The Little Rock School Board voted 4-3 Thursday Wednesday to give notice to Superintendent Roy Brooks of cause to fire him. He’ll be given a hearing to answer those charges. They’ll be put in writing, but no list was released this evening.
Brooks offered no comment after the vote and left the building quickly. A capacity crowd filled the board room to overflowing. (Brian Chilson photo.)
Voting for the motion were President Katherine Mitchell, Dianne Curry, Charles Armstrong and Michael Daugherty. Voting agaiinst it were Larry Berkley, Baker Kurrus and Melanie Fox.
There was no discussion before the vote of an offer by Brooks preceding the executive session for a series of steps to improve board communication. (See earlier blog post.) He also apologized for “ineffective” communication previously with Board President Katherine Mitchell.
The board emerged from executive session at 6:55 p.m. and cheers erupted when Mitchell said no action had been taken. But the crowd was silenced and Mitchell moved, after handing the gavel to Charles Armstrong, to give notice to Brooks in writing of reason to fire him and give him time to respond. An impartial hearing officer will consider the case and issue a finding. The board would then vote whether or not to fire Brooks after that finding. Presumably, if the board voted to fire Brooks despite a finding in his favor by the hearing officer, he could sue. The board presumably could also decide NOT to fire him after the hearing.
Chris Heller, the board’s attorney, said the hearing officer will issue a finding of fact but his conclusions are not binding. It can’t be sooner than 30 days after Brooks receives the charges against him.
Asked after the meeting why to pursue firing rather than buying out Brooks’ contract without a hearing, Mitchell said she thought if the board had cause it should proceed under that portion of his contract.
The action ensures a legal battle of several months, with much more unhappiness. But, as several Board members suggested, it might serve as a de facto evaluation process. The minority clearly believes there’s no case to fire Brooks, but, with the exception of Berkley, they seemed willing to acknowledge Brooks had made mistakes. The question is, if he survives this process, will he be a changed and inclusive leader or the same autocraticboss who infuriated proven master teachers and curried favor with the city’s elite while giving no such solicitous attention to poorer constituencies.
I expect you can look for a gigantic effort by the business community to beat Michael Daugherty, a Brooks critic, in the September school election. Brooks’ critics believe the superintendent has participated in a search for potential opponents, but that’s one of many unconfirmed rumors that has only heightened the emotion in this debate.
The sincerity of those who want a mediated solution can be judged in the days ahead by whether they and their allies — the ad hoc mothers’ group and the Democrat-Gazette and the Chamber of Commerce, to name three — exhibit a consensus spirit. Will they continue to claim Roy Brooks is responsible for all good in the district and the people who fill classroom teacher slots responsible for all ill? Will they continue to whip the CTA and the federal court bogeyman? Will the alleged nonprofit that exists for school district support stop acting like a publicly subsidized lobby for Brooks and the ideological agenda of city power brokers (many of them fathers — there are precious few mothers in any LR corporate boardroom — of private school childfren)? We’ll see.
Go to the jump for School Board member comments:
— Reporting by Jennifer Barnett Reed