BY KARISSA MILLER
The Iredell-Statesville Schools Board of Education voted 4-3 on Monday to censure Board member Mike Kubiniec in response to concerns raised by the board chairman over Kubiniec’s conduct.
The censure vote came less than two months after the I-SS Board voted to remove Kubiniec from his position as vice chair.
Board members Doug Knight and Abby Trent, along with Vice Chair Charles Kelly and Chair Bill Howell, voted in support of the motion to censure Kubiniec. Board members Anita Kurn and Brian Sloan cast dissenting votes, along with Kubiniec.
A censure is a formal statement of disapproval of a member’s conduct. It doesn’t hold any power beyond a public reprimand.
The board first began considering censuring Kuniniec during a meeting on October 2, when Howell handed out a letter that cited reasons to consider the action, including:
♦ Bringing a non-school visitor for a visit to a school without prior permission or notice on more than one occasion. Not requiring the visitor to sign in upon arrival at the school.
♦ Not providing an inviting environment for staff and students.
♦ Working against the Superintendent and the Board in policy decisions regarding students.
♦ Making multiple requests from employees without the full approval of the Board. Treating employees as though they report to you and monopolizing employees’ time, which takes away from their normal duties.
♦ Not following process and procedures for school district operations.
♦ Breaking school board policies by sending out a survey on I-SS email.
On October 10, board members discussed the censure matter in closed session because it required identifying specific personnel. Kubiniec was given time to review the sanctions and create a rebuttal.
Before the censure vote on Monday, Howell noted that Kubiniec, the District 5 representative on the board, had provided a 71-page document in his defense to his fellow board members.
The chair allowed Kubiniec to speak for 10 minutes before the censure vote.
Kubiniec, who called the earlier proceedings against him a “sham show,” said the evidence presented by Howell against him was “bogus.” He also argued that his due process rights had been violated during the proceedings.
“None of the evidence shows I violated any specific board policy – can’t name one policy, district process or school sign-in process,” Kubiniec said.
He also accused the board members who voted to strip him of his title as vice chairman of relying on “hearsay” evidence in reaching that decision. He read from the board’s Code of Ethics, outlining what is expected of board members in their official roles, and said they had not met those standards.
“You all violated the Code of Ethics,” Kubiniec said. “Where’s the censure, Mr. Chairman?”
During board discussion on the censure motion, Sloan said board members did not consider any evidence when they voted to oust Kubiniec from his leadership position on October 10.
“The evidence was given in closed session so we can’t discuss it. We were told we can’t question the witnesses. I don’t know how you can defend that,” Sloan said. “Every time I found a piece of meat (evidence) I put it on my sandwich and I ended up with a bread sandwich.”
Kurn also defended Kubiniec, saying that he “wants to make things better.”
“Based on what I have looked at in my research, I don’t see that the evidence is there,” she said.
However, Knight said that the evidence against Kubiniec justified censure.
“I made a comment, ‘Don’t be the best show in town.’ Now, we’ve became the best show in town,” Knight said. “It’s got even worst from there. I think a big part of this is a result of Mr. Kubiniec and the things that have happened here in the board meetings. I hate it. To me, there’s more than enough.”
Knight said that the board needs to get back to focusing on doing what is best for students and staff — like working on the new high school and other big projects.
Sloan disagreed, saying that everything on the agenda gets accomplished at every meeting.
“Everything on the agenda has been accomplished every night. I’m tired of people saying we’re taking away from the kids. … I don’t like all this squabbling and baby acting,” he said. “We’ve not taken away from the kids.”
It is true that the agenda was fulfilled at each meeting? Brian Sloan forgot to mention how many items were voted to be handled at a future meeting. I was impressed that Sloan decided to withdraw his request for prayer at the meetings and agree with those several who mention that when the members walk in the door they should already be prepared mentally and emotionally (and “religiously”) to whatever is set for that night’s meeting. Bringing religion into a government meeting can definitely open the door to that slippery slope and would be extremely hard to monitor. A moment of silence would be preferred or simply a non-religious positive 30 seconds or so would produce the same effect. A Sgt of Arms (Parliamentarian) should always be at meetings, so it’s a good thing the attorney handled this last meeting. We were thrilled to see that Bill Howell and Charles Kelly are doing what is right and “reining it in” so that the meetings will be handled properly and without the negativity and childish behavior that we’ve had to embarrassingly witness for so very long in the last year. Good to know that Abby Trent’s situation was resolved for now but disappointed that while Anita Kurn can admit that Mike kubiniec is the type of person that is difficult to deal with, she could not find it in herself to admit any wrongdoing on her part with any of the situation. Finally, the School Board is not a court so it was interesting that Kubiniec provided a 71-page “rebuttal” of sorts and stated he had done nothing wrong. What he did wrong, in my opinion, was just being overly aggressive, starting in his campaign when he demanded to be included in a local woman’s meeting and was extremely forceful according to his own online Facebook post. He felt it was funny to do so. His actions turn off too many people. It’s not just his accent! If he could simply follow protocol/rules and get off his high horse, perhaps others would work with him and maybe some of his ideas could be considered.
A bone of contention is that Board was presented with 2 calendars for next year. One violates the NC law start date time period. Many of the board stated that this one is better for students, teachers, and education; however, it violates state law and they took an oath to abide by the laws of NC. To us, it’s obvious: select that calendar that does not violate the law. Your ethics are at risk if you choose the other. It will soon be voted on and we hope you do the right thing. Find some way to make the one you say is best for students/teachers/education meet the law. Mike Kubiniec asked to table this decision so the board won’t “show its hand” (presuming he means to the state?) but saying so in a public meeting and on video that anyone can see, makes it yet, as Doug Knight says, “the best show in town!” Why state you will definitely be voting against the policy and state law? Why would we want to continue to allow a person to be a school board member knowing that the same person has no issues with violation of NC state laws?