This is the fourth post in a series of posts regarding the Maryland State Board of Education’s Opinion 26-07 in the matter of requests to remove Michael Guessford from the Washington County Board of Education.
There are two sides to every story and there’s the truth.
Excerpt from the Maryland State Board of Education Opinion No. 26-07:
Read the Opinion No. 26-07 in full here
DEI Initiatives and Personnel Decisions
The petition also alleges Mr. Guessford violated the Maryland Open Meetings Act and the Superintendent’s authority regarding personnel. On January 23, 2025, Mr. Guessford sent an email to the entire board and the Superintendent with the subject line “ending DEI” and requested the Superintendent to “drop any DEI programming starting as of Monday morning” and requesting the immediate removal of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) positions and suggesting a specific employee be demoted to a teaching role. (Main Aff. pp. 4-5). This action was viewed as an illegal attempt to exert individual authority over the local superintendent’s personnel decisions and the local board’s obligations to provide educational equity to support all students without partiality or prejudice as required by State law and our equity and nondiscrimination in education regulations. Mr. Guessford asserts that the elimination of the DEI position was a legitimate budgetary action taken by a majority board by a vote of 6-1 at a local board meeting in open session. He also asserts that DEI programing was not removed from the school system but rather the responsibilities were shifted to other senior leadership. (Opposition p. 7).
DEI and Personnel Decisions
In defending his actions, Mr. Guessford stated that the elimination of the DEI position was a legitimate budgetary action taken by a majority board vote of 6 to 1 in an open session WCBOE meeting. He also asserted that DEI programming was not removed from the school system but rather the responsibilities were shifted to other senior leadership.
Observation:
Mr. Guessford does not deny independently directing the Superintendent “to drop and DEI programming starting as of Monday morning”, requesting the removal of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion positions, and suggesting a specific employee be demoted to a teaching role in an attempt to exert individual authority over a local superintendent’s personnel decisions and the local board’s obligations to provide educational equity to support all students as required by State Law. No board member has the authority to direct the superintendent. That authority rests solely with the Board of Education as a corporate body.
DEI programming was not dropped from the school system as Mr. Guessford directed the Superintendent to do, however, responsibilities for much of it was shifted to other individuals. This does not change the fact that Mr. Guessford, unilaterally, inappropriately gave a directive to the superintendent despite that fact that Maryland law and WCBOE policy dictates how educational equity is to be implemented. This unilateral direction occurred prior to any Board’s formal budgetary action to eliminate the position.
This excerpt from the Maryland State Board of Education’s Opinion No. 26-07 addresses Mr. Guessford’s conduct in local Board of Education meetings:
CONCLUSION We find the totality of the allegations are not legally sufficient to support the removal of Mr. Guessford and we dismiss the request to issue charges for removal at this time. We do not issue charges based on the allegations before us; however, we admonish Mr. Guessford for his conduct and behavior. We caution Mr. Guessford that his pattern of behavior—particularly his public rhetoric regarding the Muslim community; his unprofessional and demeaning behavior towards his colleagues and staff; and his attempts to circumvent the superintendent—is deeply problematic, unprofessional, and beneath the standards expected of an elected official. This approach undermines effective governance and must be addressed to ensure lawful and constructive board governance. While the State Board is not issuing charges at this time, it remains seriously concerned about the pattern of conduct and urges Mr. Guessford to reflect carefully on his role and responsibilities as a member of the local board. Continued behavior of this nature, specifically that which marginalizes students and other groups; harasses colleagues or staff; or undermines statutory governance, may lead the Board to consider formal action in the future.