Next, Mr. Spurling called attorney Sink back to the podium and asked attorney Sink wasn’t it correct that somewhere in the code of ethics or somewhere else didn’t it say the BOE had to support what the community says do. Attorney Sink didn’t really answer the question, but Spurling made the point that their code of ethics conflicts in that it says the BOE must follow law but also that they must do what is best and support the community’s wishes. When Mr. Spurling started to laud his irrelevant military experience, as Mr. Spurling is often prone to do, Mr. Bridges, rightfully so, called for a point of order stating the military had nothing to do with the subject at hand. Mr. Spurling spouted that it had to do with Mr. Spurling’s experience and requested that the chair allow Mr. Spurling to continue. The chair instructed Mr. Spurling to stick with the topic. Thank you Mr. Chair! Let me clarify for Mr. Spurling. If there is a conflict, it is within the BOE’s code of ethics but there is no conflict in the state law about what the BOE SHALL do. To be fair, Mr. Bridges was also out of order by not allowing the chair to recognize Mr. Bridges and ask Mr. Bridges what Mr. Bridges’ point of order was. Mr. Spurling was also out of order by immediately lauding his vast military experience before the chair recognized either one of them.
I’M GETTING AROUND TO WHAT I HINTED TO
PAY ATTENTION TO ATTORNEY SINK’S REPLY!
Attorney Sink gave a very appropriate answer. Attorney Sink stated one was a policy issue (the code of ethics) and the other was a matter of law, whether the calendars that were presented violated the law, and if it were the will of the board, attorney Sink would answer that question.
NOW PAY ATTENTION WHAT I’M IN CHARGE AND DO NOT DARE TO QUESTION ME CHAIRPERSON QUEEN DID NEXT
Chairperson Queen asked Mr. Spurling if Mr. Spurling was finished with Mr. Spurling’s question. Mr. Spurling asked if it was okay with the chair, Mr. Spurling wanted attorney Sink to answer the question.
NOW KEEP IN MIND THE BOE ATTORNEY HAS VOLUNTEERD TO PUBLICALLY STATE WHETHER THE CALENDARS PRESENTED VIOLATED THE LAW. I WOULD HOPE THE PERSON THAT WENT TO LAW SCHOOL WOULD KNOW WHETHER IT WAS APPROPRIATE TO PUBLICLY STATE THE ATTORNEY’S OPINION.
Chairperson, now law expert, Queen stated that ATTORNEY ADVICE must be given in closed session. LISTEN UP QUEEN, no one asked for attorney ADVICE and attorney Sink did not offer his ADVICE. Attorney Sink offered to state an OPINION. The OPINION you did not want the attorney to give because you already know what that OPINION will be; that you and the other five lock step stooges know you are violating the law.
Mr. Blanton spoke but said nothing contradictory then Mr. Taylor was given his chance to speak but Mr. Taylor declined.
Now, pay close attention to what BOE member Rodney, I’m third in command at the Cleveland County Sheriff’s office and I for sure know the law, or at least I should, Fitch has to say. Mr. Fitch said the way Mr. Fitch interpreted the law; the law is very contradictory. Mr. Fitch then goes into a very passionate but nonsensical tirade about getting laws changed through case law and further stated that if the BOE followed one part of the law, they would break the other part and if they followed the other part, they would be breaking the first part so no matter how they voted, they were going to break the law.
Fitch continues his senseless bloviation with a civics lesson on case law and how the calendar law is contradictory. Fitch concludes his diatribe with telling everyone to read the law and states once again, wrongfully so, that based on his 29 years in law enforcement, you can trust him when he says that no matter how the board votes, they will be breaking the law.
Well, no Mr. third in command at the Cleveland County Sheriff’s Office and I’m a law interpreting guru, I don’t believe I will trust someone that had to be told to stop wearing a firearm to school board meetings because it was in violation of FEDERAL LAW, to interpret the law for me. I’ll pass.
That legal lecture came from the mind of a dullard who has no clue as to what the law under discussion says!
Now it’s Ron Humphries’ turn. Mr. Humphries follows in lock step by wrongfully stating there is ambiguity in the law and that ambiguity is that in one place they are to get input of the public (TRUE) and to FOLLOW IT (NOT TRUE) then they are told not to (ALSO NOT TRUE). (HAVE YOU FIGURED IT OUT YET?)
ROUND TWO
First up in round two is self-proclaimed legal expert, Joel Shores. Mr. Shores agreed with Mr. Fitch that no matter how they voted, they would break the law. Mr. Shores then stated Mr. Shores had a copy of the law and held it up. Mr. Shores then read from the law, correctly so I should add, and this is the point of the word SHALL Mr. Shores et al are making such a fuss over. Reading from the law, Mr. Shores read, “Local boards of education SHALL, and Mr. Shores practically shouted the word SHALL, consult with parents and the employed public school personnel in the development of the school calendar.” Again, Mr. Shores correctly read word for word what the law states. Good for Mr. Shores! Too bad though that Mr., during my extensive law enforcement career I became an expert law interpreter, Shores doesn’t understand the very law Mr. Shores read from. Mr. Shores goes on to repeat that 95% of the people surveyed wanted a certain calendar. (THAT WAS PART OF THE HINT, DID YA CATCH IT?)
By the way, attorney Sink is still at the podium.
Mr. expert law interpreter asked attorney Sink if it could be argued, from a LEGAL STANDPOINT, that if taking away everything the parents and school personnel had to say, could it be argued that they broke the law. Right away chairperson Queen cautioned Shores to stay away from hypotheticals because, as attorney Sink pointed out, the matter had to go before a judge. No, Mr. Queen, that is NOT what attorney Sink said. Attorney Sink said a judge is the final arbiter of any legal issue, not just THIS issue.
I’m not a law school graduate Mr. law interpreting expert, but a blind pig could look through his anal orifice and see that the answer to your question is UNEQUIVOCALLY NO; the BOE is only required to “CONSULT” with the aforementioned persons, not do what they say. Well, the cat’s out of the bag for sure now.
Next, Mr. expert law interpreter said one of the most moronic things to ever come out of his mouth, and there have been a sizable number of such things. Mr. Shores said, “At the end of the day, we’re elected by the people and by the parents, and the law says, as Mr. expert law interpreter holds a copy of the law up, do what they say, we MUST do what they say.”
Nothing really different from Mr. Bridges or Mr. Grigg other than Mr. Grigg made a very valid point that if anyone was held accountable for breaking the law it will be the board members that voted to break the law and not the parents or school employees.
When Mr. Grigg was finished attorney Sink VOLUNTEERED to give what attorney Sink described as his, “very strong and clear legal opinion” about the matter in closed session.
For good reason, Queen quickly moved on without comment.