Parent raises conflict-of-interest and transparency concerns over vendor work; board counsel cautions about defamation in public comment

A public commenter identified in the transcript as a parent used the meeting’s public-comment period to question the district’s vendor selection and transparency. The commenter asked who else had been considered aside from Emerald Education and requested comparative cost information, saying parents should be surveyed via district tools such as ParentSquare. The commenter alleged they had observed intimidation by the school lawyer and board leaders during prior interactions and urged the board to hold a public forum for parents across the county to ask questions.

Earlier in the meeting, a board-affiliated speaker cautioned attendees about the scope of public comment, noting that individuals who have specific complaints about employees should submit complaints in writing to the superintendent or board chair to avoid defamatory remarks. That speaker outlined the elements of defamation under Virginia law and said the policy is intended to protect employees and speakers.

The parent’s claim about procurement named Emerald Education and noted that Emerald was later acquired by a public consulting group (ECG/PCG); the parent asked for broader transparency about vendor consideration and costs. The meeting transcript records the complaint and the earlier caution from counsel; there is no on-the-record investigation or formal response to the procurement claim in the provided segments.