![[SeMissourian.com]](http://gcdailyworld.com/images/nameplate.png)
RSS
Print
Email link
Respond to editor
Read comments (21)
Share link
del.icio.us
Digg
StumbleUpon
Technorati
Newsvine
Facebook
Furl
Reddit
GoogleFormer board member Jacqueline Whaley exercised her option to fill an open position and took the oath of office Monday night along with three other newly-elected board members.
Shelly Patterson, Troy Fields and Robert Hudson were also sworn in as board members for the next four years during an organizational meeting.
The seating of Whaley was accompanied by some controversy.
It began immediately after the Nov. 4 election in which nine candidates were vying for four at-large seats on the board.
Prior to the election, members of the seven-member school board included Donnie James, Lane Corbin, Kimberly Waldridge, Jacqueline Whaley, Andy Brough, Pat Arthur and Rob Hudson. All were elected members except for Hudson - he was appointed in 2007 to fill a vacant seat.
Terms on the board are staggered and the three seats occupied by James, Corbin and Waldridge were not up for election this year. Each of those seats represents one township in the school district.
The terms were up at the end of 2008 for the four at-large seats occupied by Whaley, Brough, Arthur and Hudson so all four seats were up for grabs in the November election.
Whaley and Brough did not seek re-election.
Both Arthur and Hudson did run, along with seven other candidates. Arthur was defeated, but Hudson was elected to his first full term.
When the votes were counted on November 4, the four winners included Jim Yoho with 1,245 votes, followed by Rob Hudson with 1,234 votes, Shelly Patterson with 1,201 votes and Troy Fields with 1,117 votes.
The other candidates and their vote totals included Jeremy Inman (1,031 votes), Patrick Arthur (896), Donald Johnson (829), Brad Crites (721), and Sherman Schuck (207).
After the election, what appeared to be a smooth win by Yoho quickly got rocky when it was determined that he had a conflict of interest and might not be able to serve.
Yoho has a full-time job at Eastern-Greene. He is employed in the maintenance department and works in the elementary school building. Under Indiana law, a person cannot serve on a school board and be employed by that same board at the same time. The conflict was not recognized until after the election was over.
When the problem became clear, the administration and the school board sought advice from the school corporation's attorneys and from the Indiana Association of School Boards.
At that time, Superintendent Ty Mungle said no law was broken - there was no law to prevent an employee from running in the election, but there is a law that prevents them serving on the board while being employed by the board.
Yoho had to make a choice between the two and he chose to retain his regular employment and not accept the school board position. This choice meant as soon as the newly-elected members were sworn in, there would be a vacancy on the board.
An attorney for the Eastern-Greene School Corporation, Jim Whitlach from the Bunger and Robertson Law Office in Bloomington, was invited to the school board meeting to speak to the board and the public about filling the vacancy.
Whitlach said the Constitution of the State of Indiana has a specific provision that speaks to how vacancies on school boards are to be filled. It's slightly different when a member who is already seated can no longer serve - then the board can appoint someone to the position. But this was a case where there was no successor.
Whitlach said if there's no successor, the the current seat holder shall remain in the seat unless they say they don't want to remain.
This option was open to three members - Brough, Arthur and Whaley.
Both Brough and Arthur submitted letters to the school administration stating they did not intend to continue to continue serving on the board.
Whaley submitted a letter expressing her intent to exercise her right to fill the vacancy and remain on the board.
Superintendent Ty Mungle said the board was in a unique situation.
The situation was discussed during the meeting, but there was no vote to take, no decision to be made - a fact expressed in one opinion give to Mungle by David Emmert, General Counsel for the Indiana School Board's Association.
Emmert wrote that if there is a clear holdover member of the school board, the board does not have an option in the matter.
"The holdover remains on the board without any input from the board," wrote Emmert.
"Here, in essence, you appear to have had the possibility of three persons eligible to be holdover members, but two, in effect, have resigned or declined to accept. Hence, you clearly have the one who has not resigned/declined.
"By operation of the Indiana Constitution, it is my opinion, that this person holds over, totally independent of the board's collective desire. I do not see on what basis a court would rule otherwise.
"Lastly, the school board does not have the right to overrule the Constitution (of the State of Indiana) and, hence, has no authority to approve or disapprove the holdover person."
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please
Another joke to eastern greene school. If she wanted the spot she should ran again. Glad my vote didnt count
First of all, Eastern Greene Schools, should be capitalized and I personally think Jackie Whaley did a fine job on the school board and am looking forward to her return. Go Jackie!
I think if she wanted the spot she should of ran for it, like the other nine people!!!
She has every legal right to continue her position on the board. Maybe things have changed between now and then. Would it have been an issue if it would have been one of the other gentlemen? It isn't like the Board had met to discuss their new appointment, at least it was my understanding they were not supposed to. It would be a shame if someone took a position on the board to work on their own agenda and didn't keep in mind that it is all to be for the kids. It will work out fine. Have faith. :)
Is this article a joke? If not, it is ridiculous. This isn't a matter of whether she did a fine job or not. SHE DIDN'T RUN IN THE ELECTION, therefore she shouldn't be able to keep the seat. Even if the law states that an incumbent can choose to stay, that isn't right! Jeremy Inman was is next in line, that is who the people voted for, and that is who should get the postion.
Why couldn't she have ran in the election if she wanted to stay. If something changed between then and now, OH WELL, she wasn't interested then. She waited til the last possible minute to put her "letter of intent" in to the Board. That's not right, no matter how you look at it. Glad my vote in November made a difference.
I just left the meeting, and was really surprised when Jackie was asked by Shelly if she was ready to fill this term and Jackie did not reply until she was asked again by Shelly. Jackie then said that she did not have a crystal ball and said she didn't know how long she would stay!
Glad to see you back, Jackie! Hang in there, you are doing the right thing for the kids of Eastern Greene!!
Wow this election was a joke from the beginning
Some taxpayers stood in line for over two hours to vote, their vote should stand for something! She finished out her term if she was truly interested in remaining on the Board, then why didn't she run for another term. There had to have been some discussion somewhere between some of the incumbments and Ms. Whaley. Who's idea was this exactly??!! This is truly a travesty in the electoral process, it absolutely has nothing to do with what her success rate was as a board member during her previous term. The people voted, and by all accounts Mr. Inman was next in line. When does this sly "under the table" garbage ever going to end with that school board? I surely hope that the newly elected board members realize what is right and what is wrong and stand up! What a shame.
But if I understand all of this correctly, if Mr. Yoho would not have ran in the election, it could have given a completely different outcome. The law is what it is. Let's press on and pray that everyone on the board has the kid's best interest at heart and will do what is right for them. I have never heard that Jackie has been unethical. Give her a chance!
changeitup,
I agree with you and your point totally. But we can't blame the board for this one, at least not the other 8 members. The way I read the article, the board had no say so in this matter. I know that at least 3 members don't agree with this situation.
I can't believe I waited in line 2 hours for this. The next in line should have got it after Yoho decided he wasn't doing it. How is any of this right, or fair?
tbirdfan,
By no means am I placing the blame on the other 8 board members, but I am quite confident there was some discussion that took place between one or two of the already seated board members and Ms. Whaley. Did Ms. Whaley just decide, hmmm, I didn't run for re-election and due to the circumstances of Mr. Yoho leaving the vacancy, I think I know the Indiana Constitution states I really don't have to give up my seat, so I'll just sit tight. Come on, seriously. There had to have been some seeds planted there somewhere. I just hope community members wake up and attend school board meetings and get involved. I think you have some great individuals that were elected this past election and lets only hope they stand up for what is right and most important, the children and the future of Eastern Greene School District!!! And I certainly hope this doesn't sour all the voters that were eager to vote during this past monumental election!
just a another big joke with eastern school board, what did she do before on the school board beside being a yes person.
changeitup,
I agree with you 100%, I just want to make sure people know that all the members do not agree with this. But I think you hit the nail on the head.
Some of the Eastern Greene Board members even ask other options, and they were told by the lawyer it was a grey area. It appeared to me that they lawyers didn't even no the law. This would not have been a problem if Jackie done the right thing and just resign.
Just another joke in the Eastern Greene School District.
I personally feel that it is a shame that Shelly put Jackie on the spot like that last night. Totally inappropriate and uncalled for. In my opinion, if she had not thought about taking on the position then she would have not made the decision to stay on. As far as the "crystal ball" comment, that was stated out of context. Jackie stated that she was committed to the kids of Eastern Greene and the administration. If that meant she was on the board for an additional 4 years, 6 years or 8 years then that is what she would do. Remember, that is what the school is for, the kids of Eastern Greene.
So, Ms. Whaley was still a member of the board? (at the time of the meeting?) -- Her term had not expired? Emmert stated there was the member "who had not resigned". I wouldn't think she would have to resign, if her term had already expired. He also stated that there was not a successor. I think that could be argued in court as there were other candidates who received votes.
I think Shelly should have asked Jackie the question that she did. The public wasn't allowed to ask the board question, we could only ask the lawyer. Shelly asked the question that several people was wanting the answer to, which was never answered by Jackie.
i dont see how this is unethical. and i dont see how any of you could assume that other board members discussed this with jackie. could she have not made the decision on her own? as long as the people on the school board are committed to the eastern community then i am ok with them. and i believe jackie IS. she has done nothing illegal or unethical.