Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment Termination topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Community protests Goochland board's firing of superintendent; speakers cite race and fiscal concern
Summary
Dozens of residents, staff and students urged the Goochland County School Board to explain its decision to dismiss Dr. Michael Cromartie, calling the termination "without cause," alleging racial bias in replacing him, and warning of financial and morale impacts.
Dozens of Goochland County residents, teachers and students criticized the school board's recent decision to terminate Dr. Michael Cromartie and to appoint Dr. Andrew Armstrong as superintendent. Public comment at the meeting was dominated by speakers who called for transparency, questioned the timing and process of the dismissal, and raised concerns about the financial cost to taxpayers.
At least one speaker read a submitted statement asserting that Cromartie's termination and the removal of equity language from district policies had "increased racial tension" and could lead to boycotts. A number of commenters said they believed the dismissal, described repeatedly as "without cause," had the appearance of racial motivation because the board replaced a Black superintendent with a white successor. "You fired him without cause and you've now replaced him with a white man," one public commenter said.
Speakers also raised dollar figures in broad terms: several said the severance and related legal fees would exceed $200,000; one said the board had incurred about $240,000 in unbudgeted legal fees. Board members did not provide detailed financial accounting during the meeting and cited the confidentiality of personnel matters as a limitation on what could be disclosed publicly.
Other commenters—including parents and a student representative—stressed the operational consequences, saying the payout and transition would divert funds from classroom needs and harm teacher morale. Teachers who spoke (some anonymously) described fear and uncertainty about job security and called on the board to explain how the decision serves students.
Board members responded in part by reminding the public that the superintendent serves "at the pleasure of the school board" under Virginia law and that the board is bound by contract and confidentiality obligations in personnel matters. One board member said the former superintendent had acknowledged a "fundamental misalignment" in leadership philosophy in a public statement.
The meeting record shows significant community division: several speakers urged the board to "stay the course" and supported the board's authority, while many others demanded accountability and transparency. No new contract details for the terminated superintendent were released during the public meeting.
