Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents accuse board leadership of silencing staff; complaints and EPSB referrals cited
Summary
During public comment at the Dec. 10 Nelson County Board of Education meeting, several residents and staff alleged board chair Amanda Deaton used board processes to silence critics, referenced complaints to the Education Professional Standards Board (EPSB), and urged accountability; no formal board response was recorded at the meeting.
Several residents used the board’s public-comment period on Dec. 10 to accuse board leadership of retaliating against staff and to call for clearer accountability.
Amy Durbin, who identified herself as a parent, grandparent and team member of Nelson County Schools, told the board she is “deeply concerned” about what she called a “rot of corruption” and said board chair Amanda Deaton has sought to silence staff members by filing complaints and urging personnel action. Durbin said complaints and requests for staff information were used to pressure employees and described filings she said were made to the Education Professional Standards Board (EPSB). “They filed unlawful complaints to censor people,” she said, urging continued public scrutiny.
Tara Rogers read a statement on behalf of New Haven staff member Tiffany Clark, who could not attend the meeting. The statement said recent board decisions related to facilities and a lack of transparent communication have directly affected Clark’s family and forced a move outside the district; it also said community planning for a New Haven facility has produced no progress after more than two years.
Kurt Bairfield, speaking for a group of educators, said he was notified by human resources of a complaint that he later learned came from the board chair. Bairfield said he received heavily redacted records and that an EPSB complaint referenced in district documents was closed with no action. “All documents and correspondence to or from the school board’s attorney are being withheld due to attorney-client privilege,” he said, adding that he was left to assume the redacted portion concerned possible actions against staff.
Board members did not offer a substantive public reply during the comment period. The meeting record shows no formal disciplinary action or rebuttal offered at the Dec. 10 session; the comments prompted subsequent items on the agenda but no immediate procedural sanctions.
What happens next: commenters asked the board to provide clearer public explanations and to ensure personnel processes are not used to silence staff. The board later convened an executive session for the superintendent’s evaluation; the transcript does not show a public response to the specific accusations recorded during public comment.
