Most of school board refutes Suzanne Morgan’s allegations and ethics charges, criticizes her lack of attendance
Editor’s note: This letter is a response from Ocean City Board of Education members to former board member Suzanne Morgan, who sent her own letter to the media on Sunday, Nov. 28, and was printed in the Dec. 1 issue of the Sentinel. This letter was released to the media Wednesday afternoon, Dec. 1. It also will appear in the Dec. 8 edition of the Sentinel.
To the Editor:
Following her defeat in the election held on Nov. 2, Suzanne Morgan’s time as a member of the Ocean City Board of Education included only two more meetings, one in November and one in December. She did not attend the November meeting, and instead of attending the December meeting as a board member, she decided to send a letter of “resignation” simultaneously to the board secretary and several media outlets. According to that letter, her immediate resignation was “in protest of the unethical behavior and bullying perpetrated by the Ocean City Board of Education.” As members of the board who are the targets of the false accusations in that letter and her apparent disgruntlement, we felt it necessary to respond to those accusations, especially given the seriousness of her claims.
In her letter, Ms. Morgan stated that since the beginning of this school year she has “learned the ugly truth of the Ocean City School Board: there is a deep dysfunction and apathy towards the families and children in the district.” Yet her letter lacks any specific examples or facts to support her accusation.
Ms. Morgan also astoundingly claims that other members of the board are “totally disengaged” despite the fact that she did not attend our meetings held on Aug. 4, Aug. 11, and Nov. 17, and refused to attend the Executive Session held during the board meeting on Sept. 22. Her intentional absence from this Executive Session as well as another held during the Nov. 17 meeting were especially frustrating because it was during those sessions that we and our current interim superintendent took the time to try to address some of her unspecified allegations of wrongdoing towards unnamed district staff, and to try to amicably resolve any misconceptions some had about the board, the district and the role of a board member. But unfortunately, as with the unspecified and broad sweeping allegations in her letter, no specifics or support for those baseless allegations of wrongdoing were provided.
In her letter, Ms. Morgan complains that mandates from the state just get “an absent minded ‘yes’” and that the wishes of the community are totally missing from any decisions that are made.
This could not be further from the truth and is indicative of her misunderstanding of both the role of elected board members and the actual feelings of the community that we serve.
For instance, the mandate that has been the most discussed so far this school year was the requirement in Executive Order 251 for staff and students to wear a mask while indoors. This invoked strong feelings throughout the state and here in Ocean City. As board members we listened intently to the comments that were made at our meetings and at the community forums that our interim superintendent held. We also took the extra step to solicit community feedback through a survey on that specific issue. The results of that survey revealed strong community support for the requirements in Executive Order 251 to wear masks when social distancing is not possible. As such, not only did we follow the law as required and have, to date, been able to keep our schools open and in session, but we considered and followed the sentiments of our community.
Just because Ms. Morgan may not agree with that sentiment does not mean we, as board members, did not consider the wishes of our community. Perhaps the kind of questions that should be asked is why Ms. Morgan would rather us dismiss the wishes of our community and defy the requirements of Executive Order 251, or why Ms. Morgan voted “no” on random board agenda items when she did attend a meeting, including the Memorandum of Agreement for the new contract with our teachers association.
Upon reading her letter, there are additional questions that should be asked: How does Ms. Morgan know whether or not board members are reviewing documents and coming to meetings prepared when she has not attended most of the meetings this school year? Which emails have been completely ignored? Which pressing educational issues are not being discussed? Which board member(s) is she accusing of having political agendas and what facts is she basing that accusation on? What media outlet has been told not to publish anything about the complaints? Whose complaints? Hers?
If Ms. Morgan is referring to the ethics charges, she and others filed with the School Ethics Commission against our board president and interim superintendent, then in the interest of transparency it should be noted that the charges against the interim superintendent have already been withdrawn, and two of the three charges filed against the board president have already been dismissed. The sole remaining charge claims only an improper use of the Executive Session on Sept. 22, 2021, in order to address, among other issues, the unspecified allegations of wrongdoing made by Ms. Morgan and others. That charge will likely be dismissed as well, but at an unnecessary expense to the district. More troubling though, is the request by Ms. Morgan and others to have the taxpayers reimburse them for their legal fees in bringing those claims in the first place.
It was always the intent of the interim superintendent and the majority of the board to try to address any concerns in a civil and direct manner and to avoid any unnecessary filings against fellow members. Sadly though, rather than engage in that dialogue, Ms. Morgan and the other members she refers to in her letter chose to file ethics charges of their own. To assert now, as she does in her letter, that conflict exists solely as a result of gender is preposterous and completely unfounded.
These allegations, much like the most recent letter from Ms. Morgan, continue to be a significant distraction, impeding us in our efforts to meet our responsibilities and unnecessarily occupying the time of our interim superintendent and his administrative team. Nevertheless, we will not be deterred from doing what we were elected and entrusted to do.
We are proud members of the Ocean City Board of Education and our respective communities. We appreciate the outpouring of support for the board in response to Ms. Morgan’s letter. We know and understand our role as board members. We choose to place our trust in our teachers and administrators, who are professionals, to do their job and to continue to address the pressing issues in a clear and open manner. As demonstrated through the two public forums held on Aug. 24, 2021, and Nov. 9, 2021, this district has never been more transparent.
Despite the aforementioned distractions and the many challenges, we have faced in light of the pandemic; this has been a wonderful year. We will continue to guide this district forward, providing the kind of representation you have come to expect and deserve.
Sincerely,
Joseph S. Clark, Jr., President
Dr. Patrick Kane, Vice President
H. James Bauer
Michael James
Dr. Charles Roche
Gregory Whelan
William Holmes
Fran Newman
William Sooy
Ocean City Board of Education
