Cumberland County BOE deadlocks on superintendent evaluation committee as public outrage grows over contract dispute

The Cumberland County Board of Education voted 4-4 on a motion to establish a special committee to develop a new evaluation process and related documents for the board self-evaluation and the director of schools evaluation, and the motion failed.

The vote capped a meeting marked by sustained public comment and sharp questioning from local reporters about the board's handling of allegations tied to fundraising and contract negotiations involving Director of Schools Billy Stepp.

Board members on the prevailing dissent said they lacked time or sufficient boardwide input to hand the evaluation process to a small panel; supporters said a committee would allow focused work so the full board could act on a near-final draft. The motion, as stated on the record, would have required the committee's work to be finalized by May so results could be processed in time for the June meeting and related deadlines.

Craig Clark, a resident who identified himself as living in the county's Third District, urged the board to address what he described as ethical breaches and irregular contract negotiations. "Since that time, I have witnessed 5 board members violate 7 different elements of the boardmanship code of conduct," Clark said during public comment, and later called the prior negotiations "pre arranged and choreographed."

A second public speaker, Steve DeRosa, said the community was speaking up and asked how the district was pursuing an investigative report related to alleged fundraising irregularities at local schools. Board members acknowledged ongoing inquiries. One board speaker said the Tennessee Comptroller's office had recently been present investigating related matters and that the district is aware of "four separate incidents" during the director's tenure that implicated fundraising or cash-handling issues.

At a later point in the meeting, local reporter Tony Perry described heavy public interest and asked board members to explain why five members had voted not to accept the contract that had been proposed for Billy Stepp. "During those years, I've never ever seen such a uproar in my county over the loss of a director of schools," Perry said, and he pressed members for on-the-record explanations.

Board members who spoke in response offered differing rationales. Board member David Matthews (Board member, Cumberland County Board of Education) said his view changed after taking the seat and seeing district matters firsthand: "Once I got to this seat ... I think we could do better. Honestly, that's I think that we can do better, from a leadership standpoint." Board member Miss Hale said she felt the director "isn't leading our schools in the direction where I'd like to see him lead." Board member Van Winkle said he had already provided his reasons in previous meetings.

Several board members and the public disputed media reports that Stepp had been immediately terminated. A number of board speakers and the public described the board action at the prior meeting as rejecting or "not accept[ing] the proposed contract," rather than an immediate termination; speakers also noted Stepp will continue to be paid through June under the current arrangement discussed on the record.

The failed motion to form the special committee was recorded with these votes: Yes ' Miss Hale, David Matthews, Van Winkle and (after changing his earlier pass) Mister Davis; No ' Miss Nichols, Mister Cole, Miss Stout and Mister King. The board chair announced the result as a 4-4 tie and the motion failed.

During discussion leading up to the vote, board members debated whether evaluation drafting belongs in a committee or in a full-board work session. Supporters said a small group could refine technical language and produce a polished draft for a full-board vote; opponents said relegating the task to a committee risks sidelining full-board input on a document that will assess the director and the board.

Board members also discussed timing: they noted the district must complete the evaluation process in time for TSBA (Tennessee School Boards Association) administration and for the June meeting, and that the budget timeline overlaps with evaluation deadlines. One board member pointed out policy references in the process, including policy 5.802 (qualifications and duties of the director of schools) and policy 5.803 (superintendent evaluation reference in discussion).

The meeting closed after a period of media questions and brief answers from board members. The board did not adopt any new evaluation process or refer the item to a committee; the item concluded without further formal action.

The discussion ties into two separate threads the board acknowledged on the record: ongoing internal and comptroller-led inquiries into fundraising or cash-handling at schools, and unresolved questions in the community about the board's vote at the prior meeting on the director's proposed contract.