Ky. school board member under investigation pushes to fire attorney who started inquiry

A Clark County school board member under investigation by the Kentucky Attorney General is leading efforts to fire the school board attorney who initiated the state inquiry against her.

Clark school board member Sherry Richardson is the focus of a conflict of interest investigation by the AG regarding her business.

A complaint to the Attorney General’s office alleges that Richardson should be removed from the school board because she violated state law by engaging in business dealings with a school either as a vendor or subcontractor and her company was paid $85,335. A ruling had not been released by the AG as of Friday morning. Richardson’s attorney says she has done nothing that would warrant her removal.

On Friday, Richardson and two other board members voted to terminate the board’s current contract with the law firm of Brian Thomas, who filed a February complaint against Richardson with Attorney General Daniel Cameron’s office. Richardson had also made a previous motion for board members to interview other law firms. The board on Friday voted to hire a new firm from Mount Sterling.

“When you have an attorney that doesn’t support one of its board members I think that’s an issue,” Richardson said at the Sept. 20 board meeting. “So I would like to make a motion that we go ahead and start the interviews.”

Thomas declined to comment Thursday.

Clark School board chairwoman Ashley Ritchie and vice chairman William Taulbee have raised significant concerns about Richardson’s efforts to terminate Thomas’ contract.

“I think it’s self-serving,” Taulbee said at a September 20 school board meeting.

“There’s a definite conflict of interest for a board member that’s under investigation by the Attorney General’s office ... to be voting on new legal services for the board and to terminate the existing board attorney that actually turned her into the Attorney General,” Taulbee told the Herald-Leader Thursday night.

Ritchie, the board chair, said during a Sept. 27 school board meeting that she did not approve the agenda to discuss the school board attorney’s contract and was so concerned about it that she had contacted the Kentucky Office of Education Accountability and was then referred to the Attorney General’s office.

Ritchie said a Monday meeting she thought was going to be about the district’s working budget had been changed without her approval to consider the school board attorney contract.

“I do not believe we have followed our own policies,” Ritchie said at the Monday school board meeting. She did not immediately comment to the Herald-Leader.

In reference to Richardson’s efforts to drop Thomas’ contract as school board attorney, Richardson’s attorney Tim Crawford told the Herald-Leader Thursday night, “I represent her in her individual capacity and can’t comment on her official acts.”

Taulbee asked at a Sept. 20 meeting if the board could table the issue of changing law firms until the Attorney General’s investigation into Richardson was over and the AG had ruled.

Richardson said no. “That could be forever,” she said. Richardson said at the Sept. 20 meeting that media reports about the alleged business conflict of interest had not been factual and that Taulbee was “sitting in judgment” of her. Taulbee previously asked Richardson to recuse herself from board meetings until the AG ruled. She declined.

“I’m asking you to back off and not judge me,” Richardson told Taulbee at the Sept. 20 school board meeting .”Let the Attorney General do its job.”

Taulbee raised a concern at Monday’s meeting about the process by which bids were accepted to hire a new board attorney. He made a motion to rebid for legal services, which was voted down by Richardson and two other board members, Brenda Considine and Megan Hendricks.

“The process that we went about to advertise for proposals is very questionable,” he said in the interview Thursday night.

“I do believe we could be going down a bad path on this,” Taulbee told other school board members. Taulbee and Ritchie recused themselves from interviewing the school board attorney replacement.

Taulbee said that Thomas’ firm had the lowest bid. However, Richardson on Monday made a motion to hire a new law firm from Mount Sterling, which was approved with yes votes from her, Considine and Hendricks. That left the Clark school board with two law firms under contract until Friday’s vote.

Taulbee said Thomas’ firm has to be given 30 days notice. Taulbee said he could not attend Friday’s meeting because it’s in the middle of his work day at a time when school board meetings are typically not held.

Richardson said at the Sept. 20 meeting that her personal attorney told her that she was in good standing to make board decisions given that the AG had not yet made a ruling.

“I can vote. I can participate,” Richardson said. “My voice stands until they decide.”

School board seats are elected positions . Crawford told the Herald-Leader that until a school board member resigns or their term ends, or they are ousted through a circuit court action, they remain a member of their board of education and have all the rights and powers of a school board member.

Crawford has told the Herald-Leader that the legal research he supplied to the Attorney General’s Office about Richardson’s alleged business conflict of interest indicates Richardson did not violate any school board eligibility laws which would prevent her from serving on the Clark County Board of Education.

According to the February complaint to the Attorney General’s Office obtained by the Herald-Leader:

Richardson took office in January 2019. During 2019 and 2020, the Clark County Board of Education was involved in the construction of two development projects -- the George Rogers Clark High School Gymnasium and football stadium.

The bid for the construction was awarded to the contractor, Rising Sun Developing Company.

“Howard’s Overhead Doors was apparently a subcontractor to that contract and agreed to supply the supplies, materials and services for the project for the installation of certain overhead /garage style doors,” the complaint said.

Since Richardson and her husband were officers in the company and since she was majority owner of Howard’s Overhead Doors, the relationship violated state law, the complaint said. The violation was not only because of her position with the company, her ownership interest in the company, but also with her husband and son’s relationship with the company, the complaint said.

It was not immediately evident through documents that there was a relationship between Rising Sun and the overhead door company, the complaint said, and the only person who was aware of the contract was Richardson.

According to the complaint, Richardson voted to approve each of the pay applications to Rising Sun which resulted in approval of payments of the invoices submitted to Rising Sun and distribution of school funds to Howard’s Overhead Doors. The complaint said the approval of the payments would be a violation of state law.

Crawford, Richardson’s attorney, has said that the door company was paid by Rising Sun, not the Clark County Board of Education. Crawford has said after Rising Sun was awarded the contract, some of the supplies they bought came from Howard’s Overhead Doors owned by Richardson and her husband.

Rising Sun purchased goods from the door company, not the Clark County Board of Education, he said. Rising Sun, not the Clark County Board of Education, paid the door company for the goods that they purchased.

At no time did Howard’s Overhead Doors have a contract with the Clark County Board of Education, Crawford said.

This story was originally published October 1, 2021 at 7:26 AM.