Edgewood ISD announces lone finalist for superintendent position
EDGEWOOD, Texas (KETK)– The Edgewood ISD Board of Trustees announced their lone finalist for the superintendent position during a school board meeting on Monday.
A proud 1990 Edgewood ISD graduate, Scott Tyner, was named as the lone finalist for the Edgewood ISD superintendent position. Tyner has been the Martins Mill ISD superintendent since April 2021 and was previously the Tenaha ISD superintendent for nine years where he also was a coach and principal.
Central Heights ISD announces lone finalist for superintendent position
'Ali, Aidan and I are beyond honored, humbled and excited to rejoin the school family where it all began,' said Tyner. 'The purple and gold have remained close to my heart through the years, getting to follow my nephews and niece during their Bulldog years. I absolutely cannot wait to rekindle old relationships and begin new ones with the stakeholders of the Bulldog Family. Bulldogs Stand Together, and we can't wait to begin this amazing journey.'
Tyner and his wife, Ali have been married since 1998 and are proud parents of three sons:
Andrew, 22, attending Oklahoma State University
Alex, 20, attending Oklahoma State University
Aidan, 14, 8th grader at Martins Mill ISD
Diboll ISD officially hires new superintendent
The Edgewood ISD Board of Trustees will schedule a meeting at the end of the required 21-day waiting period to finalize Tyner's appointment.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Yahoo
US judge dismisses DNC election commission lawsuit, in a victory for Trump
A federal judge on Tuesday dismissed a lawsuit from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) claiming President Donald Trump's executive orders had threatened the independence of the Federal Election Committee (FEC), a significant – albeit rare – court victory for the president. In his ruling, U.S. District Judge Amir Ali, a Biden appointee, said the DNC failed to demonstrate "concrete and imminent injury" – or the burden needed to justify their request for a preliminary injunction. He said that the concerns raised by the party about the FEC's independence as a result of Trump's executive order were far too speculative to satisfy the court's higher bar for emergency relief. At issue in the case was the executive order Trump signed on Feb. 18, titled, "Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies." Judges V Trump: Here Are The Key Court Battles Halting The White House Agenda Democrats filed the lawsuit just 10 days after the order was signed, arguing that the order threatened to encroach on the independence of the FEC and risked subjecting it to the whims of the executive branch. The lawsuit focused largely on the claim that the FEC is an independent regulatory agency and argued that the credibility of the entire regulatory enterprise would be "fatally undermined if the party controlling the White House can unilaterally structure campaign rules and adjudicate disputes to disadvantage its electoral competitors." Read On The Fox News App Who Is Judge Amir Ali? The Biden-appointed Federal Judge At The Center Of Trump's Usaid Battle Notably, Ali said Tuesday that he had not found any evidence to date that the White House or the Trump administration had taken steps to change or undermine how the FEC interprets federal election law, or target its independent role. The "possibility that the president and attorney general would take the extraordinary step of issuing a directive to the FEC or its Commissioners purporting to bind their interpretation of FECA is not sufficiently concrete and imminent to create Article III injury," Ali said Tuesday. Should that change, however, Ali said the DNC was welcome to submit an amended filing to the court to reconsider the case. "This Court's doors are open to the parties if changed circumstances show concrete action or impact on the FEC's or its Commissioners' independence," Ali article source: US judge dismisses DNC election commission lawsuit, in a victory for Trump
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Yahoo
Judge tosses Democrats' challenge to Trump order's effect on FEC
A federal judge late Tuesday threw out national Democrats' challenge to an executive order issued by President Trump they claimed stepped on the Federal Election Commission's (FEC) independence. U.S. District Judge Amir Ali said the Democratic Party's three national political committees failed to provide clear enough proof that the FEC's independence is at risk. The FEC's legal counsel represented to the court that it would not take directives from the White House interfering with its independent judgment, and the government said no such directives had been issued, prompting the judge to dismiss the lawsuit. 'On this record — lacking any specific allegations that the challenged section has been or will be applied to the FEC or its Commissioners, in accord with the representations of counsel — the Court grants the defendants' motions to dismiss for lack of a concrete and imminent injury sufficient to establish standing and ripeness,' Ali, an appointee of former President Biden, wrote in a 14-page opinion. The Democratic National Committee (DNC), Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) sued the Trump administration in February, contending that the president's order aimed at expanding the White House's control over various independent regulatory agencies would preclude the agencies from taking legal positions out of line with the president's views. The suit zeroed in on the FEC, the independent agency that enforces campaign finance laws and oversees elections, raising concern that the order would eliminate the Federal Election Campaign Act's (FECA) requirement that the executive's legal interpretations reflect the consensus of the expert and bipartisan board. The FEC is led by six commissioners appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The commission's official interpretation of the law must be backed by at least four commissioners, and no more than three of them may be affiliated with the same political party. In their complaint, the Democrats argued Trump's executive order threatened to undercut the consensus reached after the Watergate scandal that federal campaign finance rules must be neutrally enforced, instead leaving judgment to a 'single partisan political figure — the President of the United States.' However, Ali wrote in his decision that the Democrats needed to provide strong evidence that the FEC is specifically targeted by Trump's order, which does not single it out and applies to all executive employees. They also could have alleged 'concrete steps' the administration had taken to sway the FEC and its commissioners. 'They have not done so here,' the judge wrote. Ali dismissed the case without prejudice, meaning the claims could be brought again in the future. The Hill requested comment from the three committees. 'This Court's doors are open to the parties if changed circumstances show concrete action or impact on the FEC's or its Commissioners' independence,' Ali wrote in his opinion. 'Absent such allegations, however, the Court must dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction and therefore does so.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
4 days ago
- The Hill
Judge tosses Democrats' challenge to Trump order's effect on FEC
A federal judge late Tuesday threw out national Democrats' challenge to an executive order issued by President Trump they claimed stepped on the Federal Election Commission's (FEC) independence. U.S. District Judge Amir Ali said the Democratic Party's three national political committees failed to provide clear enough proof that the FEC's independence is at risk. The FEC's legal counsel represented to the court that it would not take directives from the White House interfering with its independent judgment, and the government said no such directives had been issued, prompting the judge to dismiss the lawsuit. 'On this record — lacking any specific allegations that the challenged section has been or will be applied to the FEC or its Commissioners, in accord with the representations of counsel — the Court grants the defendants' motions to dismiss for lack of a concrete and imminent injury sufficient to establish standing and ripeness,' Ali wrote in a 14-page opinion. The Democratic National Committee (DNC), Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) sued the Trump administration in February, contending that the president's order aimed at expanding the White House's control over various independent regulatory agencies would preclude the agencies from taking legal positions out of line with the president's views. The suit zeroed in on the FEC, the independent agency that enforces campaign finance laws and oversees elections, raising concern that the order would eliminate the Federal Election Campaign Act's (FECA) requirement that the executive's legal interpretations reflect the consensus of the expert and bipartisan board. The FEC is led by six commissioners appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The commission's official interpretation of the law must be backed by at least four commissioners and no more than three of them may be affiliated with the same political party. In their complaint, the Democrats argued that Trump's executive order threatened to undercut the consensus reached after the Watergate scandal that federal campaign finance rules must be neutrally enforced, instead leaving judgment to a 'single partisan political figure — the President of the United States.' However, Ali wrote in his decision that the Democrats needed to provide strong evidence that the FEC is specifically targeted by Trump's order, which does not single it out and applies to all executive employees. They also could have alleged 'concrete steps' the administration had taken to sway the FEC and its commissioners. 'They have not done so here,' the judge wrote. Ali dismissed the case without prejudice, meaning the claims could be brought again in the future. The Hill requested comment from the three committees. 'This Court's doors are open to the parties if changed circumstances show concrete action or impact on the FEC's or its Commissioners' independence,' Ali wrote in his opinion. Absent such allegations, however, the Court must dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction and therefore does so.'
