Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 4 · column 1 of 6 · from the scan, no model involved
Rappahannock's democratic systems will be a long time in recovering from the travesty of a public hearing conducted by the electoral trustees last Friday night.
One year ago. the trustees met in secret to put together one of those questionable backroom deals that Virginia’s Freedom of Information Act is designed to prevent. Chairman C. E. Johnson made a major error, however, by merely announcing the trustee’s decision, rather than taking a formal vote after the illegal executive session.
The'two appointments made that night were immediately challenged by this newspaper and others in the community interested in the education of Rappahannock's children. An opinion from Attorney General Marshall Coleman in October and a second ruling from his office in March verified that the appointments were invalid.
In the meantime, actions by the new Wakefield representative, Robert Eastham, sparked a growing resentment among newcomers and oldtimers alike in the district he was appointed to represent.
Appointed, we might add, by the three-member trustee board his brother sits on after a public hearing at which the name of Robert Eastham was never even mentioned.
The growing resentment in W akefield District was the catalyst that sparked a successful petition drive to have the question of school board appointments put before the voters.
It was only after Judge Shore Robertson signed the order for a referendum on changing the method of naming school board members to appointment by the supervisors that the , trustees finally agreed to reconsider their invalid actions of last June.
Could it be that they feared the prerogative of keeping the board stacked with advocates of “low taxes first and education second” would be taken away from them? Did they fear that the referendum would pass? Did they become aware that the supervisors would then have the responsibility of validating the challenged appointments and that the Wakefield District supervisor would not place Eastham’s name in nomination? Reportedly, the trustee chairman
78.6%