Mason School Board meeting sparks controversy

A called meeting of the Mason County Board of Education on Wednesday to consider hiring an additional attorney has caused controversy among its members.

Those present included Assistant Chair Ron Rosel, along with board members Barry Shrout and Karen Osborne; legal counsel Kelly Caudill with the law firm Royse, Zweigart, Kirk, Brammer and Caudill, and Superintendent of Mason County Schools Rick Ross. The board was previously represented by Sue Brammer of the same firm prior to her recent retirement.

Absent from the meeting were board members Vicky Lowe and Stephenie Gardner.

Osborne began the meeting with her support of hiring an additional attorney to represent the board, the purpose of and only agenda item for the evening.

“I feel like it’s necessary to hire an additional attorney to help us with policy development, mandatory reporting laws and, of course we always have rules and regulations and open record laws. I think Mr. Caudill is proficient in his area but when you can have more support and help. I’ve been in positions where I’ve needed two attorneys and it helped,” Osborne said.

The Finance Officer for Mason County Schools Lisa Moreland, asked if the board had quotes for the cost of the new attorney to which Rosel replied that would be covered during the meeting.

Caudill said he would not oppose or object to the board hiring additional counsel but felt he was fully capable of giving month-to-month legal support.

All board members agreed Caudill was competent with Rosel noting there’s been a lot of turmoil and chaos and he would just like to get things cooled down.

Board members discussed different attorneys to consider retaining and a motion was made by Rosel to hire Maryann Stewart of the Adams Law Firm in Covington.

Moreland again asked what fee the firm would charge to which Rosel replied Stewart would be sending the information.

“We should probably know what she’s going to charge before hiring her,” Moreland, who is in charge of maintaining the district budget, said.

“I appreciate that but really this is a board meeting and we will be in contact, she (Stewart) will be be sending all of that information to us. Currently, the board doesn’t know any of the attorneys’ fees or prices for what the district has been charged,” Rosel said.

Moreland said the board pays Caudill’s firm less than $6,000 annually and that it was all the budget would support.

Rosel then made a motion to hire Adams Law Firm which was seconded by Osborne and passed even though two of their senior board members weren’t present.

Board members declined to explain why they passed a motion without all members present they said they had no comment though Caudill said that three members being present created a quorum (majority) and was sufficient to pass the vote.

“The special meeting was called without the board chair’s approval, with short notice, rendering two members unable to attend,” Ross said.

Vicky Lowe, board chair, was not present and said she pleaded with Rosel, Shrout and Osborne to wait to hold the meeting until the full board could be present.

“We had an executive session and during that session I was asked personally to set up a time with a lawyer so they could do an evaluation and I said I would take care of it. I hadn’t been able to do it yet because I just had eye surgery and next thing I know I get an email stating they had already set up a meeting with our current lawyer and they want to discuss hiring an additional lawyer,” Lowe said.

She said she immediately replied that she wasn’t able to make it and neither was Stephenie Gardner and asked to reschedule so everybody could be in attendance and hear their concerns.

“We have a local attorney who is very capable of following the school law and giving us the correct answers and I asked all of the other board members (via email) to please change it so that we could all be in attendance but they never replied back but to say they were moving forward, their minds were already made up, they won’t answer any questions,” Lowe said.

She said she’s confused as they always talk about transparency and how everything is in the open and it usually is and now she said she doesn’t know what this means.

“They’re costing the district extra money that we don’t have to spend and I have no clue how much the new lawyer will cost, they won’t tell us. I have asked that we all work together, that it shouldn’t be three against two all the time but that’s how it has been lately. I’ve been on the board 11 years and I’ve never dealt with something like this, we’ve had disagreements before but have always settled them before the meetings,” Lowe said.

Lowe said she’s confused what agenda Rosel, Shrout and Osborne have going on right now or what caused them to feel the need for additional counsel.

“To my knowledge, there is no pending legal action against the board which would warrant a second board attorney. I know of no other district besides Jefferson County or Fayette County which would need a second board attorney. I was not consulted in this matter. Three board members are acting on their own,” Ross said.

Ross said the three board members (Osborne, Shrout and Rosel) called an expensive special session (which usually costs about $800 if all members plus board attorney are present).

“What was the rush? What legal problems are they anticipating that our current board attorney cannot handle? It was apparent the decision was made out of the public view before the meeting since they insisted on the wording of the agenda to read “discuss and hire a second board attorney,” Ross said.

Ross said present members said the second attorney was to be used to consult on policy development, reporting, open records laws, and special education and that all of these roles have been filled by their local attorney for years; and would also serve as a “personal attorney” for board members.

“I did not know board members were entitled to a personal attorney. I know I am not provided one,” he said.

Gardner said she believes Rosel, Shrout and Osborne have a self-serving role on the board and don’t truly have the district or kids’ best interests in mind.

“We have an incredible district with an incredible superintendent and staff throughout the Mason County School system, people that love our kids. That’s what we’re all supposed to be there for,” Gardner said.

Moreland said the board only started looking at hiring additional counsel two to three weeks ago after the board did a performance evaluation on Ross.

“Each year we have to follow specific guidelines, we’ve always followed the current procedures and for some reason they kept trying to say that procedure wasn’t being followed, and also if the board wants personal attorneys (as they insinuated in the meeting) the district shouldn’t have to pay for that,” Moreland said.

She said she talked to Rosel after the meeting about her need to know the cost of the new attorney.

“I told him we really need to get three quotes before we sign a contract so we can select the lowest bid and that I need the numbers in order to know what to put in the budget. He said he would get them to me when he had them and honestly he wasn’t very nice and said some other things too,” Moreland said.

She said the board members present acted as though it was a private meeting and they didn’t want to answer any questions.

“Even though it was a special meeting it was still open to the public and I’m the finance officer, it’s my job to know what to put in the budget,” she said.

Gardner said she wasn’t sure what the three board members intend to do.

“… I think they want to control things that we as a board are not within boundaries, it’s not in our service to the board. We have boundaries and limitations,” Gardner said.

Gardner said the main duties of the board are to handle financial decisions and to make sure the superintendent stays on budget.

“They have no reason to have anything against Rick (Ross) He’s done nothing to warrant any legal action. He and the board office have always been incredibly transparent; I can walk in there any time and look at any records I want and always receive any information I ask for,” she said.

Ross’s evaluation is not available yet and Gardner said it hasn’t been uploaded into their system yet as the board was not in agreement of the evaluation. However, she pointed out that his evaluations for the last four years have been excellent.

Gardner said the board has no reason to go outside of Maysville to hire an additional attorney when they have competent and local legal counsel with a firm that has worked on its behalf for more than 15 years and finds it suspicious that Rosel, Shrout and Osborne pushed for this meeting with very little notice; and with two members not present, she said she feels it was done intentionally.

“I believe and have taken steps to make it known that they are colluding and I put that in an email to them,” she said.

She said not one board member who is wanting to hire an additional attorney has proven any type of incompetency on the part of current counsel to justify wasting time and district funds on additional counsel. She said that with every turn the attitudes, actions and voting of Shrout, Osborne and Rosel she thinks it obvious they are in collusion and do not have the best interest of the kids or district at heart.

“How can they just hire someone without knowing what they’re going to charge our district? That’s a misappropriation of funds,” Gardner said.

She said that Shrout, Osborne and Rosel don’t understand their role and duties as board members and she believes them to be holding private meetings.

“I will be seeking advice on how to move forward with all of these matters,” Gardner said.

Shrout said he had no comment on the board’s meetings and that Caudill had said during Wednesday’s meeting that the board could not answer questions about its meetings (which was incorrect, Caudill said the board was able to pass a motion with only three members present and said nothing about not being able to answer questions about a public meeting) or on the possibility of Ross being terminated.

When called and asked about the board’s decisions, Osborne said she spoke to Caudill and will not disclose anything at this time but that any mention of firing administrators is a rumor and that the board could be in collusion is ‘hogwash.’

“At this time I’m not going to disclose anything, because if it happens behind closed doors we’re not supposed to disclose any information,” Osborne said. She contends the meetings behind closed doors are executive sessions with all board members present.