KNOXVILLE, Tenn. — The Knox County Board of Education was set to meet on Wednesday and discuss several items.
Many items included accepting grants like the Battelle education TSIN/STEMx Classroom grant, which provides $31,000 to help many schools implement new kinds of technology and learn about engineering. They were also set to discuss utility easements with the Knoxville Utilities Board for new schools.
They were also set to discuss a new special course for high schools in the county — Introduction to Math Modeling. The class would focus on how students can forecast outcomes and help in the problem-solving process to find solutions to real-world challenges.
But among the many transactions, grants, memorandums and other routine board business, they were also set to discuss fiery topics centered around mask requirements and the ethics of board members.
You can watch the meeting below.
Resolution to support parent choice for students to wear masks
Board member Betsy Henderson introduced a resolution that would tell the Knox County Law Director that the board collectively wanted parents to be the ones to choose if students wear masks at school.
The resolution has a single reason to describe why it is being introduced, saying the board voted several times in favor of having parents choose whether students should wear masks.
The board has held several votes on a variety of topics. At the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, they voted to follow CDC guidance and implement mask requirements in schools. Later, in 2021, they voted to remove the requirement which sparked controversy among parents who enrolled children in in-person learning under the impression they would need to wear masks.
The decision led to some parents suing the board, and a federal judge required the board to return to its original vote and follow the CDC's guidance to require masks. Without the requirement, the judge said at-risk students were not being given a safe environment to attend school in, violating the Americans With Disabilities Act.
However, several groups formed on social media where users championed efforts against the requirements. Protests broke out and demonstrators gathered at schools as students went to class, showing their frustration over the requirement.
The federal case continued, and later board members said they were unhappy with the law department's work on it. Three board members showed support for finding new attorneys to represent them.
Recently, the federal judge said plaintiffs and defendants in the trial must work towards an agreement in mediation. The plaintiffs also asked the judge to suspend the mask requirements now that the CDC downgraded Knox County to a lower community threat level, removing guidance to wear masks.
Wednesday's resolution would give clearer guidance to attorneys in the federal case about what the board of education wants them to do.
Watson said he did not understand what Henderson was hoping to achieve with the resolution. He said he could not support it because he could not find a purpose for it, given all the context and background behind it.
"It feels like this is trying to send a message to a certain group of people, and I'm not sure the board is the place to do that," he said.
The motion failed after it got four 'yes' votes.
Resolution "requiring that all school activities return to normal"
Henderson also introduced a resolution that would mostly function as a symbolic gesture over what the board wants. In it, it says that KCS insists that all school activities resume as normal. It does not clearly define what would change among school activities.
However, it does say that a well-rounded education includes enriched curricula, sports and other kinds of clubs. It goes on to claim that the COVID-19 pandemic canceled many events for students, teachers and administrators.
"Students are typically in each grade once and our children have suffered enough," the resolution says. "It is time to give our children their childhood back."
The resolution also says KCS would insist parents be included "to the greatest extent possible," without explaining the resolution further.
Satterfield said she supported the resolution but was concerned about the wording in the resolution. She reminded board members that there has been a pandemic for the past 3 years, causing some limitations. She also said she supported a caveat to the bill, saying they return to normal "as much as possible," considering limitations due to staffing.
"Everything that happens in the spring won't be like what happened pre-pandemic," said Babb, saying schools regularly change values and leaders over time.
Owen also said she worried the resolution would step on the toes of administrators since they only had 10 days to increase the number of activities and opportunities for students. She said she could support if the world 'insists' was changed to 'asks' in the resolution, saying it felt less punitive to principals.
Henderson said she did not think the word changes much in the resolution, and approved of the change.
McMillan was the only one to vote against it. It passed 8-1.
Discussion and possible action on ethics complaints
The Board of Education Ethics Committee brought an item to the agenda to discuss ethics complaints submitted against board members Betsy Henderson, Susan Horn and Board Chair Kristi Kristy.
Those complaints alleged that the board members did not follow the will of the board by seeking to hire outside attorneys for the federal mask requirement case. A previous vote passed the board that showed support for the law department. In the ethics complaint, advocates say they violated that vote by searching for outside attorneys.
Another one claims they violated open meeting laws by arranging to attend a county commission meeting to urge leaders to allow them to find outside counsel.
During the public forum, one speaker who said she filed the complaint was more focused on the integrity of the board members than their specific actions. She also played a recording during the meeting in which one of the members spoke during the commission meeting claiming she spoke for the whole board.
Another specifically named Henderson spoke for the whole board when acting against the interests of the board as a whole.
Board member Bounds brought a motion to dismiss ethics complaints against all board members, saying that politics needed revisions. Satterfield said she would support it, but emphasized that leaders need to follow the policy. She also said she supported it because the ethics committee would not be able to do anything with the complaints.
Babb said she would have also attended the commission meeting if she were not out of town, and said five people on the board have complaints against them. She then demanded Owen explain the specific procedure she would recommend the board to follow.
She said she wanted to give complainants a chance to have a formal hearing about the complaints.
"I expect people who brought complaints to have the opportunity to have the hearing that we told them they would have," she said.
Dupler said that the ethics complaints themselves needed to comply with the board's policies, which mostly focus on financial conflicts of interests. He said they weren't really ethics complaints, but were still complaints of a type.
He said the board did not have a policy to define the type of complaints they should have been filed under and only filed it as an ethics complaint because there were no other issues. Watson said he was concerned about voting to dismiss ethics complaints about himself, and said it would call into question his integrity.
He also said individuals on the board do not have the ability to hold each other accountable publically, similarly to how political figures do.
"I think we're in a Catch-22," he said. "It's a hot mess of a situation."
Owen also said she did not want to vote to get rid of complaints against herself. She suggested creating a mechanism for the ethics committee to hear complaints and make recommendations to the board.
McMillan suggested giving complainants the chance to go before policy review. Owen said she was concerned about the meeting being held in the middle of the day, but McMillan said he thought they would find a way to attend.
Horn said she did not want the board to deal with complaints like these and called the complaints a distraction. However, Satterfield said she thought the complaints revealed a need for improved policies.
"This was nothing more than an orchestrated attack on a couple of board members," said Henderson. "This was nothing more than a political distraction when we're trying to make a difference for 60,000 students."
Owen said she agreed the complaints were political and said that was the problem. She said she never remembered a time when board members went into a public place and represented the board as a whole, and said she thought it created a dangerous precedent.
"This is not a question of free speech. It is a question of using our position to represent ourselves as coming from the board. It makes me wonder if tomorrow, I can look at something we voted on tonight and go to a separate body to undermine what we voted on," Owen said. "We're talking about very knowingly and willfully stating that this is what the board wants when we know otherwise."
Owen said the ethics committee has not seen the video of the commission meeting, which she said could have made a difference.
The motion to dismiss ethics complaints passed with six votes.
Owen voted against it while Watson and Babb passed on the vote.
Motion authorizing hiring an attorney in federal mask requirement
Board members will also discuss whether to pass a motion that would direct the Knox County Law Director to hire an attorney to help with the federal mask requirement lawsuit after the Knox County Commission passed a resolution allowing KCS to find outside counsel.
The resolution only gives permission for the Knox County Law Director to hire an attorney to help in matters related to the federal lawsuit. They must have experience in cases involving the Americans with Disabilities Act as well as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
The Board of Education will also be able to approve the chosen attorney by voting in an open meeting. If they vote against the proposed new attorney, the law director will need to provide alternatives.
The commission's resolution will also only take effect as long as the Board of Education votes for it in an open meeting, and expenses for outside counsel will need to be paid from funds given to the Board of Education.
The law director said the search for a new person would be quick, and said he believed the federal judge stretched ADA beyond its regular scope. However, the board would need to officially hire them during their April meeting, or call a special meeting.
He also said he believed the resolution would just take money out of the school budget that could be better spent on other things, saying the new attorney would not do anything differently. He said it could cost at least $500 per hour to hire the attorney, not including travel costs and motel costs.
"It would be very substantial, but I cannot give you a number," he said.
He also said until mediation starts, there is nothing that can be submitted in the court.
Boardmember Bounds originally passed on the vote, but then changed it to yes. The motion passed at the meeting with five 'yes' votes in total.
Mediation with plaintiffs in mask case
At the start of the meeting, board member Watson asked for a new agenda item that would give board members the time to talk about ongoing mediation in the federal mask case. It was approved at the start of the meeting.
Dupler said the board could mediate through a designated representative to mediate on the board's behalf. However, he said the mediation would be nonbinding until representatives approach the board with the offer they make with the plaintiffs.
Otherwise, the board can have an open-meeting-style mediation that would alternative between public meetings and executive sessions. During executive sessions, the board could meet with attorneys behind closed doors without violating the state's open meetings law.
Owens said the meeting could have unique differences from other school board meetings, due to the nature of negotiations and meetings. He said they may need to privately discuss positions and perspectives when negotiating with plaintiffs, and guarantee they won't be livestreamed to the public while discussing among themselves.
Watson proposed entering into a public meeting for mediation with the plaintiffs. He said at least five members will need to be present, and it will not be livestreamed. It passed unanimously.