Hensley Derangement roiling a certain local newsroom, certain parts of Vass
It must be fun to live rent-free in someone’s brain. Especially one powering a weasel who doesn’t have the guts to sign his name to attacks on his wife’s political foes.
But that is where Moore County board of education member David Hensley finds himself. Media reports indicate that the spouse of Pilot managing editor John Nagy left her job at the Moore County Schools’ central office abruptly while in a spat with Hensley.
We had to find out from an outside media source that Nagy’s wife even worked at the central office. She apparently was responsible for managing news coverage for the schools. All while her husband was editor of the only paper in the county. *Wasn’t that a sweet deal?*
Since she left the school system, coverage of the school board has intensified. Prior to the departure of Mrs. Nagy, we got little to nothing in the paper regarding the school system. What made it had a feel-good autocratic dictatorship propagandistic flavor to it.
Now that she’s gone, the schools get a lot more scrutiny. And EVERYTHING is now David Hensley‘s fault. (At least according to the unsigned editorials on the paper’s op-ed page.)
Recently, Hensley brought attention to the sky-rocketing legal bills the school system was being hit with. It’s no secret to any regular follower of the school board that the attorney spends a ridiculous amount of time in meetings – and participating in them. No other local board has an attorney who is so involved in the board’s in-meeting action. It appears as though Chairman Robin Calcutt could not even run a meeting without the attorney walking her through the process.
Hensley’s review of the invoices found an outrageous amount of billing involving staffers and board members just calling up the attorney on their own. There did not appear to be any gatekeeper process. No one appeared to be keeping track of how big the bills were getting.
Here’s a little secret: If you contact a lawyer and ask them about something related to the law, they’re going to send you a bill. It’s not like asking your neighbor for advice on how to fix your car or something like that.
Hensley and interim superintendent Jenny Purvis went before the board about looking for a new attorney — with the hope of bringing the billing down.
Hensley expressed a belief that a combination of a new, more cost-effective attorney and better controls on the process of consulting the attorney could rectify it all. Makes sense, no?
But of course, an unsigned editorial appears in The Pilot blaming the huge legal bills on lawsuits by people mad at attempted conservative reforms by Hensley and his allies. (*If only Hensley and the gang had not provoked all those woke loons to go hire lawyers …*)
To add to the unintended comedy of the situation, leftist school board member Amy Dahl — the science teacher who ridicules the idea of there being only two genders — wrote in to Nagy’s paper to bash Hensley on the legal bills kerfluffle. In the end, it appears she PROVED HENSLEY RIGHT:
I commend The Pilot’s coverage of the Board of Education, and I appreciate reporter Matt Lamb’s diligence in researching, providing context, and connecting monthly discussions to ongoing issues.
Last Monday, however, after I acknowledged board attorney Richard Schwartz’s service, fellow board member David Hensley incorrectly inferred that I had made calls to the attorney asking for individual guidance or training. Mr. Hensley riffed at some length about the attorney fees charged to the district for these imaginary calls.
In deciding whether to respond to inaccurate statements in meetings, I consider likely outcomes. If unaddressed, will people necessarily believe it? Does it matter enough to justify the distraction? Will the other speaker’s response to a correction be brief and germane, or will he argue for 10 minutes, introducing other dubious assertions and obscuring the original point? Our meetings are already long and contentious, deterring citizens from watching.
Last Monday, I judged that most people would find Mr. Hensley’s inference as far-fetched as I do and would understand that I learn from Mr. Schwartz by taking note of what he says, recognizing his experience and perspective.
To my dismay, The Pilot’s writeup included two paragraphs devoted to my nonexistent calls for individual guidance and the attendant nonexistent legal fees.
Yes, I have spoken with Mr. Schwartz on the phone about board business, including my policy committee work, disclosing conversations as appropriate and determining when recusal is advisable. I have also sought his advice on whether to respond to past false statements about me and about Moore County Schools by Mr. Hensley. I speak with Mr. Schwartz at times covered under his retainer when possible.
I am conscientious regarding school district funds, which come from taxpayers and are needed to support our students. I do not use them for personal purposes.
Amy Dahl
Vass
Thanks, Amy. Schwartz does not have a contract with you. He DOES with the taxpayer-funded Moore County Schools. If Mr. Hensley says something to you that hurts your feelings or makes you mad, THAT is personal.
Schwartz is there to answer questions about the law as it relates to public education, and to function as a parliamentarian for meetings. Not to referee between Hensley and Dahl.
Schwartz is not your personal attorney. He wants to be paid for his time. So, his option is to bill his client – the school system, funded by ALL OF US — for the time he spent listening to you. You should have to personally pay for the time he spent dealing with you on those matters.
Take some time to watch the city council meetings online in Southern Pines and Pinehurst. You rarely see or hear the attorney. THAT is how the school board used to be prior to the rise of chairman Calcutt.
Want to fix the legal bill conundrum? Clamp down on who gets to reach out to the attorney and what he or she gets to do in exchange for billable hours. Believe it or not, it is NOT all David Hensley‘s fault.
