A decision made by Jones County Board of Education members at a March 19 called meeting was recorded in a simple document consisting of four sentences and signed by all five board members.
After being approved by the board members, it became an open record.
The document simply states board members unanimously voted not to renew the contract of Superintendent Charles Lundy. No reason was given and is not required.
The simple facts in that document seem to loom much larger due to continued attempts made to spin the reason for the superintendent’s departure into something else entirely.
The fourth sentence in the March 19 document states that Board of Education Chairman Ginger Bailey informed the superintendent of the action on that date at 4:20 p.m.
At that point, he had three options: to resign, retire or do nothing and the contract would expire.
Lundy apparently opted not to resign nor retire, and at the conclusion of the closed session of the April 15 board meeting, he was formally presented with the written document signed by each board member at the March 19 meeting, stating his contract would not be renewed.
It was also during that closed session that Bailey said she spoke to board members about Lundy’s request for a contract extension until June 30.
Four of the five Board of Education members attended an April 18 called meeting for the purpose of appointing an interim JCSS superintendent, although Lundy’s departure had not yet been announced.
Board member Mike Gordon did not attend the called meeting, reportedly being out of town. At the conclusion of the meeting, Clinton Burston was unanimously approved as interim superintendent.
The email sent to faculty and staff of the Jones County School System April 18 about Lundy’s departure bears little resemblance to the March 19 decision. That email states Lundy made the decision to pursue other professional and personal goals and will not be returning as superintendent next year.
The second paragraph of the email states the Georgia School Board Association will assist in the search for the new superintendent and announces Burston as interim.
Board member Dr. Nancy Nash drafted the content of the email during the called meeting and sent it to Bailey, who emailed it to faculty and staff.
The problem with that email and the subsequent attempts to sell that version of what happened is it is simply not true.
Bailey was asked by this reporter following the April 18 vote appointing Burston if the superintendent resigned, which is what the email appeared to imply. After several follow-up questions, she eventually got to the simple fact that his contract was not being renewed.
If the facts had been presented from the start, there would be no reason for more questions.
After the spin continued in phone calls with Lundy and Bailey April 21, clearly stating the decision not to return was because Lundy had decided to pursue other goals, an open records request was sent to the JCSS human resources director for the March 19 document.
The response from the HR director was she had no knowledge of the requested document. Subsequently, an open records request was sent to Bailey. The chairman hesitated, expressing doubt the document was subject to open records rules. It was during that conversation the contract extension came to light.
At that point, open records requests for both documents were sent to each board member.
Board member Brady Skinner responded to the emailed request. He stated that to his knowledge the April 15 letter referenced in the request had only two copies. One was with Lundy and the other Bailey.
“We as individual board members did not receive a copy.Maybe one of those two signed copies of the letter is in the Human Resources department at central office,” Skinner suggested, which was where the first open records request was sent.
Skinner continued. “The contract extension is not in the possession of individual board members. I assume we will review it at our next board meeting before it is signed or presented,” the board member stated.
The chairman later spoke to the board’s Atlanta attorney, at which time she was informed both documents were open records.
Despite all that, when she was interviewed by broadcast media, April 25, the fabricated version of the superintendent’s departure was not only told to the reporter but to everyone who heard the report.
To her credit, Bailey hand-delivered the requested documents to this reporter Friday afternoon. A copy of the email drafted by Nash at the April 18 meeting was also included.
The superintendent’s amended contract was received by Bailey from the board’s attorney April 24 and only contains her and Lundy’s signature. That contract states the extension was approved by board members at the April 15 meeting.
The problem with that statement is board members only voted once when they came out of the April 15 closed session. Bailey contends that one vote included the list of all personnel items presented and the other items discussed during the closed session.
When questioned about the legality of the blanket vote, the chairman stated her intention to bring the contract extension to board members at the May 13 board meeting for another vote and to include their signatures.
