Gardner Edgerton’s open seat on the board of education remains unfilled, despite candidate interviews last week.
After conducting three interviews during the May 11 meeting, the board failed to reach a consensus on which candidate to select. Instead, it decided to continue the conversation with the three candidates at a later date, asking additional questions in a second round of interviews.
“For me anyway, the candidates we spoke with tonight were definitely the top, standout candidates out of the list of people that applied,” said Board Member Katie Williams. “So, I’m not particularly interested in reviewing the people we didn’t bring here in the first place. Obviously, we saw something in these people.”
The board interviewed three of the five candidates May 11, including Alisha Livingston, Terrance Flowers and John Lafferty. One candidate withdrew ahead of time, and another did not show up.
In November, Keith Davenport won the position by a 24-vote difference against incumbent Greg Chapman. However, Davenport no longer lives within the boundaries of the area Position 6 represents and state law calls into question his eligibility.
He moved during last year’s campaign after filing to run, though his new address is still within the school district’s boundaries. Davenport said before the election that he would only take the seat in the area he had left if he won 60% of the vote.
Davenport defeated Chapman with only 50.23% of the vote, and Davenport subsequently announced that he would not accept the seat.
At this month’s board meeting, candidates for the open seat provided opening and closing statements and also answered questions from each board member.
The questions were:
- From President Tom Reddin: “In today’s society, everything seems to be political, especially if you look at social media. How will you make sure our schools are focused on what’s best for the kids, not on politics or outside agendas?”
- From Vice President Heath Freeman: “As board members, we each participate in committees, typically two. Of those committees, do you have any that you think your strengths and experiences will find themselves best at home to where you might be the most benefit?”
- From Jeff Miller: “Should the board focus narrowly on academic performance and fiscal oversight, or also take positions on broader social issues affecting students?”
- From Lana Sutton: “All of the money the school district has is taxpayer money, we all know that. What are your priorities when it comes to fiscal responsibility of the taxpayers’ funds and how would you evaluate whether the district is being effective with them?”
- From Katie Williams: “How will you handle a situation where your personal values conflict with the needs or preferences of the majority of the community you serve?”
- From Julie Aldridge: “How would work ensure that all decisions are made in the best interest of students by setting aside your own personal feelings, while also strengthening support for special education programs, expanding resources for students with special needs and ensuring our SPED staff and students feel valued, heard and supported throughout the district?”
Motions were made to approve each candidate, starting with Livingston, then Lafferty and finally Flowers. Each motion failed 3-3.
“I think for me, I would’ve really loved to have more productive conversation and discussion around our reasoning for our choices,” Williams said. “But also, I get it feels a little weird doing it right in front of the people [candidates] sitting here, watching us.”
Ultimately, the board decided to table the discussion for a later date. It also decided to bring back different questions for the candidates in the hopes that helps them reach a consensus. The candidates agreed to the continuation.
“I think there’s value in going through that process a little bit further,” Freeman said.
Watch the candidate interviews here:
