"Records show Shimmin doubted Robinson decision"

That's the headline of the first Express story to come out of their public records request. I wanted to blog about it as soon as it came out, but I was never sure what to say.

I think I figured it out: I don't feel like there's a whole lot to say because I'm feeling like the story just confirmed what I thought (and what I think everyone sort of knew) beforehand: Shimmin was never sure of her decision; she had been persuaded by others; she reached out and talked to lots of folks about what was going on; and, as is probably true of everyone else, she was/is talking about board issues behind the scenes. [Note: Despite the directive on keeping board business confined to board meetings, I don't fault anyone for wanting to talk about this stuff outside the formal context of a meeting, but I do think that planning strategy to suspend the Superintendent is a bit much.]

Still, it is rather nice to have confirmation of the details of a lot of things. And from what I've heard, there will be more stories on this information dump in the future.

It's also nice to get some insight into the legal advice offered the school board.

On the other hand, I'm sure Shimmin is now very careful to use private accounts to communicate regarding school board issues.

Given that the school board members are provided with email addresses, I wonder if there is a provision requiring them to use said addresses for all official business - and regardless of the existence of any such provision, I wonder how much the school board members DO use their official accounts for business? Would it be worthwhile for the Express (or anyone else) to do a public records request for the contents of the board members' official email? [As a side note, I notice that Sprenger lists her CenturyTel email as her board email - what are the ramifications for a records request?]