Harford County board declines funded investigation into alleged malfeasance; motion fails after procedural dispute
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
A board member’s motion to fund an external investigation into alleged malfeasance involving the superintendent and other officials failed after debate over scope, who may vote and whether a liaison should be board-affiliated. The motion drew 5 yes, 2 no and 3 abstentions.
A motion to fund an outside investigation into alleged malfeasance by Harford County Public Schools (HCPS) officials failed during the board’s special open session on Jan. 7.
Board member Mark placed the motion on the floor, saying, "I'm moving that the board approve the conduct and funding of an investigation to determine whether the superintendent of schools, any other Harford County Board of Education official, employee, board member, or anyone associated with the Board of Education engaged in acts of malfeasance, misfeasance, and or nonfeasance in office," and asked the board to authorize funding for the inquiry.
Diane Alvarez seconded the proposal. Board attorney Greg cautioned that the motion was broad and recommended breaking it into narrower, discrete votes before the board committed funds or appointed liaisons, saying, "The motion goes to, really what the discussion will generate around specific topics." Several members pressed for clarity about who would conduct the work and whether any board member should serve on the investigative team.
Board member Melissa Hahn urged the board to use an independent outsider, arguing, "It needs to be an outside entity from HCPS. No one from the board should be associated with the investigation," and several other members echoed concerns about independence and transparency. Supporters of a liaison said a single, identified point of contact was needed so the board would be kept apprised as the outside inquiry proceeded.
The board also spent considerable time debating whether the motion effectively concerned employee discipline — a category that can limit the student member’s participation — and which majority threshold applied. One member summarized the standing vote counts during the discussion: there were two nos, three abstentions, and five yeses. Because the measure required a majority of the full board (six votes when the student member is entitled to vote), the motion did not reach the threshold and failed.
The board did not approve funding or appoint any investigators at the meeting. Members said details about any future inquiry (scope, funding limits and who would conduct it) would need to be clarified in subsequent action if the board chooses to revisit the matter.