Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment Policy Attorney Hire topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public commenters protest board’s public-comment policy and raise questions about attorney hire at Hardeman County School Board meeting
Summary
Three people spoke during public comment at the Sept. 9 Hardeman County School Board meeting, criticizing the board's public-comment policy, saying a board attorney was acting without board approval, and questioning changes to meeting dates and board accountability.
Several public commenters used the board’s public-comment period at the Sept. 9 Hardeman County School Board meeting to challenge the board’s public-comment policy and to say the board had engaged an attorney without the board’s formal approval.
One commenter criticized how speakers are listed and allowed to speak, saying the board repeatedly denies agenda access to community members and asserting, "the board attorney that they have hired or whatever Miss Craig is doing, the board members did not approve it. Okay? So but that attorney is here. So, ultimately, us, the taxpayers, are gonna pay for this attorney that the board did not approve." The commenter did not give a name in the transcript and is listed in the record as a community speaker.
Jennifer Craig, who identified herself as an attorney with Sellers Craig and Hayden in Jackson, Tenn., addressed the board during public comment and said the board’s public-comment policy — adopted in 2023 — limits remarks to items listed on the agenda. "You have a policy that was approved back in 2023 regarding public comment period, and it clearly says comments shall be limited to topics listed on the agenda," Craig said. Craig also stated that her firm "represents the Board of Education."
Other public commenters raised complaints that meeting days had been changed to Tuesdays without apparent board approval and said staff and board processes lacked transparency. A commenter alleged the superintendent, referenced in the transcript as "Doctor Smith," had assumed authority that the commenter said belongs to the board.
Board members and the clerk did not record a formal response to the public commenters in the portion of the transcript covering public comment. The board referred to its policy language during the exchange and indicated that public-comment speakers must have signed up in advance and be addressing an actionable item on the agenda.
No formal board action on hiring or policy changes was recorded during the Sept. 9 meeting. The concerns raised by speakers were recorded in the public-comment portion of the meeting and, according to commenters, concern transparency and process rather than immediate policy changes or votes.
