The Putnam County School Board voted to approve a slate of personnel recommendations on Aug. 5, including a disputed hiring for purchasing director, after several board members said the district did not follow state statute on reviewing nominations.

Board member Phil (first name not specified on the record) objected to the purchasing-director hire before the vote, saying the position should have been presented to the board for review of qualifications and job description before an offer was finalized. He said he had reviewed the applicants and found none met the qualifications he expected for a director-level procurement role and that the board had not been given adequate backup materials before the hire was made.

Human-resources director Miss Whitehurst told the board the district treats offers as contingent on final board approval and said the district follows common practice across the state. "It's in board policy that the board has final approval on any appointment, and so they are contingent," Whitehurst said. She added the district would add language to onboarding packets in the future clarifying that new hires understand final approval rests with the board.

Board attorney Mr. Holmes quoted the controlling statute during the discussion: "the district school board shall act upon written recommendations submitted by the district school superintendent," and said the statute gives the board authority to reject a nomination for "good cause." Holmes told the board that he had advised members previously that the board has an obligation to review superintendent nominations and that rejecting nominations is permitted under the statute.

After extended discussion, the board first voted to approve the list of appointments in agenda item F-3 except for the purchasing-director appointment. That motion passed. The board then held a separate vote on the superintendent's recommendation for purchasing director and approved it by a 3–2 margin.

The record shows the debate centered on process and statutory interpretation rather than evidence that the candidate had engaged in wrongdoing: members raising concerns asked for clearer documentation of minimum qualifications, job descriptions and candidate applications for director-level hires going forward. Whitehurst and the superintendent said the district will add a written contingency notice to its onboarding packet and that staff are available for members to review candidate materials on request.

Board members who objected said they will press for clearer pre-vote disclosure of director-level hiring materials in future agendas; supporters said the superintendent must retain flexibility to recruit and place administrators. The board did not take further personnel action in the meeting concerning the hiring process.

The board did not place any statutory citation in its agenda packet other than the discussion recorded in the meeting; board attorney Holmes referenced Section 1012.22 while explaining the board’s role in acting on superintendent recommendations.

The discussion occurred as part of the board's consideration of agenda item F-3 (personnel appointments). The final separate vote approving the purchasing director was recorded as passing 3–2.