Board member removed for repeated misconduct

On Board Online • June 6, 2022

By Shubh N. McTague
Staff Counsel

A board of education has the power to remove a school board member for "official misconduct." In order to be considered "official misconduct," it must relate to the board member's official duties, either because of an unauthorized exercise of the board member's powers or the intentional failure to exercise those powers to the detriment of the school district.

In a recent decision by the commissioner of education in Appeal of Williams, a board member challenged his removal by the school board for committing acts constituting official misconduct. Among other things, the record shows the individual referred to another board member as a "loser" and "cry baby."

In this case, the school board brought five charges of official misconduct against the board member alleging:

• Unauthorized exercise of power by deliberately obstructing the board's recruitment of a superintendent.
• Disclosure of confidential information from executive session.
• Disclosure of a student's personally identifiable information.
• A pattern and practice of attacking board colleagues and disrupting board meetings.
• Violations of the code of conduct and rules for board members.

A hearing officer conducted a hearing but prior to a determination being made, the school board election was held and the board member was not reelected to his seat. Notwithstanding, on June 22, 2021, the hearing officer sustained all the charges and on June 29, 2021, by a vote of 5-1-1, the school board removed the board member.

Claiming that there was no evidence to support charges, the board member filed an appeal with the commissioner, seeking reversal of the decision and reinstatement to his seat as of June 29, 2021. Because the board member's term expired on June 30, 2021, the commissioner dismissed his claim for reinstatement to his seat as moot.

However, the commissioner addressed the board member's request for a reversal of the decision. The commissioner stated this claim remained because "[a] person removed from a school district office shall be ineligible to appointment or election to any district office for a period of one year from the date of such removal." Therefore, if the commissioner were to find in his favor, he could be eligible for appointment or election.

In rendering a decision, the commissioner found there was sufficient evidence to warrant removal based on the fourth charge, which was a pattern and practice of attacking board colleagues and disrupting board meetings. On this charge, the hearing officer found that the evidence showed "a pattern of knowing and intentional displays of antagonistic, provocative, inappropriate, and disrespectful conduct ... over the course of several years as a member of the [b]oard." Furthermore, the hearing officer stated that these behaviors "interfered with and compromised the [b]oard's effectiveness and ability to function."

Evidence showed that the board member made inappropriate and derogatory comments toward fellow board members at meetings, sometimes accompanied by threats of violence. For example, the board member:

• Invited another board member "out to the parking lot" to settle a disagreement.
• Told another board member that he was going to back his car over him after a dispute about a board decision.
• Threw his briefcase across the room, scaring several community members.

Another board member testified that several constituents contacted him to complain about that board member's behavior.

As for compromising the board's ability to function, testimony from board members showed that the board member cursed, was verbally abusive, demeaned colleagues and monopolized board meetings to the point where it was "impossible" for the board to carry out its functions. Because of his behavior, one board member withdrew from serving on a committee with him. Another board member stated that he ceased discussing topics during meetings because they were lasting until 1 a.m., due to the board member's conduct. The commissioner stated that these types of disruption constituted official misconduct.

The board member asserted that other board members also behaved badly. However, the commissioner rejected that defense, stating that "each board member has a duty to proceed with constructive discussions aimed at achieving the best possible governance of the school district." Thus, there is no justification in behaving poorly even if others are doing the same.

Based on the evidence, the commissioner dismissed the board member's appeal of his removal.