School Board Election Boundaries

Mary Beth Sallee

Managing Editor

Hart Co. News Herald

 

In perhaps what may be a first in Hart County history, students may attend school in one school district, but their parents may cast their votes for a school board member who resides in another district.

This change from years past came after it was discovered during the 2023-2024 school year that the board division boundaries were not in compliance with KRS 160.210, nor the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Superintendent Nathan Smith shared with the Hart County News-Herald that at a special-called board meeting on January 31, school board members met with legal counsel to discuss their obligation to complete this work of having voting district lines back in compliance.

“The Board voted unanimously to contract with the Barren River Area Development District (BRADD) for assistance with the redistricting of School Board voting districts (Order No. 24-152),” Smith said.

According to Sheryl Shirley, Chair of the Hart County School Board, and School Board Member Tina Rutledge, issues regarding the voting district map lines continued onward, specifically when Hart County Finance Director at that time, Chris Russell (who has since retired), brought forth his concerns that Shirley did not reside in the district for which she was elected to serve.

At a school board meeting earlier this year on March 19, Russell addressed the Board, stating, “Several months ago, I met with my Board member in the Memorial District (Sheryl Shirley) about her not living in the district of which she represents. I was raised that if I had an issue with someone, I didn’t air it on Facebook. I didn’t do such. I went to the individual and tried to work things out…We had this issue in Hart County several years ago, and when the board member was notified that he did not live in his district, he stepped down immediately.”

Also during that meeting, Russell stated that through filing Open Records Requests and also examining the voting map districts at both the Board of Education Office and the Hart County Clerk’s Office, he had determined that Shirley was a resident of the Munfordville School District rather than the Memorial School District. Russell also stated that in a meeting with Shirley, Smith, and Assistant Superintendent Bo Chenoweth, Shirley allegedly acknowledged that she did live in the Munfordville School Distict.

“So this brings me to tonight’s meeting. On the agenda tonight is to revise the voting boundaries,” Russell said during a board meeting. “And you might be surprised, but the two options that will be presented tonight puts my member (Shirley) back in the Memorial District. Now I think that’s a little fishy myself, but everyone can make their own opinion.”

Smith stated that at the regular Board of Education meeting on March 19, the Board members were presented with two maps prepared by BRADD. After a lengthy discussion, the board voted to table the item (Order No. 24-188) at that time.

According to an email received from Rutledge, Hart County School Board Attorney Grant R. Chenoweth advised the board that the best choice would be to approve the scenario provided by BRADD which placed each board member within the division that he or she currently represented.

“Regardless of what any of you individually believe about Ms. Shirley’s residency, the voters of the Memorial Board Division have elected her three times (I believe unopposed every time), and the county clerk has certified those election results every time,” Chenoweth stated in an email to Board members on March 29. “Drawing new boundaries which keep or place Ms. Shirley in the Memorial Board Division would allow most of those same voters to decide whether to re-elect her or to vote for someone else. Philosophically, I think it’s better for the Board collectively to keep that decision with the voters of the Memorial Board Division instead of taking action which would prevent Ms. Shirley from running for re-election in the Memorial Board Division. That takes the decision away from the voters of that division and could be viewed as undemocratic.”

“At the regular April board of education meeting on April 18, the Board approved a new map which updated the Board Division Boundaries and went into effect immediately (Order No. 24-218),” Superintendent Smith shared with the News-Herald recently. “That map was posted by the District on its social media in April 2024, was posted to the District website in early May 2024, and was submitted for publication in the Hart County News-Herald and appeared in the May 9, 2024 edition of the newspaper on page 4…The changes in the Board Division Boundaries did not change any school attendance boundaries, and thus, did not change where any student attends school in Hart County. The changes in Board Division Boundaries were made in compliance with KRS 160.210 to ensure fair representation for all residents in the Hart County School District.”

According to both Shirley and Rutledge, the issues regarding the voting district boundary allegations became confrontational when Shirley received a letter in February from the Office of the Attorney General (OAG), Russell Coleman. The letter, which was shared with the News-Herald, stated that a “constituent of Hart County” had notified the OAG, alleging Shirley did not reside in the district for which she was elected and therefore was no longer eligible to serve as a Board member under KRS 160.180. Included was a copy of the letter which appears to be sent by an unidentified person noting it was from a “concerned citizen” who had originally contacted the OAG.

Shirley stated she provided a variety of information to the OAG in response, proving she resided within the Memorial School District of which she has served as a Board member.

Additionally, a copy of a letter was also presented to the News-Herald by Shirley dated February 26 and signed by Vickie Pannell, Hart County Elections Deputy.

Pannell’s letter stated that the Clerk’s Office had never been provided with a legal boundary map of the Hart County School System, despite requesting one for years.

“We have asked for one for many years, as we use that to determine what elementary school district to place new voters in when they move into the county,” Pannell wrote. “…After many requests, an employee of Hart County Schools came to our office, in 2022, and used a topographical map of Hart County to color in the boundary of each school. To my knowledge, this was not voted on by the board and therefore is not legal. Many of the lines he drew are questionable as to what school district a voter resides in. The written descriptions were done in 1985 and have just been voted on by the board to readopt every ten years or when it was required of them…”

The News-Herald was provided a copy of a letter from the OAG dated May 16 and addressed to Chris Russell, which stated that Russell’s request to investigate Sheryl Shirley and her eligibility for board membership within the Memorial School District was conducted. It was determined that Shirley had resided at her current address during her entire tenure on the board (since January 2013) and that she was registered to vote within the Memorial School district.

However, the OAG’s response concluded that the “….issue is now moot because the board approved a new district boundary map that includes Ms. Shirley’s residence in the Memorial District. The Office therefore declines to proceed any further in this matter.”

Recently, Shirley spoke with the News-Herald to further clarify any confusion of the school board district voting map.

“The reason this situation arose is because after 12 years, the boundary lines for my voting district were called into question by Chris Russell. He contacted the state Attorney General’s office asking for my removal from the board,” Shirley said. “However, I easily proved that I have always resided in my district. This action, however, highlighted the fact that state statute and the Kentucky Supreme Court dictates that all five voting districts MUST be equal within a 5% margin of population to be legally compliant. Our county was overwhelmingly out of compliance. As a Board, we were told in a meeting by our Board attorney that we had a matter of weeks to correct the issue before the election or the state would correct it for us. This was NOT at my request or my need to be “back in my district” as erroneously stated by Chris Russell in a Board meeting a few months prior.”

“Our district has been out of compliance for several decades evidently,” Shirley continued. “BRADD was contracted by the Fiscal Court to define the current magistrate boundary lines, so the board contacted them to establish the new school board boundary lines – the only difference being the need to remove the Caverna independent school district for school board voting. Two scenarios were provided without that entity knowing where any Board members resided. Neither of those scenarios displaced me from my district. The Board voted for the scenario that most closely aligned all five districts. This means that for the first time, a person may vote in a district other than where their child is slated to attend school. Nothing has changed about the attendance lines, only voter boundary lines. As a board, all five members have equal responsibility for all six district schools.”

Detailed descriptions of each Board Division Boundary are available at the Hart County Board of Education Office and at the Hart County Courthouse.