In what might have been the first time that transparency was attempted in the recent budget crisis in the school district, the WSFCS Board of Education seemed to finally break their silence on an ever-growing financial tempest.

And it feels like it was two months too late.

You can watch a broadcast of the meeting here.

And the fireworks pretty much start at the 2:11:30 moment when questioning is opened after the superintendent’s report on the budget.

As was reported in a newly posted article on the Winston-Salem Journal’s website (and set for tomorrow’s edition):

Not ironic that this part of the meeting was not begun with actual questioning. It was introduced with rehearsed posturing that reeked of political grandstanding. What Robert Barr said in the next four-plus minutes was a prepared speech that seemed more about saving face. Tommy Kranz’s possible “termination” being brought up almost two months after the audit exposed financial shortcomings in such a public place when those opinions should have been voiced earlier was weak at best.

This teacher remembers as soon as he heard Barr’s statement wondering if Barr had ever voiced these opinions before in one of the multitude of private meetings about the budget situation since that day in March. When he states that he learned about the letter from the state board sent in April through social media (2:14:50), one can’t help but think why it took until May 27th at the WSFCS BOE meeting to express that.

What conversations has he had with other board members and the superintendent in the time between March 27th when Krantz talked about initial deficits and May 27th when you publicly tried to absolve yourself? If someone can approach him in a Walmart, CVS, or Target about the school district’s woes on any given day, has any attempt on his part been made to converse with others on the school board in the past two months over the budget?

Echoing “reports” from credible sources that vendors had not been paid by the district and openly “wondering” if other board members had heard the same is not leadership. That’s blame with a side of “I said it first; therefore, I get to use it.” If a school board member was to hear something like that, why wait until the next public meeting to voice it in front of an audience rather than confront it behind closed doors the minute it was heard. That’s what a leader would have done.

When Susan Miller followed up with her prepared statement, it further cemented my opinion that bringing up terminating the superintendent was a politically motivated maneuver planned with party politics. In her quest to answer the public’s outrage over the BOARD’s transparency, she wanted to terminate just the superintendent with a motion right then and there that was out of place with procedure.

You can hear someone yelling in the background about political posturing. And it was.

Also, when Miller said her words, she was literally five feet from the superintendent who was still at the podium for her presentation.

When Richard Watts spoke up, he nailed it on the head. At 2:24:40, he stated that he was appalled that “some of you would take the opportunity to do this publicly when we’ve had every opportunity behind sessions to voice your opinions.”

Two months in fact.

A motion to terminate McManus was never brought up again. It’s as if the idea was intentionally brought up to measure the political winds in the room and of the community.

And it certainly told this teacher a lot about some people on our local school board.