Ask, then ask again?

Cheatham pushes limits with audit request

T ravis Riggs and Wendi Cheatham are at it again.

That can be a shock to no one.

At the last Bentonville School Board meeting, Board President Riggs publicly criticized Cheatham, a former president and current school board member, for independently seeking a special state audit of the school district’s finances and not telling the rest of the school board what she was doing.

Cheatham wasn’t at the meeting where Riggs’ frustration boiled over. She told a reporter separately that she wants to ensure tax dollars approved by voters for a specific purpose are being used appropriately “instead of being diverted to fund the day-to-day operation of the district.”

That’s no doubt a fine thing to want to ensure, but Cheatham’s approach represents not just a continuation of her campaign to tear down a superintendent she views as a nemesis but also a lack of faith that her fellow school board members have the same level of integrity and concern as she does.

The impetus for the latest public clash — beyond the historical feuding between Riggs and Cheatham — was Cheatham’s request to state Sen. Bart Hester, R-Cave Springs, to call for a state audit. Hester told district officials an attorney had contacted him a few weeks ago on behalf of Cheatham. District officials, including Riggs, have said they’ve tried to answer Cheatham’s questions, but her appetite for suspicion has proven unquenchable. No answer will be good enough unless it confirms what Cheatham wants to be true: that Superintendent Michael Poore isn’t doing his job.

Cheatham, having gained no traction with her campaign locally, is now forum shopping. School district finances are audited every year by private auditors who put their professional reputations on the line. Private audits are specifically allowed for in state law. But those auditors have not delivered the bad news Cheatham wants, so she went shopping for someone else. Because, after all, she believes so strongly that Poore is up to something that anyone who will not confirm it must be wrong.

Cheatham’s request isn’t just a minor flare- up. It is a rarity for a school board member to seek a state audit of her own school district. Having a school board member ask for a state audit while posing questions about funding priorities creates or reinforces concerns within the community. It is significant to note Hester responded to Cheatham’s inquires and reported officials with the Arkansas Department of Education and the Legislative Audit Department met with Cheatham. After considering what Cheatham had presented, neither of those state agencies saw a reason for any additional review of the district’s finances.

What’s next, the U.S. Department of Justice? The United Nations? Or maybe there’s some twisted value to just raising the same questions over and over and over. Suspicion can sometimes be enough to accomplish what the facts won’t.

Riggs demonstrated how little (as in zippo, nada, none) patience he has for Cheatham’s approach as a school board member. He said Cheatham had “screamed wolf three, four, five times, and it’s not been true any time.” Then he came up with his own bit of nonsense about Cheatham’s actions potentially being a breach of a board member’s duties.

“If she’s that concerned about our financial stability and the things that are going on, I think she should resign as a board member,” Riggs said. “Then she won’t be associated with it and she won’t have to worry about it in the future.”

That makes no (as in zippo, nada, none) sense at all. Cheatham’s actions may qualify her as a rogue member of the school board, but the people elected her. She’s done nothing necessitating resignation. Concern about the district’s finances are part of the job. One can criticize her tactics, but it’s misguided to suggest those are enough to negate the public’s will in choosing Cheatham as a representative. It simply falls to the rest of the school board to marshal on using their best judgment in dealing with — rather than creating — the district’s challenges. Riggs’ overreaction suggests school board members must fit a certain toe-theline mold. It also implies anyone not on the school board really has no role in worrying about the district’s business, which could not be further from the truth.

School board members are not elected as a slate of like-minded candidates; they’re each independently selected by voters. The fact school board members don’t always see eye to eye isn’t a failing; it’s part of the checks and balances.

Nonetheless, criticism of Cheatham’s behind-the-scenes activities aren’t out of line. She clearly has suspicions that she, the school board and the community have not gotten the whole truth from the administration. Those are extraordinarily serious charges for which she should be expected to show proof. If she does not have that evidence, it is irresponsible to be spreading such claims. In doing so, she’s not just asserting Poore is up to no good, but the district’s entire financial team is part of it.

Our recommendation? Cheatham ought to be up front with her fellow school board members about what she plans to do. Cheatham clearly has no trust for Poore or anything he’s involved with, but even if her intentions are good — protecting the district, for example — she ought to go about her business openly. At least then, this drama would not have the added element of skulduggery.

The public should pay attention to the behavior of these elected representatives and respond accordingly at the polls. Our major concern is a public official appearing to use repeated questioning as a form of character assassination. That’s certainly not in the best interests of anyone.

Bentonville School District voters can decide for themselves if Cheatham — or any other board member —is just a boat rocker or a stone thrower. Sometimes the former can be a valuable voice on an school board. The latter, however, is more interested in doing damage than in making progress.

Bentonville needs people focused on making progress.