Groveport Madison board adopts censures after heated debate over investigation and due process

The Groveport Madison Local School District Board of Education voted Tuesday to adopt censure resolutions against two board members after an hours-long, often acrimonious meeting that centered on an outside investigative report and questions about notice and process.

The board approved a censure for John Kirschner by roll call after lengthy deliberations. Three members voted in favor and two opposed. The board later considered and passed a separate censure for Kathy Walsh after further debate.

Why it matters: the measures mark a culmination of a prolonged internal dispute that board members and public commenters said has consumed time and resources. Opponents of the censures repeatedly argued the process—investigation by outside counsel, timing of agenda postings and the absence of counsel for the targeted members during key stages—created legal and constitutional risk for the district.

Board members who pushed for the censures said staff complaints prompted a lawful investigation that produced documented findings. “The complaint was investigated by outside legal counsel who determined a separate investigation into board member Walsh was warranted,” the resolution text read during the meeting. Supporters said the actions were intended to protect staff and uphold board policy.

Opponents said the investigator’s scope and the way the matter moved forward were improper and chilling. John Kirschner, who objected to the censure of him, told the board he had not received what he considered adequate mailed notice and that his counsel was prevented from participating during parts of the process. “I did not receive lawful notice in the only format that ensures reliability and due process compliance,” Kirschner said in a long statement to the board.

Public comment and legal questions: observers and outside speakers pressed the board to pause and seek outside review. Brian Bardwell, addressing the board during public participation, urged members to “reconsider that position and consider giving the new board time to address these matters, time to do them properly, time to do everything out in the open rather than tying up the new board.” Several board members unsuccessfully moved to refer the matter to the Franklin County prosecutor and the Ohio auditor for review before any action; that motion failed on a roll call.

Process disputes: much of the meeting focused less on the substantive allegations summarized in the investigator’s report than on whether the district followed its own policies and state law in initiating and handling the probe. Several members argued the superintendent and outside counsel had initiated investigatory steps without explicit board authorization and without routing the complaint through the district’s compliance officer as described in policy AC/ACA/ACB. Others said the complaint originated with administrators and that HR procedures required outside investigation.

What the resolutions do: the censures are formal expressions of the board’s disapproval and include requests that the targeted members cease conduct the majority found problematic, take training on board roles and ethics, and otherwise seek to restore trust among staff and the public. The resolutions’ text includes references to multiple board policies and the outside report’s findings.

Next steps: Board members who opposed the actions said they will explore legal options and urged caution about the district’s exposure to litigation. The board did not pause to await independent review by the county prosecutor or auditor. Several speakers asked the board to preserve communications and invoices related to the investigation.

— Reporting for the Groveport Madison Local School District Board meeting.