BY RUDY TAYLOR
rudy@taylornews.org
CANEY — By a 4-3 margin, USD 436 Board of Education members on Monday voted to drop their current nepotism policy, returning instead to a less restrictive one first adopted in 1990.
Board members Jack Kopfman, Mark Artherton, Suellen Holtzman and David Deal voted to drop a policy approved by the board in 2008 which prohibits the employment of specific family members within the school district. Darlene Sanders, Debbie Morrison and Bobby Hawthorne voted against removing the current policy.
“I have not been given a good reason for making this change,” Sanders said. “I believe board members should be above reproach as we serve on this board. We should not be here for financial gain.”
Sanders said she believed turning away from the board’s current nepotism policy would compromise the integrity of the board.
Board member Hawthorne was more direct, pointing to Deal and Holtzman.
“You were on this board when the current nepotism policy was approved, and you voted for it,” said Hawthorne, who has been on the school board since 2009. “Now you both say you don’t remember even having it.”
Hawthorne cited the words of Kansas Association of School Boards attorney Paul Getto who came to Caney in 2008 to go over details of the nepotism policy with the school board.
“He told me that this board paid $7,000 to have a new set of policies written, and he went over the nepotism policy line by line with you,” Hawthorne said.
Kopfman spoke up, saying he did not recall Getto going over the policy line by line with the board members.
Hawthorne again pointed to Deal and Holzman, asking for their resignations, and when Supt. Danny Fulton expressed agreement with Deal and Holtzman, Hawthorne also asked for his resignation.
None of them responded to Hawthorne’s request.
The nepotism issue came to light in March when Hawthorne criticized veteran board members and Superintendent Danny Fulton for allowing family members of board members to be hired when, Hawthorne claimed, it violated school policy.
An ensuing discussion by board members at that March meeting revealed confusion about the exact nepotism policy that had been approved previously by the school board.
Superintendent Danny Fulton said at the March meeting that he would investigate the exact nepotism policy that is in the school board’s manual and return it for discussion at Monday’s meeting.
However, the nepotism issue was generated following a situation involving the Caney Valley High School varsity cheerleaders earlier in the school year. That situation, which came to public light in February with the airing of a video on the YouTube internet website, showed a CVHS cheerleader restrained with athletic bandages and thrown in the air in an cheerleading exercise. The cheerleader, whose arms and legs were bound by the bandages, fell to the floor head first despite some attempts by cheerleaders to catch her.
The anonymous person posting that video on YouTube, which has since been removed, claimed that the cheerleader was bullied by older cheerleaders.
Discussion of that incident took place at a special meeting in February. The board took no action at that meeting. The cheerleader sponsor is Vicky Deal, who is the wife of board president David Deal.
At Monday’s school board meeting, board member Debbie Morrison expressed concerns over making a change, even asking if board members who had relatives working for the school should vote on dropping the nepotism policy.
That question was referred to the school’s attorney, John Horst, who said he saw no specific problem with board members voting on the nepotism policy. In their board information packets, board members had a copy of a letter from Horst wherein he recommended the change in policy, reverting back to the 1990 version.
The discussion followed a heated public forum, held at the beginning of the meeting, when three parents expressed opposition to removing the current nepotism policy.
Mike Marshall, the parent of a freshmen cheerleader, said he was upset with the way administrators and the cheerleading coach handled a recent situation which involved his daughter and other cheerleaders.
“When something like this happens, who holds our coaches and teachers accountable?” Marshall asked.
A former cheerleader’s mother, Traci Toy, leveled the same complaint about cheerleaders who allegedly bullied her daughter.
“I am sorry I didn’t speak up at the time — I should have,” Toy said. “When I heard about Mr. Marshall’s daughter and everything she was going through, I knew I had to come and tell you how I felt.”
Toy said she found it impossible to deal with administrators and the coach at the time.
“Everyone here is so connected,” she said. “That’s why I am so concerned about this thing of doing away with the nepotism policy.”
Cindy Nunneley-Biehler, a parent of a CVHS student and also a recent write-in candidate for the USD 436 Board of Education, expressed opposition to doing away with the current nepotism policy.
“I think it may be illegal to do so,” she said.
Another unsuccessful candidate for the USD 436 Board of Education, Shane Miller, said he, too, opposed the board’s alleged intent to vote out the current nepotism policy.
When those opposing the nepotism policy change finished their arguments, board president David Deal said, “We have the school attorney’s reasons here for changing the policy, and looking at Kopfman asked, “Do we have a motion?”
Kopfman made the motion and Artherton seconded it. There were no comments made by those voting in favor of dropping the current policy and returning to the 1990 version.
