UPDATE: A scathing report from the Maryland Inspector General’s office reveals that the Somerset County School Board has violated state law and its own policies during the firing of its former attorney and the hiring of new legal counsel. This urgent finding underscores a troubling trend of governance issues within the board, raising significant concerns for local residents and state officials.
Released on November 13, 2023, the report details that the board took official actions—including terminating one legal contract and approving another—during a closed session meeting on February 13, 2025. This procedure directly contradicts Maryland law, which mandates that such actions must occur in public. Moreover, the board bypassed required competitive bidding rules, failing to solicit at least two bids for a contract valued between $50,000 and $100,000 for legal services.
The Inspector General’s findings will be reported to the Governor, the General Assembly, the State Board of Education, and the State Superintendent of Schools, indicating a potential ripple effect across the state’s educational governance.
The report highlights persistent governance issues, marking the latest in a troubling pattern for the Somerset board. In October 2023, the Maryland Office of Legislative Audits noted that the board had failed to address long-standing financial management problems, including a lack of written contracts and weak purchasing oversight. Despite previous commitments to reform, the board’s procurement policies remain outdated and inconsistent with state law.
Additionally, the board’s internal conflicts have further complicated its operations. Earlier this year, the board attempted to terminate Dr. Ava Tasker-Mitchell, the superintendent, but this decision was halted by State Superintendent Carey M. Wright amid an ongoing appeal. In late October, an agreement was reached, leading to Tasker-Mitchell’s departure.
The Inspector General’s investigation was triggered by multiple complaints received in March 2023 regarding the hiring practices of the board. According to state law, while local boards can select their own attorneys, they must adhere to Maryland’s procurement guidelines, which include properly advertising vacancies and conducting interviews. Somerset’s board failed to follow these guidelines, opting instead for a rushed decision in a closed session.
Officials from the Inspector General’s office sought to interview board members—including Matthew Lankford, Andrew Gleason, Mary-Beth Bozman, and William McIntuff—but were denied this opportunity by the board’s current legal counsel.
As Somerset County grapples with these governance issues, the district’s performance remains a concern. In this year’s Maryland Report Card, the county ranked second-to-last in the state with a score of 46.5, a slight decrease from 47.16 last year. Only Baltimore City scored lower, with 44.99.
The implications of this report are significant, as the community awaits responses from the board and state officials. The timeline for when the report will be discussed with the General Assembly and the State Superintendent remains unclear, but the urgency for reform in Somerset County’s school governance is palpable.
As developments unfold, residents and stakeholders are encouraged to stay informed about the actions the board will take in response to these findings. The future of Somerset County’s educational governance hangs in the balance, and the community’s engagement will be crucial in advocating for transparency and accountability.
