For months that stretched into years, members of the Lincoln County board of education waged a war of words with the state department of education.
The state, as most readers know, assumed control of Lincoln County schools in 2000. They said the local board was guilty of poor hiring practices, maintained buildings poorly and oversaw an educational system that resulted in weak test scores.
The elected county board maintained that the state was simply using those items as smokescreens for high school consolidation. The state wanted the county's four high schools consolidated and, when the county board refused to do it, the state was prepared to use any logic to take over the schools, the members said.
Ten years later, the state remains in partial control of Lincoln County schools and we still can't be certain who was right and who was wrong in the long-standing dispute. The high schools were consolidated by the state, however.
Most Lincoln Countians agreed with the local board in their dispute with the state. Some polling data suggested as much as 90 percent of the Lincoln public thought their local board was right.
In recent months, officials of the state board and members of the county board appear to be putting their past disagreements to rest. Cooperation has been the hallmark of the recent past and we have commended both sides for finally behaving as though educating our children is their primary objective.
Now, however, we are suffering the embarrassment of another on-going dispute and this one makes less sense than the other.
A vacancy in one of the positions on the board of education resulted in the sitting board being faced with the job of appointing a new member.
Steve Priestley, himself appointed to fill another vacancy on the board earlier, supported the appointment of Rod Baker to the newly-vacated spot. Other members of the board agreed, with the possible exception of President Carol Smith. Board member Donna Martin recused herself from the voting.
So, when the vacancy came up on the agenda, Smith proceeded to nominate three different people for the post. She said the three had contacted her about being appointed and she was simply doing as she told them she would.
Priestley called Smith's actions out of order. Since only one position was available to fill, only one -- not three -- nomination was acceptable, he said. Priestley cited Roberts Rules of Order for his decision.
Smith insisted state law overrides Roberts Rules and it gave her the right to nominate "as many people as I want."
In the end, Baker won the slot and, as far as we can see, no real harm was done.
But Smith and Priestley have spent the weeks since the vote trying to one-up each other. Each board meeting has included a war of words between the pair.
We think it is time to stop. This petty dispute has little if anything to do with the education of our children. And Baker is sitting in his chair, just as he would have if Smith had just nominated one other person. No harm; no foul?
Could we just move forward in harmony for a change?
