Youngkin’s Reform Goals Threatened by the Board of Education
Share this article
ADVERTISEMENT
(comments below)
Comments
Comments
15 responses to “Youngkin’s Reform Goals Threatened by the Board of Education”
-
Of course, I and others on this blog have been pointing out all along that Youngkin would not have plenary power to do all that he has promised to do.
Following are the grounds for removing a board member. Which reason do you suggest he employ: malfeasance, misfeasance,
“incompetence, misconduct, neglect of duty, absenteeism, conflict of
interests, failure to carry out the policies of the Commonwealth as
established in the Constitution or by the General Assembly, or refusal
to carry out a lawful directive of the Governor”-
Any one. Let them spend four years litigating their removal.
-
Under the law, the Governor is the sole judge of their removal.
-
-
From Steve Haner’s column earlier today, “On paper, the members appointed or reappointed under previous Democratic Governor Ralph Northam have fixed terms to complete, and Youngkin can replace only two of the seven members come July 1. Need he wait years for a majority? Four years ago Northam fired two air board members out of the blue, right on the eve of a key regulatory vote involving the Atlantic Coast Pipeline.”
I assume the Air Board is less protected than the Ed board?
-
As I pointed out in response to Steve, the terms of those Air Board members had expired several months earlier. He just had taken no action to reappoint them or appoint someone in their place. Since no action had been taken, they continued to serve, albeit on borrowed time.
-
Which neither proves nor disproves that they serve at the pleasure. It was clear at the time they were shit-canned, and others were not, because of how they would vote. And there is this in the section Sherlock cited:
The Governor is the sole judge of the sufficiency of the cause for removal as set forth in this section.
Now there is a phrase that a judge will notice.
-
I noticed that phrase, as well. I think the legal argument would go something like this: If that phrase means that a board member who is being replaced under one of the reasons cited in this section has no recourse to the courts, that, in effect, makes a board appointment subject to the pleasure of the Governor. If the legislature had meant for an appointment to be at the pleasure of the Governor, it would have said so. Therefore, a Governor’s action under this statute is subject to judicial review.
Regardless of the legal argument, I, like you, would be surprised if any board member would be willing to go through the aggravation of a law suit to retain an unpaid position that demands a lot of his personal time.
So, it would depend of whether Youngkin were willing to stir up the political blowback that firing the Board of Education would cause.
-
I have been reminded of another famous case, in 2012, McDonnell removing the full Port Authority Board to get something he wanted and they opposed…
-
The Port Authority is a different case. By law, it is a “body corporate and as a political subdivision of the Commonwealth.” Therefore, the statute which limits the power of the governor to remove member of agency boards in the executive branch does not apply to the Port Authority. Because the statute providing for the appointment of the members of the Port Authority does not place any restriction on the Governor, they essentially serve at his pleasure.
-
-
-
-
-
Keeee….rect. Not the same legal construction at all, and I think there is case law on the Board of Education. The lawyers will fight it out, but for many boards the reality is they can be removed at will.
I admit I’m not an expert on this and fully understand that the laws say what the judge says they say! Must “serves at the pleasure” be explicit in the Code? Or must it work the other way, and the Code must state that board members cannot be removed? Despite the protection, will some Woke BoE member want to spend the next couple of years in that cauldron, Horatio on that bridge? Won’t be fun.
We agree. That is the law. I suggest the Governor cite misfeasance. “Misfeasance describes some affirmative act that, though legal, causes harm.” Fits this situation exactly.
I also note that ” The Governor is the sole judge of the sufficiency of the cause for removal as set forth in this section.” Misfeasance in this or any other case of removal is thus what the Governor, as the sole judge, determines it to be.
-
The gender nonsense getting in there proves both incompetence and malfeasance.
There is a larger issue as this board is actually created and empowered in the Constitution, not just the Code. It was intended by the framers to be in a different category, more protected, and if you know the history no surprise. Plenty of the others are at-will. If you read the section further you see it also protects the higher education boards of visitors from removal.
… and reality. Republican unicorn dies on altar of the law.
Don’t worry. He has plans with transvaginal ultrasound. Just wait ’til you see that one!
[…] Note. I wrote a story in January recommending that the governor fire the BOE. Turns out he did not have to. The […]
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.