---

CAT President's Report:

Called to order at 6 p.m.

Members present: Stubblefield, Howard, Coleman, Nelson, Matthews, and Taylor. Superintendent Ferrell and Secretary Thomas were also present. (Tarver was absent.)

# 2 Keyron Jackson spoke to clarify the petition that was filed. He said it was not intended to be against any board members.

# 3 approved

Went into closed session at 6:10 p.m.

Exited closed session at 7:10 p.m.

Items 1 - 4 were approved.

Item 5 was a tie.

Items 6 - 12 were approved.

Item 13 failed.

Items 14 - 25 approved.

Item 26 was a tie.

The Items that did not pass (i.e. HS Boys' Head Coach, HS Track Coach, Junior Class Prom Sponsor) are going to be reviewed and the attorney will be contacted as to how to proceed.

No old business.

Adjourned at 7:35 p.m.

CAT Tracks Editor's Note:

I can save you the suspense of waiting on the District attorney to render an opinion. The "tie votes" mean that the applicants were NOT appointed to fill the positions. The positions are still vacant. The BOE will have to meet again, vote again. (Maybe the next time, all seven members will be present and there won't be a tie.)

While District officials are talking to the attorney, hopefully they will ask about more interesting "hypothetical" situations. For instance: What if at the next meeting the same six members show up again, but one of the members who voted "No" chooses to ABSTAIN from voting? The vote is now 3-2 with one abstention. Does the applicant get the position with a majority of the members present? Or does the applicant need a majority of the full BOE - four "Yes" votes - to be hired for the position? That question is better use of the District's legal fees. (This actually happened "back in the day", but my aged brain can't remember the answer. Sorry!)