Community urges Fort Smith School Board to reinstate Northside coach Felix Curry; board cites contract and statute

Dozens of residents, parents and coaches urged the Fort Smith School District Board of Education on Monday to reinstate Northside High School coach Felix Curry after the district reassigned him, saying the board has authority to reverse the move.

At the start of a lengthy citizens’ participation segment, attorney Joey McCutcheon, who said he represents Curry, told the board, “We were told by at least 3 separate school board members that we, meaning the board, had no authority of hiring and firing the employees within the district.” He cited what he identified as Title 6‑17‑303 of the Arkansas Code and school district policy, and asked the board to “make a motion tonight to reinstate coach Curry.”

McCutcheon and a string of residents described Curry as a community mentor who has worked with students in and out of school. Parents and former players recounted instances in which Curry intervened for students, provided clothing and transportation, and connected athletes with colleges. “He cares about the kids more than the wins and losses,” parent Brandon Croom said. Several speakers asked the board directly to vote to reinstate Curry during the meeting.

District legal counsel told the board the district’s standard employee contract includes a clause recognizing “the authority of the superintendent to reassign employee to any other duties in the best interests of the district.” Counsel also cited a state statute (recorded in the meeting as “Arkansas Code Annotated six‑thirteen‑six 36”), saying that statute vests employment‑related decision authority in superintendents and principals. Counsel further said the grievance filed over the reassignment did not advance to level 2 within the policy’s five working‑day window and therefore was considered resolved under district policy.

Board members who spoke framed the situation as both a personnel matter and a procedural issue. Member (appearing via Zoom) said the board must “take emotion out of this” and follow the grievance policy; another board member requested executive session to discuss personnel and pre‑litigation matters. The board moved to go into executive session later in the meeting to consider personnel and pre‑litigation matters.

Speakers and several board members emphasized transparency and the community impact of the reassignment. “Without letting the community know the reasons as to why you did this, it's just filled with speculation,” Shay Norwood told the board. Multiple speakers warned that lack of public explanation had damaged trust.

The board did not take a public vote to reinstate Curry during the meeting. Legal counsel's statement pointing to the superintendent's contract clause and the cited statute was the district's formal legal explanation for the reassignment process provided on the public record. The board moved into executive session on a later agenda item identified as pre‑litigation and personnel.

The public record at this meeting shows strong community support for reinstatement, repeated requests that the board act, and the district’s legal position that the superintendent has reassignment authority under employees’ contracts and state law. The board signaled it would continue personnel discussions in executive session and consider next steps consistent with policy and legal counsel’s guidance.