web analytics
Connect with us



Another long post but it exposes the blatant hypocrisy, ineptitude, and outright stupidity of at least five of the Cleveland County Board of Education (BOE) members and there would probably be a sixth, but he didn’t have anything to say during the debate that this post is about.

This post is about the December 8th BOE meeting and the power mongering by BOE chairperson his majesty King Robert Queen and the absolute absurdity of some of the statements by some of the BOE members and three members in particular.

In a nutshell folks, what happened at the December 8th BOE meeting was nothing more than his majesty King Queen using two witless self-proclaimed law experts, because of their peer perceived vast knowledge and unequaled skills at interpreting law, to broadcast a total misinterpretation of the law in order to stir the emotions of Queen’s sheep herd and by doing so, force King Queen’s will upon Queen’s sheep.

Now if you are not interested to know about the tomfoolery of King Queen and his court jesters, and how Queen is using his abuse of power to keep his jesters in line save yourself some time and move on.

However, if you do care about what the Cleveland County Board of Education is doing, read on.

During the Cleveland County Board of Education (BOE) “discussion” of the upcoming vote for the school calendar and the probability that six of the BOE members, Queen’s sheep herd, were going to vote in favor of violating North Carolina state law and in turn violate the code of ethics each BOE member vowed to uphold by not following the state mandated calendar, BOE member Joel Shores asked that one of the BOE’s attorneys to come to the podium. BOE attorney Jonathan Sink came forward. Mr. Shores stated to attorney Sink that Mr. Shores looked up the definition of SHALL on Google and Mr. Shores then cited the following definition. The word SHALL, “Is an imperative command, usually indicating certain actions are mandatory and not permissive.” Mr. Shores then went on to laud his extensive law enforcement career and Mr. Shores’ proficiency at interpreting law. Mr. Shores said when Mr. Shores saw something that said SHALL, Mr. Shores interpreted that as meaning he did not have a choice. Mr. Shores then asked attorney Sink if attorney Sink agreed with the Google definition of the word SHALL as a correct LEGAL DEFINITION of that word. Attorney Sink indicated that attorney Sink agreed with Google’s definition of the word SHALL as read by Mr. Shores to be the LEGAL DEFINITION of the word SHALL. Mr. Shores then went on to ask attorney Sink if a law says you SHALL consult with parents and school personnel, if that left any choice. Attorney Sink said, “shall, no choice, you have to, it’s compulsory.”

ALL STOP Mr. Shores unequivocally asked attorney Sink for a LEGAL OPINION and attorney Sink was allowed by the chair and head bully Mr. Robert Queen, to state attorney Sink’s LEGAL OPINION.


From there, BOE member Walter Spurling asked for clarification of what options for the school calendar were available for the BOE members to vote on. Superintendent Dr. Steven Fisher outlined the options. Dr. Fisher presented three options and labeled them A, B and C. Option A very clearly violated North Carolina school law. Knowing option A violates state law, Mr. Shores made a motion that they adopt option A and Mr. Spurling seconded Mr. Shores’ motion.

Now it’s discussion time.

BOE member Aaron Bridges brought up the fact that option A violated the law. Right away, Chairperson Queen said that was open to interpretation and while Mr. Queen was still talking, Mr. Shores chimed in, out of order by the way, and stated that 95% of Cleveland County’s parents were in favor of option A and moronically asked which part of the law they should follow.

MORE ON THAT BRAINLESS QUESTION/STATEMENT LATER but just a hint, it ISN’T a question of which part of the law they should follow. Mr. I know how to interpret the law really doesn’t know how to interpret the law.

Mr. Bridges reminded his fellow board members that during the summer they had discussed ethics, that they had all agreed to follow the code of ethics and that some BOE members had even been censored for alleged ethical violations. By the way, those BOE members that were censored were REQUIRED to reaffirm/sign the code of ethics as part of heir censorship.

As soon as Mr. Bridges finished talking about the code of ethics and that he could not violate the code of ethics by breaking the law, Mr. I’m an expert in law interpretation (AKA Joel Shores) once again chimed in with the imbecilic statement that, “Part of the law is following what the parents say” so Mr. Bridges would be breaking that part. No, Mr. I’m an expert law interpreter (but not really), Mr. Bridges WOULD NOT be breaking “that part” of the law because there isn’t a “that part.” I MIGHT HAVE JUST GAVEN IT AWAY

When Mr. Shores finished his mindless comment, Mr. Grigg, who was one of the censored BOE members that was required to reaffirm the code of ethics by signing them again, reminded his fellow board members that yes, their code says they should do what is best for the children, but the code also says they are to abide by state and federal law. Mr. Grigg also reminded fellow board members that in August the school board association sent a letter advising the BOE they had broken the law and encouraged the board not to break it again. Mr. Grigg concluded his statement by saying he would abide by the code of ethics, the ones he had to reaffirm, and not break the law.

Pages: 1 2 3