Board showdown over deleted social‑media post stalls ethics-committee confirmation

A contentious exchange about deleted social-media posts and ethics complaints dominated the latter portion of the Sullivan County Board of Education meeting, stalling a proposed ethics-committee confirmation and prompting calls for a formal review.

Vice Chair Angie Stanley addressed the board and publicly accused fellow board member Todd McKinley of "false, defamatory, and escalating attacks" that she said had targeted her private business and family. "The repeated false claims that I allowed improper use of school property ... are deliberate lies," she said, and asked the board to "direct our attorney and ethics committee to conduct a full review of ... compliance of the Tennessee Public Records Act regarding the deleted post, violation of schoolboard policy, all ethics violations and defamatory conduct."

Earlier the chair had cited Board policy 1.106 and announced appointments to a three-member ethics committee to consider three complaints against a board member (two complaints reportedly came from other board members). He named Dr. Mary Rouse, himself and non-board member Miss Angie Buckles and asked the board for confirmation. Several members raised concerns about including a school employee on the ethics panel and about potential retribution; one member explicitly said they would abstain. The chair acknowledged the objections and said the motion failed and the matter would be revisited next month.

Todd McKinley responded at length, defending his campaign activities and saying he had sought legal advice. "I checked with my attorneys to see if it was against policy or against the law. I was told that it wasn't. And by the way, the district attorney confirmed as much," he said in defense of an after-hours campaign video that had been questioned by other board members. McKinley also made unverified claims about county commission funding decisions he said have reduced district resources since 2015 and criticized what he called political attacks directed at board members.

The transcript records interruptions and heated back-and-forths during the exchange; members expressed concern about tone and about mixing campaign issues with official board business. No formal ethics investigation or legal findings were made at the meeting; the board chair directed that the appointments and the pending complaints be revisited at the next regular meeting.