LYON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES
General Election November 5, 2024
General Election November 5, 2024
Phil Cowee vs. Dawn Carson
The race for the county's 3rd district is between long-time incumbent Phillip Cowee (the board's president) and challenger Dawn Carson.
Lyon's Eye Choice: Go with newcomer Dawn Carson
Lyon's Eye Choice: Go with newcomer Dawn Carson
|
Dawn Carson
|
Lyon's Eye scorecard:
Public Responsiveness: Unknown Transparency: Unknown Accountability: Unknown District Performance: Not Applicable Judgement: A |
Endorsements
Lyon County Education Association (LCEA) (the teacher's union) has provided a sizable contribution to Carson's campaign. Lyon County Republican Central Committee Assemblyman Ken Gray |
Here's what Assemblyman Ken Gray had to say:
"I am proud to endorse Dawn Carson for her unwavering commitment to the conservative values that will protect and enhance our children's futures.
As a dedicated teacher, she understands the importance of putting students first and ensuring that our education system upholds the rights of parents. Dawn is a staunch advocate for safer schools through single entry points, ensuring a secure learning environment. Moreover, she recognizes the value of trade schools for students who are not college-bound, providing them with the skills and opportunities needed to succeed in today’s economy.
Dawn's vision for our schools is not just about education—it's about safeguarding the future of our community. With her at the helm, we can trust that our children will be prepared, protected, and prosperous.
Vote for Dawn, a leader who will stand firm for our values and our kids."
"I am proud to endorse Dawn Carson for her unwavering commitment to the conservative values that will protect and enhance our children's futures.
As a dedicated teacher, she understands the importance of putting students first and ensuring that our education system upholds the rights of parents. Dawn is a staunch advocate for safer schools through single entry points, ensuring a secure learning environment. Moreover, she recognizes the value of trade schools for students who are not college-bound, providing them with the skills and opportunities needed to succeed in today’s economy.
Dawn's vision for our schools is not just about education—it's about safeguarding the future of our community. With her at the helm, we can trust that our children will be prepared, protected, and prosperous.
Vote for Dawn, a leader who will stand firm for our values and our kids."
Not a lot is known about Dawn Carson. She is a high school math teacher employed in Carson City. Like the other two candidates that have combined their signs and website, she says she supports
- Parents Rights
- Academic Excellence
- Student Safety
- Board Transparency
While these are rather ambiguous, it's clears that her opponent Phil Cowee has not been a champion of these causes.
- Parents Rights
- Academic Excellence
- Student Safety
- Board Transparency
While these are rather ambiguous, it's clears that her opponent Phil Cowee has not been a champion of these causes.
|
Phil Cowee
|
Lyon's Eye scorecard:
Public Responsiveness: F Transparency: F Accountability: F District Performance: F Judgement: F |
Endorsements
|
Phil Cowee has been on the board for years now and the President of the Board for the past two years. All this time, the academic performance of the district's students has been in steady decline. While other Nevada district's have also declined, Lyon County students have declined more than most with previous test scores being above the state average and are now well below the state average. Mr. Cowee is a local businessman and property developer owning several area businesses and numerous parcels of properties through his layers of business entities. Mr. Cowee lives near the Dayton Valley Golf course, has children in the district's schools and previously was employed by the district in a finance capacity. Mr. Cowee's wife Casandra is employed by the district as a substitute teacher.
PUBLIC RESPONSIVENESS
Public Comment Limitations - May 2023
During Phil Cowee's tenure on the board he has consistently ignored public comment. This trend was amplified in May 2023 when he lead an effort to minimize public comment at board meetings. For as long as records have been kept, the LCSD Board allowed the public to make comments as each agenda item was discussed. At this meeting Phil Cowee and Bridget Peterson proposed a policy change which was recommended by Trustee Darin Farr to eliminate the opportunity for the public to comment as each agenda item was up for discussion and relegate public comment to one period at the beginning of the meeting (before any discussion or action items) and another period the end after all votes have been made.
Few in the public noticed this proposed policy change described on page 428 of a 439 page meeting agenda, published just five days before the meeting.
Public Reaction:
Two members of the public spoke in opposition to this measure.
No members of the public spoke to support it.
Board Response:
Trustees Farr, Cowee, and Peterson spoke in support of this policy change.
Trustees Parsons and Hendrix spoke in opposition to this policy change.
Trustee Farr stated that he wanted efficient meetings and that he estimated the board could reduce the meeting length by 90 minutes by reducing public comment.
Board President Cowee stated that (anonymous) members of the public wanted the change so they could speak to an agenda item and then leave the meeting without staying for the agenda item they were interested in. No emails were presented showing this opinion. No names were stated supporting this position. It seems incredulous that the public would want to speak at the beginning of the meeting only and then leave before the board discussion and votes.
Trustee Villines motioned for a vote to approve the policy change. Trustee Peterson seconded the motion
Voting for the measure: Trustees Farr, Cowee, Villines and Peterson
Voting against the measure: Trustees Hendrix, Parsons and McIntyre
The vote for the policy change passed.
Policy changes are required to be brought before the board at TWO meetings, so this same issue was again on the agenda for the June 2023 meeting.
Meeting Agenda:
YouTube video: Meeting starts about the 17 minute mark. This topic starts at 3hrs, 58 minutes and concludes at 4hrs, 20 minutes.
During Phil Cowee's tenure on the board he has consistently ignored public comment. This trend was amplified in May 2023 when he lead an effort to minimize public comment at board meetings. For as long as records have been kept, the LCSD Board allowed the public to make comments as each agenda item was discussed. At this meeting Phil Cowee and Bridget Peterson proposed a policy change which was recommended by Trustee Darin Farr to eliminate the opportunity for the public to comment as each agenda item was up for discussion and relegate public comment to one period at the beginning of the meeting (before any discussion or action items) and another period the end after all votes have been made.
Few in the public noticed this proposed policy change described on page 428 of a 439 page meeting agenda, published just five days before the meeting.
Public Reaction:
Two members of the public spoke in opposition to this measure.
No members of the public spoke to support it.
Board Response:
Trustees Farr, Cowee, and Peterson spoke in support of this policy change.
Trustees Parsons and Hendrix spoke in opposition to this policy change.
Trustee Farr stated that he wanted efficient meetings and that he estimated the board could reduce the meeting length by 90 minutes by reducing public comment.
Board President Cowee stated that (anonymous) members of the public wanted the change so they could speak to an agenda item and then leave the meeting without staying for the agenda item they were interested in. No emails were presented showing this opinion. No names were stated supporting this position. It seems incredulous that the public would want to speak at the beginning of the meeting only and then leave before the board discussion and votes.
Trustee Villines motioned for a vote to approve the policy change. Trustee Peterson seconded the motion
Voting for the measure: Trustees Farr, Cowee, Villines and Peterson
Voting against the measure: Trustees Hendrix, Parsons and McIntyre
The vote for the policy change passed.
Policy changes are required to be brought before the board at TWO meetings, so this same issue was again on the agenda for the June 2023 meeting.
Meeting Agenda:
YouTube video: Meeting starts about the 17 minute mark. This topic starts at 3hrs, 58 minutes and concludes at 4hrs, 20 minutes.
|
Link will open is a new window:
https://www.youtube.com/live/GD0av7eevDY?si=DollCHdGsF78Oio8 Meeting Minutes
| ||
Public Comment Limitations - June 2023
Since the issue of restricting public comment to only the beginning and end of the meetings was now better known in the public, well over 100 members of the public showed up for this meeting.
Public Reaction:
25 members of the public spoke in opposition to this measure. Most making well-reasoned points about how this change might be legal, that it was not the right thing to do, and the effect would be to curtail the voice of the public.
Lyon County is represented in the Nevada State Assembly by two representatives. Among the 25 speaking against this policy change were both of these representatives.
Assemblyman Ken Gray, District 39 – Includes much of Lyon County. He said this is the most important board in the county since they are entrusted with our most valuable asset, our children. He also noted that both the Nevada legislature and the Lyon County Board of Commissioners allow public comments with each agenda items.
Assemblyman Greg Koenig, District 38 – Includes the remaining part of Lyon County. He spoke in opposition to the policy change and provided the board several ways to better control their meeting without resorting to this curtailment of public comment. Assemblyman Koenig previously served 12 years on the Churchill County School Board, with half of that time as the Board President, so he is very well experienced with school boards and public meetings.
No (ZERO) members of the public spoke in support of the policy change.
One, Casandra Cowee (Board President Phil Cowee's wife), spoke to the public about how making public comment was pointless and that they shouldn't bother. Saying "I think it's important to point out that the discussions on items don't happen at board meetings", and then disparaged members of the public for not volunteering enough and claiming that they don't even have children in the schools. It's important to note that Board Policy requires that public comments be addressed to the board, but Casandra Cowee only addressed her comments to the other members of the public. The thrust of her comments was to let everyone know that making public comments is futile.
At no time did Board President Cowee ask her to address the board or to keep her comments to the agenda item.
Board Response:
Trustees Farr, Cowee, and Peterson spoke in support of this policy change.
Trustees Hendrix, Parsons and McIntyre spoke in opposition to this policy change.
Again, as is the May meeting, President Cowee, said he had heard from "people" that they wanted to make their comments at the beginning of the meeting and then leave before their item of concern came up on the agenda. This time Cowee was joined by Farr saying that he'd heard from "people" too. Neither provided any names or backup to support this claim of anonymous people wanting the policy change.
Voting for the measure: Trustees Farr, Cowee, Villines and Peterson
Voting against the measure: Trustees Hendrix, Parsons and McIntyre
The vote for the policy change passed.
Since the issue of restricting public comment to only the beginning and end of the meetings was now better known in the public, well over 100 members of the public showed up for this meeting.
Public Reaction:
25 members of the public spoke in opposition to this measure. Most making well-reasoned points about how this change might be legal, that it was not the right thing to do, and the effect would be to curtail the voice of the public.
Lyon County is represented in the Nevada State Assembly by two representatives. Among the 25 speaking against this policy change were both of these representatives.
Assemblyman Ken Gray, District 39 – Includes much of Lyon County. He said this is the most important board in the county since they are entrusted with our most valuable asset, our children. He also noted that both the Nevada legislature and the Lyon County Board of Commissioners allow public comments with each agenda items.
Assemblyman Greg Koenig, District 38 – Includes the remaining part of Lyon County. He spoke in opposition to the policy change and provided the board several ways to better control their meeting without resorting to this curtailment of public comment. Assemblyman Koenig previously served 12 years on the Churchill County School Board, with half of that time as the Board President, so he is very well experienced with school boards and public meetings.
No (ZERO) members of the public spoke in support of the policy change.
One, Casandra Cowee (Board President Phil Cowee's wife), spoke to the public about how making public comment was pointless and that they shouldn't bother. Saying "I think it's important to point out that the discussions on items don't happen at board meetings", and then disparaged members of the public for not volunteering enough and claiming that they don't even have children in the schools. It's important to note that Board Policy requires that public comments be addressed to the board, but Casandra Cowee only addressed her comments to the other members of the public. The thrust of her comments was to let everyone know that making public comments is futile.
At no time did Board President Cowee ask her to address the board or to keep her comments to the agenda item.
Board Response:
Trustees Farr, Cowee, and Peterson spoke in support of this policy change.
Trustees Hendrix, Parsons and McIntyre spoke in opposition to this policy change.
Again, as is the May meeting, President Cowee, said he had heard from "people" that they wanted to make their comments at the beginning of the meeting and then leave before their item of concern came up on the agenda. This time Cowee was joined by Farr saying that he'd heard from "people" too. Neither provided any names or backup to support this claim of anonymous people wanting the policy change.
Voting for the measure: Trustees Farr, Cowee, Villines and Peterson
Voting against the measure: Trustees Hendrix, Parsons and McIntyre
The vote for the policy change passed.
|
Link will open in a new window:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkMo-bSporQ Topic starts at: 1 hour, 58 minutes, 48 seconds Meeting Minutes:
Transcript of Casandra Cowee's comments:
| ||||
Stifling Other Board Members, Hiding Law Violations? - July 2023
Consent agenda? A "consent agenda" is a set of agenda items that are so routine that everyone agrees that they don't need to be discussed.
If someone wants to discuss one of these items, they ask to "pull" the item from the consent agenda so it can be discussed at the meeting.
In common practice, essentially all boards allow any board members to request an item's withdrawal from the consent agenda, and then it automatically will be unless it's discussion in public is unlawful (such as confidential personnel issues). This has been the practice of the LCSD Board for as long as records are kept. Some boards also allow members of the public to "pull" items from the consent agenda for discussion. The Lyon County Board of Commissioners follows this practice, giving this opportunity to the public.
This changed in the July 2023 LCSD Board meeting where Trustee Hendrix wanted to discuss a contract for virtual services buried in the "Personnel Reports" section of the agenda, Item 11E and requested to pull it out of consent for discussion for discussion.
Mr. Hendrix also wanted to discuss item 11J, the report summarizing LCSD violations of AB 56 Physical/Mechanical Restraint and Aversive Intervention for students with disabilities. Why these items were buried in the "consent agenda" portion of the meeting is unknown.
Instead of honoring the desire for discussion, Mr. Cowee asked for a motion about these items. There's never been a motion required before. If asked to be pulled for discussion, it is always pulled for discussion. Mr. Hendrix then motioned to pull 11E and 11J out of the consent agenda and this was seconded by Mrs. Parsons. The vote did not pass and therefore no discussion was allowed on these items.
Voting for discussion of 11E and 11J: Hendrix, Parsons
Voting to prevent discussion: Cowee, McIntyre, Villines, Peterson and Farr.
Consent agenda? A "consent agenda" is a set of agenda items that are so routine that everyone agrees that they don't need to be discussed.
If someone wants to discuss one of these items, they ask to "pull" the item from the consent agenda so it can be discussed at the meeting.
In common practice, essentially all boards allow any board members to request an item's withdrawal from the consent agenda, and then it automatically will be unless it's discussion in public is unlawful (such as confidential personnel issues). This has been the practice of the LCSD Board for as long as records are kept. Some boards also allow members of the public to "pull" items from the consent agenda for discussion. The Lyon County Board of Commissioners follows this practice, giving this opportunity to the public.
This changed in the July 2023 LCSD Board meeting where Trustee Hendrix wanted to discuss a contract for virtual services buried in the "Personnel Reports" section of the agenda, Item 11E and requested to pull it out of consent for discussion for discussion.
Mr. Hendrix also wanted to discuss item 11J, the report summarizing LCSD violations of AB 56 Physical/Mechanical Restraint and Aversive Intervention for students with disabilities. Why these items were buried in the "consent agenda" portion of the meeting is unknown.
Instead of honoring the desire for discussion, Mr. Cowee asked for a motion about these items. There's never been a motion required before. If asked to be pulled for discussion, it is always pulled for discussion. Mr. Hendrix then motioned to pull 11E and 11J out of the consent agenda and this was seconded by Mrs. Parsons. The vote did not pass and therefore no discussion was allowed on these items.
Voting for discussion of 11E and 11J: Hendrix, Parsons
Voting to prevent discussion: Cowee, McIntyre, Villines, Peterson and Farr.
|
Agenda including items 11E (contract for virtual services)
and 11J (Violations of restraint law at LCSD
|
Watch the meeting here, with this topic beginning at 30minutes, 35 seconds:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=335X8Pm4uSM 
| ||
|
Bypassing (Breaking?) Public Comment Policy - October 2023
On the heels of restricting publics comments in June of 2023, Mr. Cowee found some public comments he likes and decided to include it in his Board Member Report. It was from a teacher objecting to the proposed idea of the creation of a Citizen's Advisory Committee acting under the Board of Trustees. Mr. Cowee didn't like the idea so he was happy to read these comments for nearly 5 minutes. Clearly, when Mr. Cowee likes the viewpoint of public comment, he find a way to allow it. |
Watch Cowee read the public comments here, starting at 26 minutes, 30 seconds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_bCfguI5c4 |
Allowing Slanderous Public Comments Targeted at another Member of the Public - November 2023
(Also known as the Curious Case of Mary McDonald)
(Read this section to the end for the important Cowee-McDonald connection) Since in October 2023 Cowee read public comments at the meeting as part of his Board Member Report, another member of the public thought to use this same avenue to get her comments read aloud while not being present at the meeting. We understand that Dianne Davis sent her comments to all seven board members, asking if one of them would read them at the meeting. Her comments were in support of having the board do a search for the new superintendent instead of simply promoting the deputy superintendent without looking at other options. Trustee Sherry Parsons read the comments as part of her board report. Other member of the public also made comments both for promoting Tim Logan to the position and urging that others should be considered. In the end, the board voted to promote Tim Logan and not look for other potential applicants.
A twist came at the end of the meeting where public comment is allowed for items not on the agenda. Several comments were made, but the comments of Mary McDonald stand out. Mary came forward to make her comments with a pre-printed script, which is often the case to help commenters remember and cover their points. The twist came when Mary McDonald addressed Dianne Davis directly (though she was not at the meeting) instead of the Board. Board policy requires public comment to be addressed to the board. Mary McDonald then went on a rant accusing Dianne Davis of not helping the schools and bringing Dianne's church into the rant as well making slanderous accusations phrased as questions.
The sort of questions like "Have you kicked that heroine habit yet?".
Mr. Cowee did not ask Ms. McDonald to stop the slander, nor ask her address the board.
(Also known as the Curious Case of Mary McDonald)
(Read this section to the end for the important Cowee-McDonald connection) Since in October 2023 Cowee read public comments at the meeting as part of his Board Member Report, another member of the public thought to use this same avenue to get her comments read aloud while not being present at the meeting. We understand that Dianne Davis sent her comments to all seven board members, asking if one of them would read them at the meeting. Her comments were in support of having the board do a search for the new superintendent instead of simply promoting the deputy superintendent without looking at other options. Trustee Sherry Parsons read the comments as part of her board report. Other member of the public also made comments both for promoting Tim Logan to the position and urging that others should be considered. In the end, the board voted to promote Tim Logan and not look for other potential applicants.
A twist came at the end of the meeting where public comment is allowed for items not on the agenda. Several comments were made, but the comments of Mary McDonald stand out. Mary came forward to make her comments with a pre-printed script, which is often the case to help commenters remember and cover their points. The twist came when Mary McDonald addressed Dianne Davis directly (though she was not at the meeting) instead of the Board. Board policy requires public comment to be addressed to the board. Mary McDonald then went on a rant accusing Dianne Davis of not helping the schools and bringing Dianne's church into the rant as well making slanderous accusations phrased as questions.
The sort of questions like "Have you kicked that heroine habit yet?".
Mr. Cowee did not ask Ms. McDonald to stop the slander, nor ask her address the board.
Comments of Mary McDonald from 11-28-23 LCSD Board meeting
“I'd like to direct this to Deanna Davis.
Do you really think the teachers in this district are liars? I rarely call people liars, as you so freely do. And I highly doubt teachers are turning a blind eye to kids vaping in class or passing them for higher for higher rankings. The COVID shutdown affected grades in academia worldwide. How can you blame the local teachers for that? I notice your diatribe is strictly about complaints. You sure like to take other people's inventory. It's always easier than admitting that you might be part of the problem. I didn't hear you offer any solutions to help the kids. Does your church offer after school programs, summer programs, or meals when school's out? Do you mentor, do you mentor or tutor students, volunteer in classes, chaperone events or organize book drives? Do you offer childcare for overwhelmed parents or help provide school clothes, supplies, holiday meals, Christmas presents, sports programs, or maybe scholarships? Not just to your parishioners. How about offering a room in the church for AA, Alonon, Alitine, or Narcanon meetings to help the kids or parents. There's an average of 6,000 waking hours in a year. Kids spend an average of 1,000 hours in school. Just imagine what you could do to positively influence those other 5,000 hours rather than proliferate a war on the board. Why not create some peace for the kids? “
“I'd like to direct this to Deanna Davis.
Do you really think the teachers in this district are liars? I rarely call people liars, as you so freely do. And I highly doubt teachers are turning a blind eye to kids vaping in class or passing them for higher for higher rankings. The COVID shutdown affected grades in academia worldwide. How can you blame the local teachers for that? I notice your diatribe is strictly about complaints. You sure like to take other people's inventory. It's always easier than admitting that you might be part of the problem. I didn't hear you offer any solutions to help the kids. Does your church offer after school programs, summer programs, or meals when school's out? Do you mentor, do you mentor or tutor students, volunteer in classes, chaperone events or organize book drives? Do you offer childcare for overwhelmed parents or help provide school clothes, supplies, holiday meals, Christmas presents, sports programs, or maybe scholarships? Not just to your parishioners. How about offering a room in the church for AA, Alonon, Alitine, or Narcanon meetings to help the kids or parents. There's an average of 6,000 waking hours in a year. Kids spend an average of 1,000 hours in school. Just imagine what you could do to positively influence those other 5,000 hours rather than proliferate a war on the board. Why not create some peace for the kids? “
Take note of several key items:
1. People in the room saw that Mary McDonald spoke from a pre-printed script. This was prepared before the meeting
2. Ms. Davis's comments were only read aloud in the room nearer the beginning of this same meeting.
3. Ms. Davis's comments were ONLY sent to board members before the meeting.
4. Mary McDonald hadn't been at a board meeting before this one or after this one.
From this, it seems clear that Ms. McDonald somehow had Ms. Davis's comments well before the meeting and they could have only come from a board member who "leaked" them to her.
Are any of the board trustees connected to Mary McDonald?
Yes. Mary McDonald is an employee of Phil Cowee.
Coincidence? You be the judge.
McDonald is the Property Manager at Sutro Self Storage.
Cowee is the owner of Sutro Self Storage.
Did Cowee pressure McDonald to support him this way?
Did Cowee provide the Davis comments to McDonald and encourage her to develop comments for the meeting?
Did Cowee write the script for the comments and give it to McDonald to read at the meeting?
It's unlikely we'll ever know these answer for sure. Smells like a fish market on an August afternoon though.
1. People in the room saw that Mary McDonald spoke from a pre-printed script. This was prepared before the meeting
2. Ms. Davis's comments were only read aloud in the room nearer the beginning of this same meeting.
3. Ms. Davis's comments were ONLY sent to board members before the meeting.
4. Mary McDonald hadn't been at a board meeting before this one or after this one.
From this, it seems clear that Ms. McDonald somehow had Ms. Davis's comments well before the meeting and they could have only come from a board member who "leaked" them to her.
Are any of the board trustees connected to Mary McDonald?
Yes. Mary McDonald is an employee of Phil Cowee.
Coincidence? You be the judge.
McDonald is the Property Manager at Sutro Self Storage.
Cowee is the owner of Sutro Self Storage.
Did Cowee pressure McDonald to support him this way?
Did Cowee provide the Davis comments to McDonald and encourage her to develop comments for the meeting?
Did Cowee write the script for the comments and give it to McDonald to read at the meeting?
It's unlikely we'll ever know these answer for sure. Smells like a fish market on an August afternoon though.
|
Watch the video of this meeting here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nvnz9HZR0ko Diane Davis comments (read by Sherry Parsons) starts at 15 minutes, 40 seconds Mary McDonald's comments start at 3 hours, 4 minutes, 25 seconds |
Attempt to Answer McDonald's Questions Shut Down - January 2024
Mary McDonald's slanderous "questions" were allowed in the November 2023 meeting without any opportunity to answer them, since these questions aimed at Dianne Davis, who wasn't even there. In January 2024 Jim Davis made public comment so the board would know the answers to the questions. Mr. Davis's comments were addressed to the board and were in no way a violation of public comment policy, yet he was stopped quite quickly.
Mr. Davis began:
"I’m here to address the board about allowing slanderous public comments that do not adhere to the board policy. Specifically, board policy requires that comments A. address the board and B. must not be willfully slanderous, amount to personal attacks, or interfere with the rights of other speakers.
Recently, at the November meeting, Mary McDonald addressed her comments, not to the board, but specifically to my wife Deanne Davis.
Ms. McDonald went on to slanderously accuse Deanne’s church of doing nothing for the community. That church is Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley and Deanne and I are enormously blessed to be part of the family there. We must not let public accusations go unanswered.
In case Mary McDonald or anyone else asks the board these questions, the board will now know the answers:
Mary McDonald asked:
“Does your church offer after school programs?”
Yes. Calvary Chapel offers programs on Wednesdays for kids Pre-K through 6th grade. Friday activities for middle and high-school students and soon a new program for high-school students on Tuesdays..."
At which point the legal counsel for the LCSD intervened and stopped the public comment. What followed was the legal counsel and Mr. Cowee insisting Davis not continue, but never answering why Mary McDonald's comments were permitted by the board, It's quite a double-standard on full display. Cowee allows policy to be broken when he likes the outcome, but is quick to enforce the same policy when he opposes the viewpoint of the comment. Some might call this religious discrimination to allow official public meeting attacks on a church, and then deny the opportunity for the attacks to be rebutted.
Mary McDonald's slanderous "questions" were allowed in the November 2023 meeting without any opportunity to answer them, since these questions aimed at Dianne Davis, who wasn't even there. In January 2024 Jim Davis made public comment so the board would know the answers to the questions. Mr. Davis's comments were addressed to the board and were in no way a violation of public comment policy, yet he was stopped quite quickly.
Mr. Davis began:
"I’m here to address the board about allowing slanderous public comments that do not adhere to the board policy. Specifically, board policy requires that comments A. address the board and B. must not be willfully slanderous, amount to personal attacks, or interfere with the rights of other speakers.
Recently, at the November meeting, Mary McDonald addressed her comments, not to the board, but specifically to my wife Deanne Davis.
Ms. McDonald went on to slanderously accuse Deanne’s church of doing nothing for the community. That church is Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley and Deanne and I are enormously blessed to be part of the family there. We must not let public accusations go unanswered.
In case Mary McDonald or anyone else asks the board these questions, the board will now know the answers:
Mary McDonald asked:
“Does your church offer after school programs?”
Yes. Calvary Chapel offers programs on Wednesdays for kids Pre-K through 6th grade. Friday activities for middle and high-school students and soon a new program for high-school students on Tuesdays..."
At which point the legal counsel for the LCSD intervened and stopped the public comment. What followed was the legal counsel and Mr. Cowee insisting Davis not continue, but never answering why Mary McDonald's comments were permitted by the board, It's quite a double-standard on full display. Cowee allows policy to be broken when he likes the outcome, but is quick to enforce the same policy when he opposes the viewpoint of the comment. Some might call this religious discrimination to allow official public meeting attacks on a church, and then deny the opportunity for the attacks to be rebutted.
|
You should really see it.
Watch the attempt to give the board answers to the Questions of November 2023. Starts at: 2 hours, 39 minutes, 38 seconds https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ez9tEow2Dn0 (Note that this video is mistakenly labeled at YouTube as January 2023) |
|
The "Insiders Club" Path to Promotion - January 2024
With Tim Logan's promotion to Superintendent approved in November 2023, this left an opening for the Deputy Superintendent position. Would the district simply advertise the position with the long-standing qualification requirement ? No. Of course not. They pre-selected someone and rigged the system to make it happen.
Who was selected? Director of Human Resources, Dawn Huckabee. No problem, right?
Well, the problem was that she did NOT meet the requirements for the position.
Solution? Drop the requirements low enough for her to qualify and then post the position over Christmas break. Nothing fishy here, right?
The existing job requirements for Deputy Superintendent included having a Nevada teaching license, a Nevada school administrative endorsement, and a minimum of 5 years of successful licensed teaching experience. According to the State of Nevada teaching license website, Mrs. Huckaby does NOT hold a teaching license other than a substitute license obtained in October of 2020, and appears to have never taught in the classroom as a licensed teacher, certainly not for 5 years.
In December 2023, the job requirements for Deputy Superintendent were changed to remove the teaching license, administrative endorsement, and 5 years of successful teaching experience requirements. The only license requirement left is a drivers license.
With Tim Logan's promotion to Superintendent approved in November 2023, this left an opening for the Deputy Superintendent position. Would the district simply advertise the position with the long-standing qualification requirement ? No. Of course not. They pre-selected someone and rigged the system to make it happen.
Who was selected? Director of Human Resources, Dawn Huckabee. No problem, right?
Well, the problem was that she did NOT meet the requirements for the position.
Solution? Drop the requirements low enough for her to qualify and then post the position over Christmas break. Nothing fishy here, right?
The existing job requirements for Deputy Superintendent included having a Nevada teaching license, a Nevada school administrative endorsement, and a minimum of 5 years of successful licensed teaching experience. According to the State of Nevada teaching license website, Mrs. Huckaby does NOT hold a teaching license other than a substitute license obtained in October of 2020, and appears to have never taught in the classroom as a licensed teacher, certainly not for 5 years.
In December 2023, the job requirements for Deputy Superintendent were changed to remove the teaching license, administrative endorsement, and 5 years of successful teaching experience requirements. The only license requirement left is a drivers license.
|
Previous Requirements
Driver License Nevada Teaching License Nevada School Administrative Endorsement 5 years licensed teaching experience 5 years site or district level administration |
New Requirements
Driver License 5 years site or district level administration |
Since the job posting was over Christmas break and there was no announcement of the lowered expectations, applicants that previously looked at the position would have mistakenly thought they would not qualify. Christmas break might be the least-likely time for applicant to be searching jobs, since those in the education field are taking long-awaited time off with family.
Did the board know the qualifications were significantly reduced?
Again, we'll never know. An attempt was made to ask them at the January board meeting, but that was quickly shut down by the legal counsel stating that polling board members was not allowed.
As HR Director, did Huckabee interview herself?
Were there any other applicants?
Was anyone else interviewed?
Who instigated the change in job requirements?
Why was this decision confirmed five months before the position was even open?
Did the board know the qualifications were significantly reduced?
Again, we'll never know. An attempt was made to ask them at the January board meeting, but that was quickly shut down by the legal counsel stating that polling board members was not allowed.
As HR Director, did Huckabee interview herself?
Were there any other applicants?
Was anyone else interviewed?
Who instigated the change in job requirements?
Why was this decision confirmed five months before the position was even open?