Douglas School Board controversies: Joey Gilbert tweeting during meetings, a trustee criticized for using 'r' slur

More controversies are coming out of the May 21 Douglas County School Board and this time one of the issues isn’t what’s happening at the meetings, but rather, what isn’t.

Attendees of the meetings have pointed out that the board’s attorney, Joey Gilbert, spends time on his phone during the school board meetings during which he is paid $325 an hour.

Gilbert is a fan of the social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter, with hundreds of tweets and re-tweets on his profile each month.

While his use of the platform is not an issue in and of itself, some have pointed out that it does become an issue when Gilbert spends the school board meetings scrolling and tweeting on the platform.

A survey of Gilbert’s tweets during school board meetings shows he has shared tweets and retweets at times when the board was actively discussing policies or during public comment.

A recent survey from the past four meetings shows Gilbert was tweeting at the following times:

Feb. 13:
5:26 p.m.
8:32 p.m.
9:24 p.m.

March 12:
4:52 p.m.
6:08 p.m.
7:06 p.m.

April 9:
4:25 p.m.
6:34 p.m.

May 21:
6:48 p.m.

All of these tweets, correlating to the posted YouTube video timestamps, were not made during breaks in the meetings.

None of the tweets referred to anything relating to Douglas County or the school board.

Instead, they ranged in topics from outrage over trans individuals being allowed in gyms, wanting to prohibit free healthcare to immigrants, anti-masking, and election misinformation.

Legal questions left unanswered by legal counsel

The fact that Gilbert has been caught tweeting during meetings has angered many members of the public for another reason: during the most recent meeting, Gilbert ignored legal questions regarding board procedure and instead allowed trustees to battle it out amongst themselves.

The first came about during a spat between trustees Katherine Dickerson and Linda Gilkerson.

Gilkerson stated she was concerned by the fact that there are so many involuntary staff moves, specifically educational staff being moved from one school to another, as well as multiple resignations.

Dickerson then responded saying that there was no indication the resignations had anything to do with the board, and Gilkerson was wrong for implying that was the case.

“That’s an unfair assumption,” Dickerson went on.

When Gilkerson asked to respond, President David Burns simply said, “Uh, no.”

“I don’t think you can do that,” Gilkerson said.

Trustee Yvonne Wagstaff spoke up on Gilkerson’s behalf, stating that Burns in fact could not refuse another trustee to speak during discussions.

Wagstaff: “According to our training, it says you cannot stop another board member from speaking during discussion, only during debate.”

Burns told Wagstaff to show him where there is a difference between debate and discussion.

Wagstaff: “There is a huge difference between debate and discussion.”

Burns: “Show me.”

Wagstaff: “Did you watch the training?”

Burns: “Yes, I did.”

Wagstaff: “Okay well then during debate each person has ten minutes to speak two times, that’s it. During discussion every member has the opportunity to speak until everyone has spoken or chosen not to speak and then it goes back to the person that chooses to speak. There’s not a limit to the number of times that can happen and it can be amongst the school board members.”

Burns: “I disagree.”

During the entire discussion, neither Gilbert nor his associate Kendra Jepsen intervened.

At this point, another trustee said they should ask legal counsel.

Gilbert can be seen on the recording shaking his head, and does not respond.

Jensen then answered that she agreed there is a difference between debate and discussion.

“But there is still a control of time?” Burns asked, but neither Gilbert nor Jepsen appeared to respond.

“Not during discussion,” Wagstaff said again.

Burns said he would bring back the answer to it later and allowed Gilkerson to respond.

“All I wanted to say was I’m not putting blame on anybody, I’m just stating a fact,” Gilkerson said.

This argument was repeated multiple times during the meeting, and at no time did either of the attorneys move to settle legal debates between board members.

Arguments erupted again during discussions on Gilbert’s contract — the fourth iteration the board has had brought before them.

Wagstaff pointed out that under state law as well as board policy, there should only be one person hired or fired by the board, which is the superintendent, and all other staff should report to the superintendent.

Based on that determination, she said, Gilbert should not be answering directly to the board, but rather to the superintendent, the way all other previous district contracts were written, similar to a company’s CEO.

Wagstaff also asked whether or not Gilbert would choose the board’s interests over the district’s when the board and the district do not have aligned interests, such as in investigations, but Gilbert did not respond to her question. Instead, he said the contract was written the way it was intentionally.

Wagstaff and Burns again got into a legal debate on who counsel should report to. Burns said that the board members determine who counsel reports to, while Wagstaff insisted state law says otherwise.

Burns: “The superintendent cannot fire the legal counsel therefore they answer to the board.”

Wagstaff: “Says who?”

Burns: “The board members.”

Wagstaff: “The only one we are allowed to hire and fire is the superintendent, it says that in NRS.”

At this point, Dickerson said, “Can we get counsel in on this? This is nonsense, this is what (counsel is) for.”

However, neither attorney responded.

Burns insisted that the bylaws of the board say that the board can “do a lot of things” when it comes to employees.

Wagstaff: “Actually, no, if you look up policy 314, what you were looking at last month you were incorrect in what you were stating.”

Burns: “That’s your opinion.”

Dickerson again asked for Gilbert’s opinion.

“I’ve written my contract the way I’ve written, it’s for the board to hire or fire me. … I’ve written this contract. I’m familiar with what it says. You don’t have to sign it, it’s here to be discussed, and put to a vote and then we do it, that’s what we’re here for. I know people have their different opinion things or how they feel about things but it’s how I see it is: I am hired and fired by the board, I will report to the board.”

Trustee Carey Kangas has brought up numerous times during contract discussions that because of these changes and because there is a lack of trust between the public and the board, he would like to see the contract reviewed by a third party. Kangas also said he agreed that the contract should read counsel reports to the superintendent, not to the board.

While Jepsen said the board could vote on these changes, and that she believed they would have no issue with a third party reviewing the contract, Gilbert disagreed.

“I don’t agree to having it reviewed by a third party. I don’t need a third party reviewing it. It’s a contract, it’s fair and there’s nothing off-sided or off-put here.”

Trustee Doug Englekirk asked Gilbert if he would be willing to amend the contract to say he would report to the superintendent.

“I’ve made it very clear I need this the way it is so I can do my job, I do go to (acting superintendent Jeanne Dwyer) on certain things … but no, I’ve written (the contract) this specific way so I can get my job done and when I’m peppered with nonsense that happens every single meeting, every special meeting, every meeting in between I need to be able to do my job and this is — it’s just getting out of control. I’m always going to be communicating with Jeanne … that’s where I’m at.”

Kangas tried and failed to call a vote for the contract to be reviewed by a third party.

Jansen under hot water for ‘R’ slur

During the meeting, Trustee Susan Jansen was once again discussed for using inappropriate language during a board meeting.

According to members of the public, Jansen told a group of attendees as she walked into the meeting that their signs were “retarded,” more than once, which she did not deny after multiple commenters brought it up during public comment.

Apparently, this is not the first time Jansen has used this language.
During the end of public comment, former superintendent Keith Lewis called in to give public comment. He said that as the proud father of two children with intellectual disabilities, he was “disappointed and repulsed” by her use of the word, and said he had already asked her not to use it during a previous meeting.

“This word is not only offensive but also dehumanizing, and its use by anyone is unacceptable. However it is particularly egregious when uttered by someone in a position of leadership and influence over our students with disabilities.”

Lewis went on to say that to those who might consider defending Jansen’s remarks as merely a terrible choice of words, this is not an isolated incident.

“Rather it reflects a pattern of behavior. Trustee Jansen has used this slur on other occasions including during a meeting in my office in July 2023. I made it clear to her then that such language was unacceptable and I will not let this latest incident pass without defending my two boys and all other students who deserve respect and dignity. Our board members should exemplify the values of respect and inclusivity that we strive to teach our children. Trustee Jansens’ continued use of such offensive language demonstrates a severe lack of empathy and respect for those who are different from her.”

Lewis asked the board to take swift action regarding her use of the word. At the end of Lewis’s comment, Burns ended the meeting.