Parents and NAACP members press Union County school board on staffing, central-office pay and ignored DEI recommendations

Several parents and NAACP-affiliated speakers used the board's public-comment period to press the Union County Board of Education on teacher staffing and central-office compensation and to say the district has failed to follow recommendations from a citizens advisory committee.

At the Dec. 2 meeting, a parent introduced as Kelly Senecola asked for a clear plan to address teacher shortages — particularly in special education — and asked who is responsible when long-term gaps in instruction occur. "We wanna understand the process, the accountability, structure, and how we can work together with both boards to make sure every child in Union County receives education they're entitled to," the speaker said.

Former UCPS counselor Alexis Stadler said she had reviewed public salary materials and raised concerns about local supplements for central-office staff. "Some of the positions at UCPS central office have a published local supplement scale the way school building staff do...the numbers for these supplements are sometimes higher than a teacher's entire year salary," Stadler said, urging the board to publicly advocate for a state budget that would enable teacher pay increases.

Speakers who identified themselves with the NAACP said the district had not implemented major recommendations from a citizens advisory committee, including hiring a DEI officer and conducting comparative equity analyses. "When you say we have never presented a plan, you are not being truthful. That plan is on your desk, and you are ignoring its recommendations," Reagan Shaw told the board, asking why the district had not followed through.

Archie Hensley said his public-records request and prior meeting assurances about a district–NAACP partnership had not been adequately addressed. "It did not happen, and it has not happened," Hensley said of a promised announcement; he renewed an offer to work with the district.

Board chair and members did not respond during public comment; the chair later moved on to routine business. The board's rules for public comment were read earlier in the meeting, reminding speakers of time limits and restrictions on discussing personnel or confidential student matters.

The concerns voiced during public comment were framed as calls for transparency, advocacy and follow-up rather than requests for immediate board action. The board did not announce any new initiatives or votes in response to the public comments at the meeting's conclusion.