The Columbia School Board almost reversed course Thursday night when they rehashed a motion from the previous night’s meeting.
At issue was how a vacancy left by Leo Lutz, Jr. in December would be filled. Resident Frank Doutrich had filed paperwork with the court to fill the vacant seat since the board had not made an appointment within the 30-day time frame. During the special meeting Wednesday night, the board had voted to table any motion for a vote pending the outcome of a judge’s decision. At Thursday night’s regular school board meeting, however, President Keith Combs revisited the issue. “I’m looking to make a determination as to whether or not the board can proceed with a vote on the candidates that were interviewed,” he said.
Board Director Kathleen Hohenadel pointed out that the board had voted to table the action the previous evening, until the judge’s decision. “We can't just go ahead and appoint someone now, because it’s a very specific motion tabling until a very specific time,” she pointed out.
But Combs persisted, asking for comments leading to a motion to take the previous night’s action off the table.
Board Director Iris Garrido read from a law stating that if a vacancy is not filled by school directors within 30 days, the court of common pleas can intervene. “It's up to the courts,” she said. “It's not in our hands.”
Nathan Saxton, acting as the board’s attorney, said no official notice of action by the court had been received. “Our office has not received any notification or service of a petition being filed, so it's our position that to our knowledge, there's no petition that has been filed with the courts that would preclude the board from having any jurisdiction over the appointment of the vacancy,” Saxton said.
Garrido explained that the reason the board had decided to delay a vote was due to Doutrich’s petition and the judge’s confusion over what to do with it. Garrido then asked Doutrich, who was present, if he had a copy of the petition with him. He replied he had had it at the previous night's meeting but felt he would not need it at this meeting, since the board had declined to accept it when he offered it the night before.
Doutrich also told the board he was aware that the district solicitor had been talking back and forth with the judge. He also said that Director of Operations Tom Strickler had made a comment indicating there had been communication with the judge. “So this is in the making,” he said.
Saxton then reiterated that under the present circumstances there was nothing precluding the board from acting to make an appointment.
“I'm not going to break the law because you're telling me to break the law,” Garrido told Saxton.
Saxton said that the court would have the authority to vacate any appointment made by the board if the petition were found to exist and appoint the person the board deems most fit. In the absence of that, the board appointment would stand.
Hohenadel said, “I just think the cleanest way is to stick with the motion from last evening that it's tabled. I would hate for us to appoint somebody and then have them pulled back out of that seat because the judge vacated them.” She advised the board to wait for the judge’s decision.
Hohenadel asked Saxton if anyone in the attorneys’ office had had any communication with anyone on the district prior to Wednesday night’s meeting.
Saxton replied that he was informed of allegations that the petition was filed but stressed that he had not seen it. “I was informed from somebody in my office that the district had related somebody claimed a petition was filed,” he said.
Hohenadel chided Saxton. “We as a school board came in last evening, and we hadn't heard any of this, so if there was communication between your office and the district office, I would've hoped there would have been from there some upward communication to the board at some point in time,” she said. “There’s nothing more embarrassing than coming into a public meeting – and people presume that we have information that we don't. It hasn't been shared with us.” Hohenadel then asked Doutrich to submit copies of the petition to the school district on Friday, which he agreed to do.
Saxton said that the court would have the authority to vacate any appointment made by the board if the petition were found to exist and appoint the person the board deems most fit. In the absence of that, the board appointment would stand.
Hohenadel said, “I just think the cleanest way is to stick with the motion from last evening that it's tabled. I would hate for us to appoint somebody and then have them pulled back out of that seat because the judge vacated them.” She advised the board to wait for the judge’s decision.
Hohenadel asked Saxton if anyone in the attorneys’ office had had any communication with anyone on the district prior to Wednesday night’s meeting.
Saxton replied that he was informed of allegations that the petition was filed but stressed that he had not seen it. “I was informed from somebody in my office that the district had related somebody claimed a petition was filed,” he said.
Hohenadel chided Saxton. “We as a school board came in last evening, and we hadn't heard any of this, so if there was communication between your office and the district office, I would've hoped there would have been from there some upward communication to the board at some point in time,” she said. “There’s nothing more embarrassing than coming into a public meeting – and people presume that we have information that we don't. It hasn't been shared with us.” Hohenadel then asked Doutrich to submit copies of the petition to the school district on Friday, which he agreed to do.
