Author Topic: Newton: spicy BOE meatball after wrestler vapes on soc. media week of state meet  (Read 770 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline nicname

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 15788
  • Deal with it.
    • View Profile
Thought this one might prompt some discussion here at gE.

https://harveycountynow.com/all-news/board-members-allege-threats-legal-violations-during-school-board-gathering

Multiple Newton Board of Education members stated that the board violated open meeting law during a two-hour-long executive session Wednesday evening.

The gathering, held at 5:30 p.m.Wednesday night, was aimed at changing district rules to allow an athlete to compete at a state tournament after violating the district’s code of conduct, according to four sources with knowledge of the matter.

Newton Board of Education Member Brenna Haines said she plans to file complaints with the Kansas Attorney General’s office. She said she was threatened to vote a certain way during the special Wednesday board meeting, and the board of education violated multiple state laws governing meetings, including the Kansas Open Meetings Act.

“Us holding that meeting, we were under duress,” she said.

At the heart of the issue is a two-hour executive session to discuss matters related to a student.

According to the school district, Board Members Matt Treaster, Mallory Morton, and Luke Edwards called the meeting on Tuesday to discuss a student-related matter.

State law allows for closed-door sessions to discuss confidential student information. Open meeting laws don’t allow a government to discuss and craft general policy during executive sessions.

Max Kautsch, an attorney whose practice focuses on open meeting law and who represents the Kansas Press Association, explained the Kansas Open Meetings Act.

“The purpose of recessing into executive session, generally speaking, is to deal with private matters to some extent,” he said. “Making policy that doesn’t apply to any particular individual doesn’t violate privacy concerns.”

Haines, as well as Board Members Andy Ortiz and Melissa Schreiber, stated that board members discussed or crafted district policy during an executive session or outside of the public meeting, all over their objections.

“Andy tried to stop it,” Haines said. “Melissa tried to stop it. I asked twice personally before I got up and left and walked out. I stopped the conversation and said, ‘If we are discussing policy, you are opening up these doors.’”

Haines left at 7 p.m., and the executive session continued until 8:30 p.m. She said she didn’t feel comfortable being party to the board’s actions.

Board President Mallory Morton responded to allegations of other board members that the meeting was conducted improperly.

“As you know, I cannot confirm or deny, because I am not legally allowed to discuss executive session, but I am confident that there were no KOMA [Kansas Open Meeting Act] violations,” Morton said.

Edward also said he did not believe the Board violated the law.

“I believed there was information other board members needed to be aware of regarding a student matter. The only way for that information to be shared with all board members is to hold an official meeting, and since it involved a student matter it had to be discussed in executive session. “

Following, with no discussion, Edwards recited a motion that would change school policy to allow for deviations to the athletic code of conduct of the district, based on administrative discretion. The change was also made to be retroactive to past decisions and infractions.

“The motion made during Wednesday night’s meeting was to ensure the language in the NHS code of conduct, regarding discipline, reflects language that can be found in the student handbook,” Edwards stated later in the week adding that he didn’t read a prepared statement but language already present in the student handbook. “I did not make the language up Wednesday night- other than changing the word “chart” with “code of conduct” and adding “when deemed appropriate,” he stated.

That motion was seconded by Board Member Dayna Steinmetz and approved shortly after by a vote of 4-2. Ortiz and Schreiber voted against the motion.

Kautsch was asked about the meeting and shared Haines’s opinion that the action broke open meetings law.

“They needed to recess for student matters, and they needed to come back out and craft and discuss policy. Not doing so was a violation of KOMA,” he said.

The reason for the meeting

The board was informed by email Tuesday that district administration had addressed a student matter.

 “I got an email at 12:58 p.m. that there was a situation with one of our athletes and the admins were working on a solution but he would not be participating in an activity,” Ortiz said.

Superintendent Fred Van Ranken stated that three board members, Edwards, Morton and Treaster, then called for a special board meeting. The notification was sent out at 1:51 p.m. Tuesday, according to Van Ranken. The meeting was scheduled for 5:30 p.m., Wednesday.

“I got an email that there was an emergency meeting, and I started to piece two and two together,” Ortiz said.

Van Ranken declined to provide any information about the circumstances leading up to the meeting, administrative actions, or what took place during an executive session, as it involved a student-related matter.

“The goal was to discuss a student matter around the code of conduct policy and what could be considered extenuating circumstances,” Van Ranken said when asked for an explanation of why the meeting was called.

Van Ranken did confirm that district administration did not request to hold the meeting.

Edwards explained his reasoning to being one of the board members to call the meeting and eventually approving the language change. 

“After discussions I had prior to Wednesday night’s meeting it became apparent to me that the ability to exercise discretion is needed in our code of conduct similar to the student handbook,” he said. He said that he believed administrators have used this discretion in the recent past dealing with students found to have violated the school’s code of conduct.

” If at any time punishments for students involved in activities, beyond wrestling, were lowered in a way that is not reflected in the code of conduct, I would expect that was done because administrators were using good judgment,” he said. “I want them to continue to do so when they feel it is appropriate.”

Haines gave her opinion of why the meeting took place.

“There was a student matter that had to be pushed through,” she said. “There is no secret about that. The state participants in this sport are leaving Friday afternoon, and we had to get this done right away.”

Four sources with knowledge of the matter confirmed an original news tip Harvey County Now received. According to the sources, the meeting took place due to certain board members’ wishes to consider allowing an athlete to participate in the state wrestling tournament. The high school administration learned that an athlete had used a nicotine product in the school. The code of conduct dictates a suspension of 20 percent of the season for such a violation.

Edwards said that the addition of language to the code of conduct was not a requirement for anyone to participate in wrestling.

According to wrestling tournament brackets, all the wrestlers Newton qualified for state participated in the tournament as of Friday.

“As coalition coordinator for Harvey County Drug-Free youth, I”m very disheartened,” Schreiber said about the meeting and its result.

A legal meeting?

The meeting began with confusion on whether the district could legally hold it.

State law requires BOE members to be given two days’ notice of a special meeting unless they waive their right to the notice. Two days’ notice would have meant that the meeting would be held on Friday at the earliest.

“Unless waived, written notice stating the time and place of any special meeting and the purpose for which called shall be given each member of the board at least two days in advance of the special meeting, and no business other than that stated in the notice shall be transacted at such meeting,” the law states.

Three board members, Ortiz, Schreiber, and Haines, declined to sign the waiver of notice.

The board contacted its legal counsel, John Robb, for an opinion if it could move forward with the meeting with board members refusing to waive notice.

Robb told them all seven had to sign the waiver or the district had to wait the two days the board members were entitled to have of notice.

Following more discussion, the Kansas Association of School Boards attorney, Luke Soba, was called, and he stated that only four needed to sign the waiver. The meeting then continued forward.

“We followed advice by legal counsel,” Morton said of the decision to move forward, noting that the Kansas Association of School Boards also represents the district.

Harvey County Now has contacted the Kansas Attorney General’s office for an opinion on if Wednesday’s gathering constituted a legal meeting. It had not heard from the office as of the time this article was published.

Haines said she planned on filing a complaint to the attorney general’s office about the lack of two-day notice.

Behind closed doors

The meeting featured an executive session from 6:25 to 8:30 p.m. 

The session included the high school principal and athletic director at various times. The session was extended six times, according to board clerk notes.

Reporters were not allowed to attend the executive session. Raised voices were regularly heard from the hall.

Three board members did opt to discuss events within the session.

“They talked about policy at the end,” Ortiz said. “I really feel like there’s a bigger issue here that needs to be talked about.”

Ortiz said multiple times he attempted to prevent policy discussion. He also confirmed Haines’s statement on discussion saying she also attempted to stop policy discussion. Schreiber also confirmed policy discussion happened and that Haines and Ortiz tried to curtail the discussion.

Haines alleged that Board President Mallory Morton threatened her multiple times, saying if she insisted on holding the student accountable, district staff or students could be held accountable for any past deviations from policies.

Morton, when asked about Haines’s statement, said she could neither confirm nor deny what went on in the executive session, as it was not legal for her to discuss.

Schreiber was asked about the exchange and didn’t know if it constituted a threat.

Edwards said no threats took place.

“No threats have been made during any board meeting I’ve been a part of,” he said.

Haine also alleged a conflict of interest with the vote. Multiple board members voting in favor of the change had children competing at the state wrestling tournament.

“There’s a huge conflict of interest here,” Haines said. “I believe somewhere in our board policy if you have a conflict of interest you’re supposed to recuse yourself.”

Edwards, denied having a conflict of interest in his actions.

“I pride myself in being objective in the way I treat people, in my job, and as a school board member,” he said. “If I ever lost my ability to remain objective due to personal bias I would recuse myself.”

Moving forward

The BOE has a meeting on Monday, Feb. 27, at 7 p.m. The issue is not listed on the agenda for discussion.

The Kansas Attorney General’s office is responsible for investigating violations of the Kansas Open Meetings Act.

Members who violate it can be fined up to $500. Violations can also be used as possible grounds for public recall of violators, according to the AG’s website.

The site states, however, that fines are rare.

Less literature exists regarding if a meeting didn’t constitute a legal meeting. The statute governing special meetings does not list repercussions for violating it.


(Want to get rid of the ad? Register now for free!)
If there was a gif of nicname thwarting the attempted-flag-taker and then gesturing him to suck it, followed by motioning for all of Hilton Shelter to boo him louder, it'd be better than that auburn gif.

Online LickNeckey

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 5999
  • #fakeposts
    • View Profile
real lesson here is create wiggle room in all policies/handbooks

thanks for listening to my ted talk

Offline BIG APPLE CAT

  • smelly poor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 6331
  • slide rule enthusiast
    • View Profile
nic i tried to read all of that, but as i am not familiar w/ the "players" on the Newton BOE i got confused, and it seems like that article mostly danced around the topic at hand w/o saying outright what the purpose of it was, so like, i guess my question to you is: what is this about?

Offline nicname

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 15788
  • Deal with it.
    • View Profile
nic i tried to read all of that, but as i am not familiar w/ the "players" on the Newton BOE i got confused, and it seems like that article mostly danced around the topic at hand w/o saying outright what the purpose of it was, so like, i guess my question to you is: what is this about?

1. Newton, like many schools, has a strict “code of conduct” for kids in athletics/activities, especially regarding booze, drug use

2. Stud wrestler posts vid double vaping on soc. media last week, and someone reported it to admins.

3. Per code of conduct (and kshsaa, I believe) kids is supposed to be suspended for 20% of season. My guess is admins were going to suspend.

4. State meet was last week. BOE held emergency meeting and exec session to amend code of conduct allowing kid to compete. Newton wrestling is very good. Three BOE members have kids on team.

5. Vote to amend passed 4-2. One BOE member refused to participate. Alleged bullying, conflict of interest and illegality in meeting/executive session. Apparently didn’t go thru proper channels, which would have left kid suspended.

6. Lots of public outcry in town over the whole deal (alleged favoritism, illegality of meeting; including calls for removal of 4 BOE members.
If there was a gif of nicname thwarting the attempted-flag-taker and then gesturing him to suck it, followed by motioning for all of Hilton Shelter to boo him louder, it'd be better than that auburn gif.

Offline BIG APPLE CAT

  • smelly poor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 6331
  • slide rule enthusiast
    • View Profile
sounds like the Newton BOE took the rulebook and put it in a cross-face chicken wing

Offline Kat Kid

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 20444
    • View Profile
I think it is bad for schools to have policies on arbitrary outside of school behavior impacting sports or academic participation. Bad when it was forcing pregnant students to transfer, bad when it is alcohol, tobacco or drug use that is out of school and no legal action has been taken, and I will say mostly bad for most legal issues.

I think if a coach/admin/athletic director thinks a student is a threat to the team (they are accused of a violent crime) then they should be able to do something and I don’t love the thought of a coach getting to have complete discretion over that so maybe there is a team that makes that decision, but I would err way on the side of letting kids participate.

My reasoning for all of this is that k-12 public schools should be as accessible and open as possible for all students and should focus on student behavior on campus, not off for the vast majority of cases.

The problem, is in this case the offense took place at school. I don’t think the kid (or the board) has a leg to stand on. The school should absolutely address that behavior and taking away an extra curricular activity would be a much better way than suspending the kid and having him miss instruction. If they did suspend him, how can you send him while suspended? If there is no consequence at all, then why have the rule?

All that being said, this is some rotten small town school board crap and it is really appalling behavior. The rules around open records are there for a reason and calling an emergency executive session for this and railroading any opposition is poison.

Offline nicname

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 15788
  • Deal with it.
    • View Profile
Kk nailed it as usual. Kids do dumb things. Hell, we all do. That’s just the trees. The actions of BOE is the forest.
If there was a gif of nicname thwarting the attempted-flag-taker and then gesturing him to suck it, followed by motioning for all of Hilton Shelter to boo him louder, it'd be better than that auburn gif.

Offline Spracne

  • Point Plank'r
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *
  • Posts: 20946
  • Scholar/Gentleman, But Super Earthy/Organic
    • View Profile
KK pretty much ticked every box. Agree 100%.

Offline CHONGS

  • Master of the Atom
  • Administrator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 19381
    • View Profile
    • goEMAW.com
It's a good reminder that corruption isn't necessarily dependent on size or money. 

Offline BIG APPLE CAT

  • smelly poor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 6331
  • slide rule enthusiast
    • View Profile
I think it is bad for schools to have policies on arbitrary outside of school behavior impacting sports or academic participation. Bad when it was forcing pregnant students to transfer, bad when it is alcohol, tobacco or drug use that is out of school and no legal action has been taken, and I will say mostly bad for most legal issues.

I think if a coach/admin/athletic director thinks a student is a threat to the team (they are accused of a violent crime) then they should be able to do something and I don’t love the thought of a coach getting to have complete discretion over that so maybe there is a team that makes that decision, but I would err way on the side of letting kids participate.

My reasoning for all of this is that k-12 public schools should be as accessible and open as possible for all students and should focus on student behavior on campus, not off for the vast majority of cases.

The problem, is in this case the offense took place at school. I don’t think the kid (or the board) has a leg to stand on. The school should absolutely address that behavior and taking away an extra curricular activity would be a much better way than suspending the kid and having him miss instruction. If they did suspend him, how can you send him while suspended? If there is no consequence at all, then why have the rule?

All that being said, this is some rotten small town school board crap and it is really appalling behavior. The rules around open records are there for a reason and calling an emergency executive session for this and railroading any opposition is poison.

 :D

Offline nicname

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 15788
  • Deal with it.
    • View Profile
Yeah that was a nice touch by kk
If there was a gif of nicname thwarting the attempted-flag-taker and then gesturing him to suck it, followed by motioning for all of Hilton Shelter to boo him louder, it'd be better than that auburn gif.

Offline Sandstone Outcropping

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 8559
  • a punk who rarely ever took advice
    • View Profile
how does the BOE justify any sort of disciplinary action against a student after this. Agree with everything KK said and the Railer reference was 10/10.

Online Cire

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 19680
    • View Profile
Pro Tip

If you go to Newton, get a burger at Gurty's!

Offline nicname

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 15788
  • Deal with it.
    • View Profile
Pro Tip

If you go to Newton, get a burger at Gurty's!

Good burgers and shakes, but price point is a bit high
If there was a gif of nicname thwarting the attempted-flag-taker and then gesturing him to suck it, followed by motioning for all of Hilton Shelter to boo him louder, it'd be better than that auburn gif.

Offline Gooch

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 9492
    • View Profile
Pro Tip

If you go to Newton, get a burger at Gurty's!

Good burgers and shakes, but price point is a bit high
I took my mom to the Italian place on south Main a while back. It was surprisingly not terrible!

Online Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37049
    • View Profile
I sort of feel for the school board because they are probably unpaid public servants, but they really got this wrong and someone has to be accountable. I also disagree with the notion that they would have been in the right if the kid wasn't vaping on campus. The school has a rule, and that rule needs to apply to everyone the same way. And it's not like someone else caught the kid and filmed him vaping without his knowledge or something. He put that video up himself.