A motion to have the Ministry of Education take control of the Hastings Prince Edward District Board failed on Monday evening.
Sidney/Frankford Trustee Ernie Parsons motion read “that the Minister of Education be requested to take control of the Hastings and Prince Edward District School Board and appoint a supervisor for the board.”
Parsons wanted open time for debate, as opposed to four minutes each, however that failed.
His statement focused around busing contracts and legal fees.
“The board doesn’t want to hear anything that would possibly hurt their feelings. I’m going to start off with the $175,000 that this board spent on a lawyer. That money was paid for and directed to students, not to us. As trustees, it’s not just a title, it’s a role, and we are responsible for the assets as if they’re our own personal assets.
There was an allegation of a complaint. The board very quickly lawyered up to deal with it. What Trustee Prinzen is alleged to have done didn’t hurt the board, but it hurt every student in this county. We took $175,000 that belonged in schools and belonged for students and for staff, and we spent it. I would suggest that there were other methods that could have been done—there’s reconciliation, there’s mediation. We lawyered up.
We took public money and spent $175,000, to the point that in the press release last week, the Minister specifically listed our board for the inappropriate legal fees that this board went through. We are as trustees supposed to represent parents and students, and the first two people that spoke to me when I was appointed made sure to tell me that it’s not appropriate to visit a school. We can represent students, but we shouldn’t meet them or talk to them about it.
We talked at the last board meeting about the safety and selection process for new bus operators. We were told at that time that consortiums are independent organizations. The Minister stated last week that consortiums are subsidiaries of the board—subsidiaries of the board, which means they take their orders from us, but this board never treated them like that.”
Vice-Chair Erica Charlton voted against the motion.
“We are a financially responsible board. We’re a group that has had to make very difficult decisions to balance our budget and had to be the face to our constituents to own up to those decisions.”
Trustee Amanda Robertson voted against the motion and stated there is a shared commitment around the trustee table to student achievement, accountability, and public trust.
“I firmly believe in local democracy and local democratic governance and the responsibility that’s been entrusted to us by our communities. As trustees, we’ve made real and measurable progress. Our board is actively addressing the metrics and expectations that are set out by the ministry and that work is ongoing and it has been constructive.”
Trustee Ron Speck was opposed and laid out what the motion meant.
“It means that our board will be in direct control by the government. It means that we won’t be allowed to have an open public debate with the folks coming in. Supervisors, which are the government, will oversee board operations and finances without the involvement of trustees and our board community.”
Trustee Kandis Hambly.
“If we allow the school board to be taken over by the government, we’re relinquishing our rights to have our voices heard. This meeting alone, I have received over two messages from parents. So what are they supposed to do? Put their messages to Queen’s Park?”
Trustee Rachel Prinzen was in favour of the motion.
“I believe the board’s governance is a facade. As much as we’re talking about everyone has a voice around the table, that has not been my experience.”
She pointed to her judicial review and the sworn affidavit from Trustee Parsons.
Statement of Ernie Parsons, spoken by Trustee Rachel Prinzen “At the conclusion of a public board meeting on April of 2024, I was approached by (then) Chair (Shannon) Binder and (then) Vice-Chair (Amanda) Robertson who stated to me that we need to do something for the director. I had no sense of whether this was at the director’s request or whether they made the decision to act on their own. They stated that Trustee Prinzen was causing the director of education a great deal of stress and we need to come up with a complaint against her that will cause her to be suspended and to lose her honorarium for several months. This conversation was reasonably short as I gave no indication of wishing to participate. I now have reason to believe that this was the start of a campaign to silence Trustee Prinzen.”
Board Chair Kari Kramp.
“This motion, I believe touches on a tension in our public education system—the balance between local democratic representation and provincial oversight. I wish to acknowledge the arguments that we’ve heard, both those advocating for external intervention and also for those arguing for the necessity of maintaining local elected representation.
As chair, my primary role is to facilitate our collective work and to ensure every trustee has the opportunity to be heard and to represent their community. However, the bylaws also permit the chair to vote, and I intend to do so on this matter, and I will be voting against this motion.
While no democratic system is perfect, I believe this board has demonstrated clear evidence of progress. Over the past several years, we’ve achieved significant improvements in our governance structure. We’ve maintained stable fiscal stewardship through three consecutive years of a balanced budget. We’ve also secured stable leadership through a new contract for our director. We now regularly receive progress updates on year one of our five-year strategic plan—a plan that was arrived at through extensive community consultation and collaboration.
Regarding concerns of the code of conduct and associated costs, I believe it’s important to note that the board has taken necessary steps to defend the integrity and accountability of our processes. In my view, the work we have undertaken to refine our internal oversight is exactly the kind of reflection and improvement a governing body should perform. Trusting in the Minister’s discretion to determine when a supervisor is necessary is a matter for the ministry.”
Only Parsons and Prinzen voted in favour of the motion.
(l-r) Trustees Rachel Prinzen, Ernie Parsons, Ron Speck, and Student Trustee Maria Nash (Photo: Tim Durkin/ Quinte News)
