Dublin on Trial—but Where Was the State?

Yesterday, the State Board of Education held a hearing on the terrible mismanagement of Dublin City Schools. Peach Pundit Patreon Dr. Randell Trammell watched the hearing and sent us this post. – Buzz

TLDR
Dublin City Schools didn’t get into this mess overnight, and there’s enough blame to go around to fill a church bus: the local board watched deficits pile up, audits run late, payroll get shaky, and millions go unpaid, so they’ve got some explaining to do—but the State of Georgia was watching the same dashboard with the same warning lights blinking and somehow kept driving. GaDOE knew Dublin was high risk, approved corrective plans, renewed its charter in 2023, took it off the high-risk list in 2025, and then showed up after the wheels came off to prosecute the local board for not seeing what the State apparently didn’t stop either. The State Board has now unanimously recommended suspending the eligible Dublin board members, but replacing the folks at the local table doesn’t answer the bigger question: if everybody saw the smoke, why did nobody bring a fire extinguisher until the schoolhouse was burning? Teachers, students, and families paid the price, and real accountability means examining not only what Dublin’s board did wrong, but why Georgia’s own oversight system failed to act sooner.

Dig Deeper

On August 12, tucked away on the 20th floor of the Sloppy Floyd “Twin Towers” Building, the Dublin City Schools saga had what may prove to be its final “day in court.” (GaDOE hearing announcement)

It was not actually court, but it certainly felt like it.

There was a presiding hearing officer. Witnesses were sworn in. Attorneys questioned and cross-examined them. The Georgia Department of Education made its case against the Dublin City Board of Education, and attorneys for the local board pushed back.

The members of the Georgia State Board of Education were not technically a jury. Their job was to decide whether the evidence justified recommending that Governor Brian Kemp suspend the eligible members of the Dublin City Board of Education.

That is an important distinction. The State Board did not have the authority to remove anyone that day. It could only make a recommendation to the Governor.

Still, the stakes could not have been higher.

We have been here before.

Georgia has faced a handful of similar cases during the last 25 years.

In 2010, Governor Sonny Perdue attempted to remove three of the five members of the Warren County Board of Education. The allegations included ethics violations, micromanagement of school operations, Open Meetings Act concerns, discriminatory hiring practices, violations of accreditation standards and refusal to sign the board’s ethics policy.

An administrative-law judge found that the members’ conduct threatened the district’s accreditation and breached the public trust. Governor Perdue accepted that recommendation and ordered the three members removed.

The Georgia Supreme Court later overturned the action.

The Court did not say the alleged conduct was acceptable. It did not say elected school-board members could never be removed. It ruled that the law Governor Perdue used did not apply to county boards of education because those boards are created by the Georgia Constitution rather than by general statute.

The General Assembly later created a specific process for suspending school-board members when a district’s accreditation is in immediate jeopardy. (AJC coverage)

That process was used in Miller County in 2012. The district had been placed on accreditation probation amid allegations of serious governance dysfunction, interference in daily operations and a hostile relationship between the board and superintendent.

After two hearings, the State Board unanimously recommended action against the five-member board. Governor Nathan Deal then began the process of replacing its members. (AJC, WABE coverage)

DeKalb County followed in 2013. In that case, the recommendation applied to six of the nine board members. Three newly elected members were not eligible for suspension because they had not been serving when the district was placed on accreditation probation. (AJC, WABE coverage)

And now we have Dublin.

Eleven hours of testimony—and years of warning signs.

The Dublin hearing lasted more than 11 hours. At times, it felt like a mashup of Matlock and In the Heat of the Night: small-town drama, Friday-night lights and money—lots of money.

But behind the courtroom-style proceedings was a school system in real trouble.

The parties had already agreed to 246 factual statements and the admissibility of 167 exhibits in a 76-page document of joint stipulations.

Those stipulations were not a confession by the Dublin board, and they did not mean the board agreed that its members should be suspended. They simply established facts that neither side would have to prove during the hearing.

Those facts describe a troubling history:

• Recurring deficits dating to fiscal year 2009.
• Late and incomplete audits.
• Weak budgeting and expenditure controls.
• Temporary federal COVID-relief money used for recurring personnel expenses.
• Millions of dollars owed to the State Health Benefit Plan.
• Advances of state Quality Basic Education funding needed to meet payroll.
• State findings of overstaffing and excessive personnel costs.
• Disagreements between state and local officials over whether the district was making progress.
• Cognia’s April 2026 decision to place Dublin City Schools on “Accredited Under Conditions” status—one step away from losing accreditation.

That accreditation decision triggered the hearing under O.C.G.A. § 20-2-73.

The legal question before the State Board was fairly narrow: Had Dublin’s financial and governance failures become serious enough to justify recommending the suspension of eligible board members?

But the larger question is not narrow at all.

How did this go on for so long?

The local board has much to answer.

Let’s be clear: the Dublin City Board of Education cannot walk away from its responsibility.

Local boards approve budgets. They receive financial reports. They hire and evaluate the superintendent. They are responsible for asking questions, demanding accurate information and making sure the district lives within its means.

Board members do not process invoices or maintain the accounting software. They are not expected to know every detail of every financial transaction.

But when a district repeatedly spends more than it takes in, audits are late, the State Health Benefit Plan is not being paid and payroll depends on advances from the State, someone at the board table should be asking hard questions.

Not once. Not occasionally. At every meeting until the answers are clear.

The district used temporary federal relief funds to pay recurring personnel costs. That is a red flag because temporary money eventually disappears while salaries and benefits continue.

The district also maintained staffing levels that the State said it could not afford. Financial reports were late or incomplete. Obligations accumulated. Employees and families eventually felt the consequences.

Even if some information was withheld from board members, the warning signs were there.

The board had a duty to dig deeper. It had a duty to demand independent verification. It had a duty to make sure the corrective actions it approved were actually being carried out.

If it failed to do those things, it must be held accountable.

But the board’s defense cannot simply be ignored.

The board’s case focused heavily on what individual members actually knew and what information may have been withheld from them.

That matters because “the board” is not one person who has occupied the same seat for 17 years. Members joined at different times. They had different levels of access to information. Some inherited problems created long before they arrived.

If district administrators failed to tell board members that millions of dollars in State Health Benefit Plan obligations were not being paid, that is not a minor detail. If financial reports were incomplete or misleading, that must be considered when judging the actions of individual members.

The testimony of former Finance Director Chad McDaniel was especially notable. Acting on the advice of counsel, he invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. While it should go without saying, I’ll say it anyway… Pleading the Fifth does not prove wrongdoing. Everyone has a constitutional right to remain silent when truthful answers might expose them to criminal liability.

But it leaves some very important questions unanswered.  What did district financial officials know? What did they tell the superintendent? What did they tell the board? Were board members given complete and accurate information? If not, who withheld it—and why?

We should not assume that every current board member bears exactly the same responsibility simply because they sit on the same board. Individual actions, individual knowledge and individual terms of service should matter.

Now let’s talk about the State.

The August 12 hearing was designed to examine the Dublin board, not the Georgia Department of Education.

But let’s be clear: just because GaDOE was not on trial does not mean GaDOE has been cleared.

The State’s witnesses described the help GaDOE provided Dublin—meetings, guidance, QBE advances and even assistance securing a bank loan.  That help was real—and credit should be given to the GaDOE.

But providing help after a crisis develops is not the same thing as preventing the crisis. And it is certainly not the same thing as effective oversight.

Dublin’s financial problems were not hidden from the State for 17 years. Audits existed. Deficits existed. High-risk designations existed. Corrective action plans existed.

The warning lights were flashing.

So where was GaDOE? Where was the State School Superintendent? Where was the accountability?

The State’s own records show that Dublin’s problems had been on the radar for years. The Department of Audits and Accounts designated Dublin City Schools as high risk following its fiscal year 2020 financial reporting. A deficit-elimination plan was submitted to GaDOE in July 2022. Then, in July 2024, GaDOE’s Financial Review Team recommended a separate high-risk designation because the district’s fiscal year 2021 audit still had not been received. As late as January and April 2025, GaDOE was requesting financial reports and updates on those missing audits.

That raises an obvious question: If the State had been watching Dublin since the fiscal year 2020 problems, how did the situation become this bad?

Yet in May 2023, while Dublin was still considered high risk, the State Board renewed the district’s charter-system contract.  Why?

What financial information was reviewed before that renewal? Were the district’s recurring deficits discussed? Were its staffing costs considered? Did anyone verify that the corrective action plan was working? Were financial conditions placed on the renewal? If they were, who monitored them?

A charter renewal is not just paperwork. It tells a community that the district has shown enough academic, financial and operational stability to continue under that model. If the financial problems were already as serious as the State now says they were, why was the charter renewed? That question deserves an answer.

The high-risk decision may be even more troubling.

In March 2025, Dublin was removed from the State’s high-risk designation.

Again: why? What had changed?

Had the district completed its audits? Had it stopped running recurring deficits? Had staffing been brought in line with enrollment and revenue? Had someone independently verified that health-benefit obligations were current? Was the district operating without emergency advances?

Or did Dublin simply satisfy enough items on a checklist to be removed from the list?

Less than a year after Dublin was removed from high-risk status, the financial crisis was undeniable. Employees were facing reduced pay, fewer paid days, payroll uncertainty and questions about their benefits. The district’s accreditation was heading toward the level immediately preceding loss.

Something does not add up.

Either Dublin’s condition improved enough to justify removing it from high-risk status and then deteriorated at extraordinary speed, or the State’s review failed to identify problems that were still there.

Neither explanation inspires confidence.

The State says the warning signs were obvious enough that Dublin’s board should have acted. Fair enough.

But those same warning signs were sitting on desks at GaDOE.

Why didn’t the State act sooner?

GaDOE cannot point to years of deficits, late audits and poor financial controls as proof that local board members failed while pretending those same records say nothing about the effectiveness of state oversight.

Accountability cannot work that way.

Teachers and students paid the price.

While adults at every level debate who knew what and when, teachers, employees, students and families have been living with the consequences.

Employees faced reduced pay and fewer paid days. Some encountered payroll uncertainty. Some were left worried about benefits they believed were being funded. Teachers considering leaving in the middle of the year faced the possibility of certification consequences.

Students watched adults argue over who was responsible while the future of their school system hung in the balance.

Families deserved better. Teachers deserved better. Students deserved better.

They needed help when the warning signs first appeared—not years later, after the damage had been done.

Dublin’s board failed to provide the oversight the community needed. But the State’s early-warning and intervention systems also failed to protect the people those systems were created to serve.

That is shared responsibility.

The local board and GaDOE may not have had the same legal duties, but both had access to warning signs. Both had authority. Both had opportunities to act.

Neither can credibly claim that this crisis belongs entirely to someone else.

The State’s own decisions must be examined.

If Georgia truly wants to prevent another Dublin, the investigation cannot end with suspending a local board.

We need to know:

• Why was Dublin’s charter renewed in May 2023 while the district was considered high risk?
• What happened to the July 2022 corrective action plan?
• Who monitored it?
• What evidence supported removing Dublin from high-risk status in March 2025?
• Did GaDOE independently verify the district’s financial information?
• What did state officials know about the unpaid State Health Benefit Plan obligations?
• When did they know it?
• Why did intervention come so late?
• Are there other Georgia districts showing the same warning signs today?

Those are not political “gotcha” questions. They are the questions any responsible oversight agency should be willing to answer.  The goal should not be to protect the local board or embarrass the State. The goal should be to find out what failed and fix it before another group of teachers and students pays the price.

What the State Board actually decided.

After testimony and cross-examination ended, the State Board entered a closed session to discuss the evidence.  That closed deliberation was permitted by law. The testimony was taken publicly, and the final vote occurred after the Board returned to open session.

The State Board then voted unanimously to recommend that Governor Brian Kemp suspend with pay all eligible members of the Dublin City Board of Education under O.C.G.A. § 20-2-73.

The State Board did not remove Dublin’s board members.  It recommended suspension. The final decision belongs to Governor Kemp. (41NBC coverage)

If the Governor accepts the recommendation, he may suspend the eligible members with pay and appoint qualified temporary replacements in consultation with the State Board.

A suspended member may petition the Governor for reinstatement no earlier than 30 days and no later than 60 days after suspension. A member who does not petition within that period may be permanently removed.

A member who does petition is entitled to another hearing. The question then becomes whether that member’s continued service is more likely than not to help the district keep or regain accreditation.

What happens to Dublin now?

The hearing answered one question, but it created several more.

Can Dublin City Schools reorganize and rebuild? Will temporary board members be able to restore financial stability and public trust? Will consolidation with Laurens County become a serious proposal, or will it remain community speculation?

And what effect will a new charter school have?

On July 29, 2026, the State Charter Schools Commission approved Middle Georgia Preparatory Academy. The K-8 state charter school is expected to open in fall 2027 and serve students from Dublin City and Laurens County.

The school must still complete the Commission’s pre-opening requirements.

It may provide another educational option for families, but it should not be presented as a cure for what happened in Dublin City Schools. It could also draw students—and the public funding attached to those students—from a district already struggling to survive.

That impact deserves an honest discussion too.

Accountability means everybody.

Dublin’s board must answer for what it did and what it failed to do.

District administrators must answer for the financial decisions they made and the information they provided—or failed to provide—to the board.

But GaDOE must answer too.

So must the State Board.

So must the State School Superintendent.

The State identified Dublin as high risk. It approved a corrective action plan. It renewed the district’s charter. It later removed the district from high-risk status.

Then, after the situation collapsed, the State arrived to prosecute the local board for failing to respond to warning signs the State had also been watching.

That may satisfy the narrow purpose of the suspension law. It does not satisfy the public’s demand for full accountability.

I am rooting for Dublin City Schools to recover. I want the district to succeed. But that recovery cannot come at the continued expense of teachers, employees and students.

Replacing a board may be necessary. It is not the whole answer.

Until Georgia examines how its own safeguards failed, we have not solved the problem. We have only found someone to blame.

The students and educators of Dublin needed leadership before the crisis—not hearings after the damage was done.

We must do better…for the children.

About the Author:

Trammell is a long-time educator who is the national president for the US Center for Civic Engagement and also chairs Georgia’s Commission for Civics Education.  Trammell often consults with State Departments of Education across the country and was most recently a candidate for Georgia’s State School Superintendent.