Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

Board Member Dawn Marie Brittingham, Ed.D, was found in violation of a School Board protocol during the School Board meeting on March 13. As this was her first violation, she was issued a verbal warning in a closed meeting.  

A motion was made to go into a closed meeting to discuss and/or consider discipline regarding Board Member Brittingham. It was alleged that she violated the following school board norms and protocols: 

School Board Norm 2-2.6:1(A)(3) requiring School Board members to “be respectful of the different roles and responsibilities throughout the school division and maintain focus on policy and governance”; School Board Norm 2-2.6:1(A)(5) requiring board members “be focused on work as a school board member and not interfere with the day-to-day operations of SPS, which is the responsibility of the superintendent”; and School Board Protocol 2-2.6:1(B)(5) providing that “individual School Board Members are not to communicate directly with subordinate administrators without first discussing with the School Superintendent.”

After the closed meeting discussion, board members voted on each violation separately. Brittingham did not vote because the motion directly involved her.

The vote on whether Brittingham violated the first school board norm was tied. Board Members Valerie Fields, Karen Jenkins, and Tyron Riddick voted yes. Board Member Kimberly Slingluff voted no, as did Chair Heather Howell and Vice Chair McGee.

The vote was also tied on whether Brittingham violated the second norm. Fields and Howell voted yes, Slingluff and McGee voted no, and Jenkins and Riddick abstained.

Brittingham was found in violation of the Board protocol. Fields, Jenkins, and Howell voted yes. Slingluff and McGee voted no. Riddick abstained.

Therefore, Brittingham was alleged to be in direct violation of School Board Norm 2-2.6:1(A)(3) and (A)(5) and School Board Protocol 2-2.6:1(B)(5), but was only found guilty of violating the protocol stating School Board Members must not communicate directly with subordinate administrators unless they let know the Superintendent know first. 

Founding Freedoms Law Center, which represented Brittingham during the closed meeting, released a press release calling the charges “bogus.”

The release states, “The charges were based on two innocent actions by Dr. Brittingham in which she was doing her job as an elected school board member and exercising her constitutionally-protected free speech.”

The actions referenced in the release are two interactions Brittingham had with SPS administrators.

According to the board’s findings of fact and ruling, Brittingham’s first interaction was with Dr. Andrea Wilkins Banks, principal at Northern Shores Elementary School.

On Jan. 27, at approximately 5:40 a.m., Brittingham received a text from someone telling her there was a fire in one of the school’s mobile units, at 5:52 a.m. Brittingham spoke with the person who texted her and said no one could reach the administration about the fire.

Brittingham testified she typed a text about the fire to Superintendent Dr. John Gordon III at 5:52 a.m.The text was either never sent or was sent but did not go through because Gordon did not receive it.

At 5:57 a.m., Brittingham called Banks on her cell phone because they know each other personally and Brittingham thinks of them as friends. Gordon said Banks told him Brittingham would not contact her cell phone for non-school related issues because they don’t talk on a regular basis. Banks missed the call from Brittingham.

Brittingham never called Gordon, but she did text him at 6:14 a.m. saying, “Good Morning Dr. Gordon. I received a phone call that a mobile unit at Northern Shores is on fire and that the fire department is trying to reach someone in administration.”

Gordon responded, “Thank you for letting me know. The administration is aware and is on site.”

Gordon was not aware Brittingham had tried to contact Banks until later.

The second interaction was between Brittingham and Dr. Lawrence Whiting, director of food and services for SPS.

Gordon testified that he overheard Brittingham and Whiting having a conversation during a dinner recess at the Feb. 13 School Board meeting.

He said he overheard someone mention being “ten minutes late for the interview,” but it was unclear who said it. Gordon said Whiting appeared “nervous” during his conversation with Brittingham.

The next day, Gordon called Whiting to ask about the interaction. Whiting told him they were discussing someone who had recently interviewed for a position in the Food Service Department—someone Brittingham had written a letter of recommendation for a job opening at a different school division.

Whiting told Brittingham the applicant had used her letter of recommendation for the Suffolk position as well, and he told her the applicant was late for the interview.

Whiting told Gordon Brittingham initiated the Feb. 13 conversation. Brittingham testified Whiting initiated it. 

Brittingham never reported this conversation to Gordon, and the Board’s findings of fact and ruling state that she should not have engaged in it without first discussing it with Gordon. 

The Board’s ruling states that the protocol Brittingham violated does not restrict free speech because it only applies to communications related to school operations. Board Members are required to “first discuss” the matter with the Superintendent, but they are not required to get permission to discuss it with subordinate administrators.

No School Board Member has ever been disciplined for discussing matters not related to school operations. 

The ruling states the intent of the protocol is to make the Superintendent aware of any concerns a Board Member may have, which will allow the Superintendent to follow up with the Board Member or school administrator if required. The protocol is meant to promote efficient day-to-day operations of SPS, which is the Superintendent’s responsibility.

In the Founding Freedoms Law Center press release, Brittingham said several of her colleagues “wrongly” punished her and are “setting a dangerous precedent for every school board member who is simply trying to do the job they were elected to do.”

Josh Hetzler, legal counsel at Founding Freedoms who represented Brittingham, said in the release that Brittingham “did what any parent would hope anyone in her situation would have done,” and she is being punished for exercising her right to free speech.

Hetzler called for the School Board to rescind its verbal punishment and apologize to Brittingham.

Gordon did not provide any comments to the Suffolk News-Herald as he is not the board’s spokesperson. Board Chair Howell also did not provide any comments.