The article, which is written by Markley, seems to be self incriminating. Markley writes "my staff and I were prohibited from actively campaigning for the bond." The irony is, Markley spends the rest of the article readily admitting how he used school staff and resources, including the schools parent-contact phone system and confidential email lists, to campaign and push for the passage of the school bond. He actually refers to it as a "marketing campaign" and concludes by stating the "campaign was an overwhelming victory for the district."
Markley says that his biggest push to
promote the bond was using the schools' parent contact phone system
the night before the election. To get around state law, Markley is
careful to point out "We never included the word “vote” in any of these approaches." Contrary to Markleys claim, the election eve call
did include the word "vote." A recording of the call can be heard here.
Markley himself states he was prohibited from campaigning for the bond, then goes on to explain how he used schools resources to campaign and promote passage of the bond. Many agree the superintendents use of school resources to push for passage of the school bond violated NCGS 115c-46.1
Read the complete article at districtadministration.com here: