There were better options

Elizabeth S. Hutchins
Published: July 12, 2008

Let me begin by saying that I am speaking for myself and not on behalf of the Culpeper County School Board.

Unlike Mr. Beard, I did not know Superintendent David Cox when I was elected to the board. Dr. Cox and I argue frequently on issues, but we have always worked together professionally and respectfully.

Dr. Cox has been an exceptional superintendent. He has led the system through times of crises and times of great achievement with grace and calm.

As Mr. Beard has stated, Dr. Cox has done nothing wrong or illegal. If he, or any other employee, does something wrong, the School Board would have grounds to fire them outright.

There would be no need for a “buyout.”

A copy of the superintendent’s contract was given to all board members in 2005 and in 2007 for review before it was to be voted on.

In fact, Mr. Beard sought me out in 2005, not knowing where I stood on the contract, and strongly urged me to support the contract with the changes. The contract was prepared by the attorney and passed by the board.

The fact is that the contract is not the real issue.

As was shown in last Sunday’s paper, Dr. Cox’s contract was in line with most of the superintendents in the area and probably across the state (“Cox’s contract: The big picture”).

In addition, a contract with a termination clause commonly requires that the settlement be mutually agreed upon. This means that the minimum settlement is unlikely.

Again, the issue is not the superintendent’s contract. This is simply an attempt to deflect attention from the real issue.

The issue is how this was handled by the “new” board members. It was a political move. It was not necessarily a move that is good for the students, the school system or the county.

The county is in a difficult economic situation. The School Board and the county were unable to give raises.

We have three School Board members who took office in January. They wanted the superintendent to leave. They had options.

One of these options, obviously, was reaching a settlement hastily with a “buyout” costing the school system more than it would have cost to give teachers raises.

They had the superintendent’s contract and knew the provisions.

Another option was to talk to the superintendent, instructing him on specific changes they would like to see and providing guidelines as to how he was to proceed.

This conversation never happened.

Another option would have been to negotiate with the superintendent to reach a mutual agreement that he leave at the close of the upcoming school year.

This would have been within budget.

In addition, we would have had the leadership in place to make the transition to the new schools go more smoothly.

Dr. Cox shared with me and other board members on numerous occasions throughout the years that when it was time for him to leave, he was willing to have a conversation to work this out in a way that would be mutually beneficial for all concerned.

I am still very confused with the contradictory action of the majority of the current board.

This board voted against the renovation contract for CCHS earlier this year, stating that they did not know how we could pay for it.

Yet they vote a few months later to remove the superintendent, approve a “buyout,” incur additional costs to pay an interim superintendent and hire part-time help to carry the load. However, no one knows exactly how much this will cost or how this will be paid for.

The previous board did not put the current board in a predicament.The “new” School Board had options which would not have cost the taxpayers another penny. They simply chose not to take them.

Elizabeth S. Hutchins is the Cedar Mountain District representative on the Culpeper County School Board. She is also a former chairwoman of the board. E-mail