Charles Christian
ST. JOSEPH, Mo. (News-Press NOW) — A School Board meeting on Monday that could have resulted in a possible future change of board leadership ended with rescinding the recommendation for a called meeting to replace the president.
After over an hour and a half of discussion following the regularly scheduled meeting, the St. Joseph School District Board of Education decided not to proceed with a vote to consider a separate meeting to replace current President LaTonya Williams.
Williams, whose board term expires in 2027, was recently re-elected as board president. Williams said she feels this latest move is a reflection of changes in the makeup of the board and represents what she claims is a longtime attempt to remove her from her leadership position.
A standing room only crowd of citizens showed up for the meeting, with several signing up for the open discussion portion of the special meeting.
Speakers included concerns about the political nature of the proposal, with some citing concerns about special interest groups like the Herzog Foundation taking the focus off key educational priorities of the district.
Other speakers addressed more general concerns that the board was seeking a change of leadership titles without focusing enough energy on priorities like test scores, building improvement and staff retention.
After members of the public spoke, each board member was allowed the opportunity to address their concerns and to address the reasons for either supporting or opposing a board leadership change.
Kim Miller, who called the meeting, said while she initially supported Williams as president, she has since had second thoughts due to what Miller perceived as a “lack of support” for newly elected superintendent Dr. Ashly McGinnis.
Miller added, she felt the tension between board president Williams and superintendent McGinnis had become a distraction from the stated priorities of the board.
Board member Jennifer Kerns cited a lack of unity on the board and a perceived unwillingness to collaborate as her reasons for wanting the meeting.
Board Vice President Ronda Chesney also cited a perceived lack of support for McGinnis as a reason to reconsider the role of Williams.
Member Mike Moore publicly cited support for McGinnis, but noted that he opposed a change in board leadership.
Tom Richmond, the newest board member, made no specific reference to a change in board leadership but did say that he has been disappointed in the unity of the board under its current leadership and wants the board to rally behind the new superintendent.
Whitney Lanning voiced support for Williams and said, the board members who called for the meeting may have been in violation of Sunshine Laws by excluding certain members in their planning. Furthermore, she noted the financial support of the Herzog Foundation for certain board members as a key reason for rhetoric online and behind the scenes in opposition to Williams.
Williams spoke last and said she has sought to act according to policy and law when making decisions as both a board member and as president. She also expressed public support for McGinnis, saying that any criticism was not meant to be personal, and apologized if her questions were perceived as criticism.
Williams added, her focus would continue to be upon the staff and children of the district and hoped that this meeting would remind all members — including Williams herself — about the importance of more open communication and receptivity to one another.
Williams then called the board to take action based upon the agenda item, and board members declined to make a formal motion to call for a meeting for a change in leadership. The board then voted to adjourn.
During the formal meeting, the board discussed with the new treasurer, Dr. Robert Hedgecorth, the possibility of an audit. Hedgecorth introduced new software that demonstrated what he called a better tracking of proposed budget numbers and answered questions about deficits that have been brought to light in recent weeks.
Hedgecorth recommended, the current auditing firm employed by the board be allowed to do its work between now and the end of the year. He also added, in response to further board discussion of the nature of an audit, that a different outside firm or an individual appointed by the board could be brought in for a financial audit instead of the state, because the state’s audit includes policies beyond the financial and takes longer. The board tabled the discussion of the kind of audit it would request.
After the meeting, Williams said she was relieved and said she intended to be more intentional in her communication, both through speaking and listening with the rest of her board colleagues.
Click here to follow the original article.
