When the attorney who has represented the Pine Bluff School District for three decades decides to quit, explaining he believes the school board has taken actions without the best interests of the district or patrons in mind, it is time to worry.
Spencer Robinson has informed the board that neither he nor any other attorney with the Ramsay, Bridgforth, Robinson and Raley law firm would be representing the district in the future.
Robinson is right. The ownership of the problem rests with the board alone.
District directors have served notice on Superintendent Jerry O. Payne that his three-year contract is being terminated after one-year, effective June 30. We learned of Payne’s termination from the superintendent following an executive session behind closed doors. The board has not discussed the reasoning for the action in public.
Some district patrons have asked for an opportunity to meet with the school board in a public forum to ask questions about the termination notice. That’s a reasonable request. However, the board is dragging its feet on the subject of a forum to discuss why Payne will be removed as chief executive officer of the district.
Independent reporting for Pine Bluff & Jefferson County since 1879.
Board President Herman Horace said it was determined there were not enough valid signatures (only 47) on the petition seeking a public forum. The board decided Tuesday to send the petition back to Pine Bluff attorney Gene E. McKissic and require 50 valid signatures.
Board vice president Donna Barnes said she had no problem with the holding of a public forum. That was the right answer. She deserves an “A-.” She would have gotten an “A” if she had not earlier resisted a call for the forum.
Board secretary Freddie M. Johnson made a motion to send the petition back to McKissic. That was the wrong response. The retired school teacher deserves an “F” grade for failing to understand the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
In addition to guaranteeing freedom of religion, speech and the press, the same amendment establishes “the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
Does it matter if the number seeking the forum is 25, 50 or 500? District patrons have a right to ask the board why the decision was made to remove Payne as superintendent at the end of the current school year.
And, it doesn’t matter if the individuals requesting a meeting with the board holds high or low office, heads a bank or drives a garbage truck.
The public – district patrons, district employees and the students – must be told openly and candidly the reasoning behind the termination notice. Has Payne been an unsatisfactory, mediocre or good superintendent? That is what the public expects to hear from the directors.
That means a frank public discussion, not a meeting behind closed doors. The board must detail reasons for the proposed termination and Payne should be allowed a reasonable period to explain his actions.
The board has the right to impose some reasonable restrictions on time limits for speakers.
When an attorney with Robinson’s reputation says, “I think it is apparent that the board needs a new lawyer to represent their interests,” someone needed to start asking about the board’s current roadmap.
No one will claim ownership after the train wreck.