Southampton School Board Opts Not To Fill Seat

The Southampton School Board decided Tuesday night to leave empty a seat on the board, one vacated earlier this month, meaning the seven-member board will function with just six members until the regular spring election.

The vacancy was created when board member Amy Pierson resigned on October 4 to accept a new position in the district. Ms. Pierson, who won her first School Board election in May, when she was an unemployed former schoolteacher, is now the district’s community relations specialist, a 12-month civil service position that carries an annual base salary of $40,000. The job description involves improving communication and promoting community involvement in the schools.

School Board President David Dubin, who announced the decision at Tuesday’s School Board meeting, said the board opted to leave the seat vacant over two other possibilities: holding a special election or making an interim appointment of a member who could then run for the remaining four years of Ms. Pierson’s term in May. A special election could cost about $12,000, officials said.

In the spring election, which is scheduled for May 15, two seats will be up for grabs: Mr. Dubin’s and the vacant seat. The candidate who rakes in the most votes would win Mr. Dubin’s seat for a full, five-year term, and the candidate with the second-highest vote count would assume the now-vacant seat for the remaining four years of Ms. Pierson’s term, Mr. Dubin explained. Terms in Southampton are five years, but starting in the 2013-14 school year, they will be four years, as voters approved in a 2010 referrendum.

Two members of the public expressed disappointment with the board’s decision not to fill the seat.

Pam Spellman, who serves on the district’s Budget Advisory Committee, spoke out during the public comment portion of the meeting to say that keeping the board at six members would create a heavier workload for the other members and therefore be a disservice to parents, teachers and children.

Myron Glucksman, another Budget Advisory Committee member and the fourth-place finisher in a field of six School Board candidates in the spring 2011 election, was not at the meeting, but said in an email sent after the meeting that he was disappointed that “they decided no one was better than someone” and called the decision a “wimpy non-action.”

“This is a poor decision that prevents the current board from hearing and considering other points of view in executive session—where the real decisions are made,” Mr. Glucksman wrote. “The real fear, I believe, however, is that if another vacancy opened up or if Natasha [Jeffries] did not want to serve, the board might have to appoint someone with a different approach and ideas as to the upcoming superintendent and teacher contracts.”

Ms. Jeffries was the third-highest vote-getter in the 2011 election, one place shy of a seat.