Southampton County school board rejects broad superintendent probe, debates transparency committee

Mister Rogers asked the Southampton County School Board on Nov. 10 to direct the superintendent to research and report back on a set of governance and grant‑management questions tied to a recent Board of Supervisors’ report. Rogers read a multi‑part motion asking staff to compare district record‑retention practices with the Library of Virginia schedule, review PBIS grant purchases (including workout equipment and massage chairs), audit grant management procedures (including centralized oversight), and document use of VCU‑funded programs and the termination of a workforce development grant. (Mister Rogers)

“Provide the board with justification for these purchases and or recommended remedies if these purchases did not align with the grant funding,” Rogers said while reading his motion.

The motion was seconded by Doctor Kendall and drew extended discussion about whether board members or the district’s lawyers should compile a public response to the supervisors’ report. The chair said the board’s legal counsel is preparing a holistic response and noted the matter may be subject to legal proceedings; several members said they wanted to see the source documents referenced in the supervisors’ interpretation before directing staff to act.

After members debated scope and timing, the chair called the question. Board members voted by show of hands and the motion failed for lack of a majority.

Following the failed motion, several members proposed a narrower, exploratory step: an ad hoc transparency and accountability committee to draft procedures, recommend scope and membership, and suggest ways to improve public access to board materials. Mister Rogers said such a committee could examine public engagement tools, meeting materials, FOIA/FOIA‑adjacent training and the presentation of board packets; other members asked staff to prepare a written draft for the Nov. 24 work session or to return a scope in December. The board did not record a final vote on the exploratory committee in the portion of the transcript provided.

What happens next: Board members said attorneys will complete a legal review of the supervisors’ report and submitted documents; members asked for a concrete committee proposal or draft language to consider at a future work session. The transcript contains no further formal votes on the transparency committee during the meeting excerpts provided.

Sources and evidence: The account above is drawn from the board meeting transcript, including Mister Rogers’ motion text, the chair and trustees’ discussion of legal counsel involvement, and the failed vote.