Log in Subscribe

Cook voted new school board chair

By DAWN HANKINS - dhankins@t-g.com
Posted 8/19/21

Bedford County School Board elected a new chairperson, Michael Cook, on Tuesday night during its regular monthly meeting.  

Cook represents the fifth school district. In a non-election …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

Log in

Cook voted new school board chair

Posted

Bedford County School Board elected a new chairperson, Michael Cook, on Tuesday night during its regular monthly meeting.  

Cook represents the fifth school district. In a non-election year, the board votes in August a chair and vice chair.  

Brian Crews nominated Cook and Andrea Anderson nominated Diane Neeley, seated chair. Cook was elected 5-4 via a roll call. Voting in his favor were board members Crews, Dan Reed, Nicole Cashion, John Boutwell and Cook, himself.  

Boutwell nominated Crews as vice chair. The motion carried unanimously. Neeley will continue to serve as education legislative representative for Bedford County, as she’s done for many years.  

Board member Glenn Forsee nominated Neeley and all approved unanimously.  

Director of Schools Tammy Garrett, who conducted the chair and vice chair elections, advised the board, “I just wanted to say I know this meeting can be a difficult meeting for all involved. As you just saw, we have a lot of work to do. I don’t want teachers to get down; they survived a great year. I want our faculty and staff not to get down, because of those test scores.”  

Preceding the new chair election, Assistant Director of Schools Tim Harwell presented results from the TNReady and EOC data from the spring 2021 assessments. Bedford County-most of which during the COVID-19 year did not meet or succeed overall state results. (See Saturday edition for story.)  

Garrett said the board election, and how board members respond as a result, says a lot about the board’s effectiveness. She shared how through research she’s found that “effective boards have a big impact on effective and high performing districts.”  

“So I want you to keep that in mind as we vote tonight. Whatever the results, I ask that we be role models into what this county needs . . . what students need and us as human beings. I know it’s difficult as many emotions are on the table, but I ask, for the benefit of students of Bedford County, that you take this seriously and then we respond with coming together and collaborating and continuing our journey together.” One board member commented, “Amen.”  

Neeley told the Times-Gazette Wednesday, “An agenda was moved forward that I was not a part of. I appreciate the opportunity to serve as chair and feel that I helped guide the system to a much better place with the appointment of Dr. Garrett as superintendent. Regardless if I sit as chair or member I will continue to strive to give the children of this county every opportunity to succeed and will support our teachers and staff.”  

After taking the lead of the meeting, Cook questioned why the agenda item, “New Project Planning” was being brought before the board again.  

“Folks, this is a done deal. It’s already been settled. I don’t really understand why we’re bringing this back before the board, needless-to-say we are.”  

For about a year, the board has discussed at its monthly meetings how the County has taken the lead, under the ’81 Financial Act, to start selecting the architectural firm which will oversee all county projects, including new schools.  

In the past, the school board has taken the lead on choosing its architect for building projects, which has been Davis Stokes for many years. Board member Boutwell said it all has to do with a policy being established under the County’s ’81 Financial Act—one which the board cannot violate.  

The board unanimously approved Policy 3.212 New Project Planning. Neeley said the reason came up is that Tennessee School Board Association (TSBA) sent the board a legislative packet this year—one which included that policy.  

She said it was deferred last month, because there were conflicts and research was needed. She said TSBA still has the position that, even though the County is under the ’81 Act, the school board should have had the ability to select its own architect and work through the project planning process—one to be approved by Bedford County Commission. She advised it is best practice and not mandated through legislature.  

Cook told the board that TSBA makes policies, but the board does not have to accept as presented. Boutwell said school board members, particularly the school superintendent or director, are sitting representatives on those County committees.  

Boutwell previously worked for Bedford County Mayor Chad Graham in the human resources department but has since taken another job. Crews added in regard to the TSBA policy that on April 20, the school board voted 9-0 to accept Davis Stokes architects for the completion of the Community High wing. He said the same board voted 9-0 to use Kline Sweeney for all other ongoing projects.  

“Whether we pass this new policy, or not, this board has approved an architect,” Crews said. “As a matter of fact, we’ve approved two architects.”  

He pointed out the board has sole discretion with choosing sites for construction.  

“I believe if we get through this agenda, it’s going to be our discretion on what land we choose to build a new elementary school. I don’t have a problem with this, don’t like the timing, but think it’s in conflict with ’81 Act. We’ve beat that to death. It’s time for us to act in the best interest of our children and move forward.”  

Cook said, “That’s it. We’ve got to move past the picking of architects . . . grandstanding. The only folks that are being hurt with this and the stall out of progression are our children, our educators and our taxpayers. Land [cost] is going up, building cost is going up, as we will see a little bit later in this agenda. We’ve got to move on . . . not giving up anything. We’ve had a lot of say in every step so far. We’ve just chosen to stall it out.”  

Andrea Anderson said while board members can disagree with the semantics of the ’81 Act, it’s still policy—one which needs to be approved and filed.  

Neeley, who has defended through several meetings the board’s right to have the right to continue to choose its own architect, commented.  

“At no point was I grandstanding through anything that I have done. Everybody in this room knows I’ve been vehemently opposed to this. There was not transparency in how it was done . . . stood by my principals as I’m allowed to do as a board member . . . . It’s never been about grandstanding. The position I took was for transparency, taxpayers of this community and to make sure this board retains the rights to oversee the projects we do. I feel we as a board we should have that opportunity. When we are elected, we’re elected to do policy, board, and be good stewards of tax dollars. In my opinion, through all this, that has not been don ne. But I am only one voice.”