Note: This is a developing story and may be updated as new information becomes available.
The Republican board members saw the censure as an appropriate response to Merrick not following proper protocols in his conversations with an educator and not following directives from the chair after he lost committee assignment for two months because of this interaction. Merrick saw this as him supporting an educator who wanted to quit over their treatment of having a Pride flag in their classroom, which goes against current board policy.
More on this backstory is here.
After the censure vote, Merrick said, “It is so disconcerting that the board, which has done such more worse than this, would turn around proselytize and be holier than thou, so I’m a little angry, a little sad, a little disappointed that all of this time and money was wasted when we have such bigger things to do.”
This issue of the board members doing “much worse” was possibly a nod to Mason’s comments about disciplining all board members fairly, as she said she has enforced consequences for her fellow Republican board members. However, she didn’t say who they were or what they did. WHQR sent an email to Mason asking what she meant by this.
Merrick’s Democratic colleague Judy Justice also referenced a resolution to censure another board member but said it didn’t gain traction with her fellow members. She told WHQR after the meeting that this proposal was against Vice-Chair Josie Barnhart for how she responded to a parent during the district’s changes to the middle school sex education program.
As for Merrick’s references to the cost of the proceedings, the board did have to consult with board attorneys Norwood Blanchard and Brian Kromke. Several sheriff’s deputies were also in attendance at the meeting.
The proceedings
Mason started by telling those in attendance that it was “a privilege to be here,” then informing them that sheriff’s deputies would remove those who were unruly. Mason later told WHQR she was speaking specifically about those who were being disruptive, but acknowledged it was a "poor choice of words" and that she fully supported the public's right to attend public meetings and was committed to transparency and civic engagement.
Throughout the meeting, there were calls from the audience of “shame,” followed by booing after some Republican members spoke.
Merrick started by saying he did not have time to prepare his defense, nor did this public meeting follow the due process of Robert’s Rules of Order, but he maintained that the board “was going to do what they’re going to do,” likely referring to the sealed Republican-majority vote against him.
Blanchard did have to weigh in and said that this format was acceptable, according to Roberts Rules of Order, because the censure didn’t involve a punishment or consequence. Merrick disagreed and said that he saw the censure as a consequence.
After the board voted 5-2 that Mason didn’t make “an error” in bringing forth the public censure, as Merrick claimed, the audience began yelling, and Mason then told the sheriff’s deputies to clear the room.
The deputy in charge responded, “We can’t get every person out,” but later informed the crowd, “It’s your free speech right, but we can remove you by the chair’s direction.”
There was a motion to adjourn, but that got voted down.
Justice acknowledged that Merrick had made a mistake, but said, “I don’t think we should be censoring him; this is out of bounds. [...] It’s not helping the board, the kids. This is not serving anybody.”
Merrick's defense was lengthy, but he said he was trying to support a teacher who was “scared” because of the policy against displaying a small Pride flag in her classroom. The Republican board members said more or less they felt this was not a political move against Merrick but one of his usurping the chair’s authority in removing Merrick from committees for two months for conversing with this teacher, and then attending a subsequent committee meeting as a “constituent,” which went against Mason’s orders.
Merrick apologized for doing that but didn’t apologize for supporting the teacher when they wanted to “quit,” according to him, over the policy banning flags like Pride.
The Republican members maintained he was sharing personnel information about this teacher when he attended the committee meeting he wasn’t supposed to, but Merrick maintained he didn’t give out this person’s name or say there were consequences against this teacher.
Merrick also said no information was given from this educator’s personnel file. Still, Mason thought people at this committee meeting could find out who this person was that Merrick had been referencing — i.e., something to the effect of ‘I am helping a teacher who wanted to quit about the Pride flag in their classroom.’
One of the complaints against Merrick in the passed censure resolution was that he violated the confidentiality of a personnel file, which violates a state statute — not a board policy, but Merrick said the attorney informed him that would “never stick in court.” He also said that this was meant to “intimidate him.”
Later, the board voted unanimously to read more of an email that Merrick sent to the teacher. It was brought forth and read, in part, by Barnhart: “Please don’t share my recommendations with the board. You could use the same reasoning along with your very own on the policy that has no upside. Be polite but let them know how you’ve been affected.”
Barnhart did not read the section that would have included Merrick’s recommendations to the educator. She later accused the media of receiving “leaked” information. WHQR’s first report included some emailed messages that were not protected and are public records.
One of Merrick's last comments was that he thought his censure would have a chilling effect on district teachers who need to raise issues with him in the future.
Mason closed the meeting by thanking the members for being “civil.”
After the meeting, Mason issued a statement concerning the proceedings, noting it was her opinion and didn’t represent the board as a whole:
The responsibilities of the Board Chair are numerous, but two of the most important are: 1) maintaining the integrity of the Board, and 2) ensuring that all members are adhering to established policies. When a Board member violates policy, it is the Chair’s duty to address that violation.
As a teacher, leader, and mother, I’ve learned that the most effective way to correct behavior is by doing so in a manner that protects the individual’s dignity. In my experience, when someone is publicly corrected, the response is often defensive and unproductive. That’s why, when issues have arisen with Board members, I’ve chosen to address them privately, with at least one of our attorneys present—to ensure accountability on my part and to uphold respect for the individual involved.
I used this approach with Dr. Merrick, addressing his policy violations in a respectful and private manner. There have been multiple explanations of the relevant policy violations shared with the full Board by both our attorneys and the Superintendent. I have personally discussed my concerns with Dr. Merrick through phone conversations, in-person meetings, and email correspondence.
Despite these efforts, his response has consistently been to dismiss the authority of the Chair and continue disregarding established policy. As Chair, I have explored other avenues of discipline, but the censure that was presented today was a necessary step to bring accountability to one Board member and uphold the integrity of this body.
