Robbinsdale School Board voted to censure for a second time Board Member Sharon Brooks on Dec. 16 following an investigative report stating she violated board rules against harassment. Brooks also was removed from all board committees and put on notice that further violations could lead to her removal from the board.
Brooks had 10 committee posts, including MN School Board Director of Color and Student Advisory to the Board of Education.
According to school board documents, the report and investigation stemmed from an argument between Brooks and board member Caroline Long. Long had described how her mother once called her an “N-word baby.” Brooks contested Long’s claim to be Black, repeatedly saying at an Aug. 26 meeting, “I identify as Black.” Supporters of Brooks argue that her statement merely repeated something Long had said.
Cynthia Wilson of the Minneapolis NAACP criticized the board’s actions, saying, “You’re going to vote to take $600 [board stipend] from an elected official to silence her when in fact you had a board member who dropped all kinds of F-bombs and was very disrespectful,” referring to board member John Vento, a white person who had used the F-word toward Brooks at a public policy meeting last July. “She repeated what someone else said: ‘I identify as Black.’ Well, guess what? I identify as Black as well.” Vento was absent from the Dec. 16 meeting.
Brooks criticized the report as a double standard leveled at her.
“I am going to request that the chair ruled out of order, “Liz J. Vieira, attorney counsel at the board meeting, interjected. “The investigative report has been concluded. The conclusions have been accepted.”
Brooks continued alleging that Board Chair ReNae Bowman, Vice Chair Kim Holmes, and Director Long were violating the board’s code of conduct. The investigative report has not been released to the public. “Read the report on them; it’s pretty heinous,” Brooks said.
“Personal attacks are out of order,” Chair Bowman said.
“No attacks. Facts,” Brooks responded.
Vieira said Brooks’ use of the word “heinous” was out of order.
Chair Bowman is responsible for adding items to the school board meeting agenda. Bowman was only available for comment after MSR’s publication deadline.
Board member Helen Bassett said the report should have been issued sooner but also argued that the board should delay its censure vote until a new director is in charge of the body.
Vice Chair Holmes disagreed, stating, “This is a very detailed resolution. I encourage everybody to read it, especially those that came for listening hour.” She explained that the resolution is necessary for establishing clear expectations for board members’ conduct, adding, “We are a self-policing body. It’s not a court of law. Nobody is claiming it is. These are the tools that have been provided to us.”
Holmes stressed that delaying the resolution would place an unnecessary burden on newly elected board members and reiterated that the resolution is about creating a lasting protocol for all future board members. “That is not the intent. … This is establishing protocol for all the board members after us, no matter who is sitting in these seats,” Holmes said.
Vieira addressed the ongoing discussion surrounding the investigative report, which forms the basis for the censure vote against Brooks. “The issue is not about the report as a whole,” Vieira said, noting that while the report included findings about other board members, those conclusions were not relevant to the current motion.
“How it concludes about other people isn’t germane to the motion we’re voting on,” Vieira stated, emphasizing that the focus should remain on the specific actions and conduct of Brooks, which are central to the censure vote, rather than the broader findings of the investigation.
Basset criticized Bowman, who is responsible for placing items on the agenda, for failing to include the three other board members mentioned in the report.
The board previously censored Brooks on Aug. 26 after she raised concerns regarding voting procedures on resolutions involving potential conflicts of interest. Brooks specifically argued that a current board member, Vento, was allowed to vote on a resolution that conflicted with his personal interests in the past. Brooks contends that this practice sets a precedent and that she is being unfairly singled out for a similar situation.
The board’s legal counsel, Vieira, referenced “Robert’s Rules of Order,” the widely accepted guidelines for conducting meetings and decision-making. According to Robert’s Rule 45, members must abstain from voting on matters where they have a direct personal interest, ensuring transparency and impartiality. “I wasn’t here at that time, but Robert’s Rule 45 requires a member to abstain from any voting question in which they have a direct personal interest,” Vieira explained during the meeting.
Brooks argued that this rule had not been consistently enforced. “Since you’ve been here, that has happened, and for you to institute it back now… I don’t think that is fair,” Brooks said.
Brooks’ remarks suggest that the board has allowed other members to vote in situations where they may have had conflicts of interest, including Vento, and that it is inconsistent for him to be held to a different standard. Vento’s absence from the meeting further complicated the matter, as Brooks’ critique seemed to highlight a perceived double standard regarding voting and the application of Robert’s Rules.
The vote to censure Brooks, which led to her removal from her committees, reflects growing tensions within the board and underscores a significant shift in her involvement in district affairs.
Clint Combs welcomes reader responses at ccombs@spokesman-recorder.com.