Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Superintendent Removal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State committee adopts regulations spelling out process to remove county superintendents
Summary
The Education Policy Committee unanimously approved two COMAR regulations that set timelines, notice requirements and an appeal pathway when county superintendents face removal by either the state superintendent or a local board.
The State Board of Education's Education Policy Committee voted unanimously to adopt two regulations that establish, for the first time in COMAR, formal procedures for removing county superintendents.
Hannah Oakley, who presented the item to the committee, said the new chapters adopt the statutory grounds for removal and add procedural safeguards: written notice of grounds, documentation supporting the proposed removal, and a clear process for a local superintendent to request a hearing before the State Board. "Creating new regulations to clearly address these future termination matters is a procedural safeguard," Oakley said, explaining the rules mirror the reasons listed in statute: "immorality, misconduct in office, insubordination, incompetency, or willful neglect of duty."
The measures were presented as a way to provide transparency and consistency for school systems and superintendents. Committee members asked whether hearings referenced in the regulation must be public; Oakley said local boards can make that choice and offered to confirm with the Office of the Attorney General. Committee members also noted that Baltimore City is governed under a different title (chief executive officer) and therefore is not covered by the same language.
A motion to adopt the two COMAR items as written was made, seconded and approved without opposition. The committee recorded the action as an adoption of COMAR 13A010207 and COMAR 13A020105; the adopted chapters formalize notice and appeal steps that precede any appeal to the State Board.
The committee’s vote moves the regulations forward as adopted; Oakley said the changes are intended to provide both clearer expectations for local boards and procedural protections for affected superintendents.
