Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Board Vacancy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge transparency as Eastpointe board prepares to fill vacancy
Summary
At a Jan. 27 meeting residents urged the Eastpointe Community Schools board to avoid appointing a candidate defeated in November and demanded transparency about the appointment process; the superintendent said the board has 30 days under law to fill the vacancy and seven applicants applied.
Several residents urged the Eastpointe Community Schools board to be transparent about a pending board appointment and questioned whether appointing a previously defeated candidate would "overturn the will of the people," during public comment at the Jan. 27 board meeting.
Mary Hall Raford, a public commenter, opened the remarks by criticizing the prospect of appointing a prior officeholder after voters rejected that person in an election: "I honestly don't know what to say when voters have rejected a person rather soundly ... I don't understand how anyone could even consider overturning the will of the people," she said. Other speakers asked that the board publish applicants' resumes and provide opportunities for resident input before the special meeting scheduled for Jan. 30.
Superintendent M. Gibson told the board and audience that "according to the law the board has 30 days to fill the remainder of that term via appointment" and said the administration published a community letter on Jan. 15 detailing applicant requirements and the selection timeline. The letter set an application deadline of Jan. 24 and listed a Jan. 30 special meeting at the administrative center to interview candidates; the board would make a decision no later than Feb. 10 and has until Feb. 12 to appoint the new member, the superintendent said.
Public commenters named one applicant who drew attention: John Gruenberg (listed by administration as an applicant). Jennifer Nicholas and Cindy Federly said appointing a candidate who received few votes in November would appear to sidestep voters’ expressed preference and urged the board to consider selecting a newcomer. "It might make more sense to select another newcomer since it seems voters want new blood on the board," Jennifer Nicholas said.
Board members did not take action during the public-comment period; administration directed residents with procedural questions to staff for documentation. The superintendent said candidate materials had been provided to trustees in the board packet ahead of the Jan. 30 interviews.
The board did not vote on the appointment at the Jan. 27 meeting. The special meeting to interview applicants is scheduled for Jan. 30; the board must appoint a replacement within the statutory window identified in the superintendent's remarks.
