoping, like I’d like to believe everybody at this table does, that this is the beginning of a healthier organization moving forward that indeed is couched in a foundation and formed on the basis of dignity, respect and holding ourselves to high standards.”

The administration and board should be, Lewis said, “focused on only – and I mean only – on what is in the best interest of our school district going forward in terms of performance and academic achievement. … There will be differences. It’s not so much the what; it’s the how.”

The board voted 6-2 on Aug. 21 to hire Cox for no more than $15,000. Voting yes were Green, vice chairwoman and countywide representative Kia Chambers, Vanessa Jackson of District 3, Buckner, McRae and Williams. John Thomas of District 2 and Myers voted no. Mark Cantrell of District 6 was absent.

Cox has worked with school districts, including MCSD, on “both sides” of education employee issues, Green said during the August work session, as well as with the Georgia Association of Educators, the Professional Association of Georgia Educators and local governments in Warner Robins and Spalding County. McRae also said during the work session she suggested Cox to Green after two attorney friends vouched for him.

This story was originally published October 19, 2017 at 5:55 PM with the headline "Independent counsel tells MCSD board how controversial conduct might affect accreditation."