Board debate over code of conduct and proposed censure leads to referrals, closed sessions and withdrawal of censure item

A proposed code of conduct and an associated potential censure of a board member were among the meeting’s most contentious items on Feb. 12.

Chair McGee presented a nine‑point "Code of Conduct and Standards of Governance" that emphasizes students first, integrity, preparedness, oversight, superintendent accountability, transparency, parental rights, respectful dialogue and safety. McGee said she drafted the document after board members raised concern that an ethics statement the board used to sign was no longer in place.

Several board members objected to how the document was produced and whether it duplicated existing norms. Board member Jenkins and others said the board previously had a VSBA ethics statement and that some members refused to sign it; Jenkins said she preferred returning to the VSBA version rather than adopting a new board draft. Other members supported the in‑house code as clearer and more closely aligned to state law. "I personally like the code of conduct and standards of governance that you have brought forth for us because it calls into play so many of the aspects that we as board members need to be in alignment with," one member said.

Procedural votes followed multiple motions. The board twice considered sending the draft to the Policy Review Committee (PRC) for further work and at one point tied on whether to table or leave the document off the table. After further motions and discussion, the board ultimately voted to send the code to PRC to be reviewed in conjunction with the norms and protocols; that motion passed on roll call.

Separately, the board held a second closed session to receive legal counsel and to consider whether board member Slinglove had violated the superintendent’s contract and board policies related to an inquiry about a Hill Point safety incident. Public commenter Dr. Deborah Wahlstrom urged caution on the use of censure, saying censure must rest on publicly stated facts and should not be used to silence oversight questions. Later in the meeting, board member Jenkins moved to withdraw the censure item from the agenda for that night; the motion to withdraw was seconded and carried by roll call, removing the censure from consideration.

Chair McGee said the code was offered for discussion and that creation of the document did not itself adopt it as policy. Several board members asked that the code be developed or revised with input through PRC or a small committee so it would come back to the board with a clear, enforceable framework.

The episode highlighted present tensions among members over governance, accountability and the boundaries of board oversight of the superintendent. No formal censure was adopted at the Feb. 12 meeting.