It’s not a difficult concept to understand. Serving on a school board means you are an adult in a position of trust and, as such, must uphold school district policies and laws that protect the children you serve. Yet, on May 7, 2015, the Jeffco School Board majority chose to single out, perhaps with the intent to shame and intimidate, a minor student.

Back in September, this student, whom we will call “Jane,” as she is still a minor, helped organize and lead the student walk-outs over School Board member Julie Williams’ proposal to rewrite the AP U.S. History framework. Following those walk-outs, Jane helped establish a student group called Jeffco Students for Change. JSFC has been openly and vocally critical of the school board majority ever since and have been very active on social media.

As the May 7 Jeffco School Board meeting neared its end, board member Jill Fellman brought up requests from Jeffco Students for Change to meet with the school board. Board President Ken Witt asked Fellman if she was aware that the leader of JSFC, Jane, had been “favoriting racial epithets” on social media and stated he wants no association with these students for that reason. (You can view the video of this exchange here: http://bit.ly/1Uy8cDY.)

In the video, you can hear Witt ask a staff member to project an image on the screen at the front of the board room. You can hear the staff member ask, “The one Mr. Newkirk gave me?” — referring to school board member John Newkirk. Witt replies, “Yes.”

A screenshot of Jane’s Twitter and Facebook accounts, doctored to appear as one conversation, was then displayed on the screen with Jane’s photo, her first and last names, her Twitter handle, and other information about her.

Were the social media posts Jane “favorited” racist? Of course not. The posts in question actually refer to the district’s former communications executive and her contract hire, with taxpayer money, of her friend’s PR firm, and Ken Witt’s meeting with like-minded school board presidents at Jose O’Shea’s Mexican restaurant in Lakewood.

Regardless, as a minor and a student, there are school district policies and laws in place to protect Jane, laws the school board majority might have violated, such as the federal Family Education Rights and Privacy Act.

An open-records request later revealed district administrators discussed Jane and her social media posts via email, on the taxpayer’s dime, and indicates administrators, including the superintendent and district legal counsel, might have had fore-knowledge of the school board majority’s plan to publicly target this student.

Let’s be clear. The members of the board majority are adults, elected officials in a position of trust, expected to make decisions in the best interests of 85,000 children.

Witt and Newkirk seemed to feel it was appropriate to project the image, name, and personal information of a minor student on a screen in a public forum and to publicly imply that student is a racist. Board majority member Julie Williams chose to remain silent (as did the superintendent and district legal counsel). How is this acceptable behavior for elected officials on a school board? Further, in what way is it appropriate for school board members to go through the social media accounts of our students?

In addition, when the school board majority made the decision to target a student in such a manner, they might have opened all of us, the district and taxpayers, up to a major lawsuit.

At a subsequent board meeting, Witt defended his actions, stating that, because Jane’s social media accounts are public, he had done nothing wrong. (You can watch the video of this here: http://bit.ly/1dKIpXp). In this video, the superintendent appears to defend the board majority’s actions.

An outside investigation into the entire incident is currently underway.

If the school board majority has no issue treating one student in this manner, will they have any problem doing it to another? We cannot help but ask, whose child is next?

It is vital that anyone elected to serve on a school board has the basic moral compass necessary to protect and serve the best interests of our 85,000 students. Far from acting in those best interests, the board majority’s conduct might have caused mental and emotional harm to a child. Their actions could make the district and taxpayers liable for any legal action taken with regard to this incident. The Jefferson County community must not tolerate this behavior from our elected officials.

This is not the first incident of possible student bullying/name-calling on the part of the board majority. On multiple occasions, students were either denied full speaking time at school board meetings or were denied their right to speak at all. In September, as students protested, Witt referred to them as pawns. In November, the board majority and the superintendent attended an event advertised as being co-hosted by an organization classified as a white supremacist, hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Then, in April, Julie Williams shared a Facebook post from SaveCalifornia.com — another organization classified as a hate group by the SPLC — that appears to encourage the bullying of and hatred for LGBT students in Jeffco.

For these reasons — and many more, outlined on the https://www.SupportJeffcoKids.org website — Ken Witt, John Newkirk, and Julie Williams must go.

The effort to recall the three of them is about our children and their future. It is about abuse of power, poor fiscal stewardship and outright malfeasance. It is about the once stellar, but now damaged, reputation of our school district and the mass exodus of our teachers. We need your help to bring transparency, accountability, fiscal responsibility, local control and basic moral standards back to Jeffco Schools. Please, donate to support the recall campaign effort and sign the three recall petitions, one for each board member, today.

Michele Patterson is the parent of two Jeffco graduates and one Jeffco student, and is a former member of the Jefferson County Board of Education.