'Gross misuse of a position of power': Former school board chair slams Betsy Henderson
Knox County Commissioner Terry Hill took the rare step of publicly rebuking another public official, telling fellow Republican Betsy Henderson it was a "gross misuse of a position of power" for the Knox County school board chair go to Nashville to urge lawmakers to dramatically expand private school vouchers.
Hill, who served on the school board, including as chair, leveled the criticism in response to a post Henderson made to her public Facebook page defending her decision to support private school vouchers.
Henderson spoke Jan. 28 at a hearing of the Tennessee House education committee. Hill said Henderson shouldn't have testified at the hearing, even if she made the distinction that she was speaking as a mom, not an elected official.
Hill told Knox News she was bothered that Henderson spoke as if the school board backed her up even though the Republican-majority school board decided not to support vouchers in its legislative priorities.
"The real issue with the appearance was that she spoke for the board, and the board did not pass the resolution," Hill told Knox News. "When your own colleagues elect you as a chair of an elected sitting body, that's one of the highest, esteemed positions you can have. It needs to be treated with care."
At the Feb. 6 school board meeting, several public forum speakers said Henderson abused her position when she testified in support of private school vouchers.
"We have an ethical issue," Shelly Higgins said at the public forum. "Because even if representative Henderson spoke in her personal capacity the other day, she was introduced as the chair and board member of the third-largest public school district."
Hill stopped short of joining calls by some Knox County voters for Henderson's resignation. Hill is a constituent of Henderson, who represents Hardin Valley and Karns. Henderson stood firm in her support of private school vouchers in her Facebook post.
"I respect people's right to disagree, but I don't respect the social media bullies who have attacked and threatened me for years based on my policy stance. Your threats have not and will not work: I will not back down," Henderson posted.
Henderson also met with Gov. Bill Lee during her Nashville visit as he pushed for voucher expansion before it passed. In his posts, Lee thanked Henderson as the Knox County Board of Education chair.
Henderson did not respond to Knox News' request for comments late last week.
Education can be the "great equalizer," she testified, and parents would be empowered to find the right educational fit for their students if families are granted about $7,000 in state tax dollars to pay for private schools.
After testifying, Henderson told Knox News she has always supported the school choice vouchers can offer, and that's what compelled her to testify.
A day later, lawmakers passed the $447 million statewide program, the specifics of which have to be worked out before Tennessee families can apply.
Allie Feinberg reports on politics for Knox News. Email her: allie.feinberg@knoxnews.com and follow her on X, formerly known as Twitter, @alliefeinberg.
Areena Arora, data and investigative reporter for Knox News, can be reached by email at areena.arora@knoxnews.com. Follow her on X @AreenaArora and on Instagram @areena_news.
This article originally appeared on Knoxville News Sentinel: Former school board chair slams Betsy Henderson over vouchers
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
40 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Iowa governor rejects GOP bill to increase regulations of Summit's carbon dioxide pipeline
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds on Wednesday rejected a bill that could have introduced more complications for a massive carbon-capture pipeline project routed across several Midwestern states, issuing a rare veto in the Republican-controlled statehouse. The legislation was designed by Iowa House Republicans to increase regulations of Summit Carbon Solutions' estimated $8.9 billion, 2,500-mile (4,023-kilometer) project that cuts across Iowa and already has an approved permit in the state. But the bill provoked loud opposition from members of Iowa's powerful ethanol industry, which argued the project is essential for Iowa's agricultural dominance, for farmers and for construction jobs. And it exposed a rift within the party over how to protect property rights. 'While I shared the bill's goal of protecting landowners, good policy should draw clear, careful lines. This bill doesn't,' said Reynolds, a Republican, in the explanation of her veto. 'It combines valid concerns with vague legal standards and sweeping mandates that reach far beyond their intended targets.' Despite her veto, Reynolds said she was 'committed to working with the legislature to strengthen landowner protections, modernize permitting, and respect private property.' Iowa state Rep. Bobby Kaufmann, a Republican who supported the bill in the House, said Wednesday that her commitment is too little, too late. 'If she was willing to work with us on this, where in the world has she been the last three years?' Kaufmann said. 'She is clearly not siding with the constitutional rights of landowners but rather she's siding with special interests.' Summit has said it has invested nearly $175 million to enter into voluntary agreements with landowners in Iowa and more than $1 billion on the project overall. In a statement, Summit thanked the governor for a thoughtful review of the bill and said their goal is to proceed with voluntary agreements with landowners. Even with the relief from Reynolds' veto, Summit will likely have to readjust plans after South Dakota's governor signed a ban on the use of eminent domain — the government seizure of private property with compensation — to acquire land for carbon dioxide pipelines. Summit's permit application was also rejected in South Dakota. The project has permit approvals in Iowa, Minnesota and North Dakota but faces various court challenges. The Iowa bill would have prohibited the renewal of permits for a carbon dioxide pipeline, limited the use of such a pipeline to 25 years and significantly increased the insurance coverage requirements for the pipeline company. Those provisions would likely have made it less financially feasible for a company to build a carbon dioxide pipeline. 'We look forward to continued discussions with state leaders as we advance this important project,' Summit said Wednesday. 'At a time when farmers are facing increasing pressures, this project opens the door to new markets and helps strengthen America's energy dominance for the long term.' Rift in Republican-controlled statehouse Republican House Speaker Pat Grassley said after Reynolds' veto that he would pursue a special session to vote on an override, saying in a statement that the veto 'is a major setback for Iowa.' The Iowa Constitution states that a request for special session from two-thirds of both chambers, or the governor, can bring lawmakers back to Des Moines. Two-thirds of both chambers would need to vote for an override for the bill to become law without the governor's approval. 'We will not stop fighting and stand firm on our commitment until landowners' in Iowa are protected against Eminent Domain for private gain,' Grassley said. Senate Majority Leader Jack Whitver suggested that would be unlikely in his chamber. Thirteen Republican senators had joined with 14 Democrats in voting in favor of the bill, but 21 Republicans and one Democrat voted against it. 'Based on the votes on that bill in the Iowa Senate, a significant majority of our caucus supports a better policy to protect landowner rights. I expect that majority of our caucus would not be interested in any attempt to override her veto,' he said. As the legislative session wound down, a dozen Republican senators insisted their leaders bring the House-approved bill to the floor for a vote after several years of inaction. The stalemate ended in a long and divisive debate among the Iowa Senate's Republican supermajority, with senators openly criticizing one another and exposing the closed-door discussions that got them there. Summit's project and its critics The Summit pipeline was proposed to carry carbon emissions from ethanol plants in Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota to be stored underground permanently in North Dakota. By lowering carbon emissions from the plants, the pipeline would lower their carbon intensity scores and make them more competitive in the renewable fuels market. The project would also allow ethanol producers and Summit to tap into federal tax credits. The pipeline's many critics have for years begged lawmakers for action. They accuse Summit of stepping on their property rights and downplaying the safety risks of building the pipeline alongside family homes, near schools and across ranches. Lee Enterprises and The Associated Press reviewed hundreds of cases that reveal the great legal lengths the company went to to get the project built. In South Dakota, in particular, a slew of eminent domain legal actions to obtain land sparked a groundswell of opposition that was closely watched by lawmakers in Iowa as well. A group of landowners released a statement Wednesday calling the veto a slap in the face. 'Big money, greed & self interest won the day,' said Jan Norris, a landowner in southwest Iowa whose neighbor is in the pipeline's route. 'Our property rights are for sale to the highest bidder.'
San Francisco Chronicle
41 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Families file suit challenging Arkansas law that requires Ten Commandments be posted in classrooms
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) — Seven Arkansas families filed a lawsuit Wednesday challenging an upcoming state requirement that public school classrooms have posted copies of the Ten Commandments, saying the new law will violate their constitutional rights. The federal lawsuit challenges a measure Republican Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders signed into law earlier this year, similar to a requirement enacted by Louisiana and one that Texas' governor has said he'll sign. The Arkansas law takes effect in August and requires the Ten Commandments to be prominently displayed in public school classrooms and libraries. 'Permanently posting the Ten Commandments in every classroom and library — rendering them unavoidable — unconstitutionally pressures students into religious observance, veneration, and adoption of the state's favored religious scripture,' the lawsuit said. The suit was filed on behalf of the families by the American Civil Liberties Union, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State and the Freedom from Religion Foundation. The lawsuit names four school districts in northwest Arkansas — Fayetteville, Bentonville, Siloam Springs and Springdale — as defendants. A spokesperson for Fayetteville schools said the district would not comment on pending litigation, while the other three districts did not immediately respond to requests for comment. A spokesperson for Attorney General Tim Griffin said his office was reviewing the lawsuit and considering options. Attorneys for the families, who are Jewish, Unitarian Universalist or nonreligious, said they planned to ask the federal judge in Fayetteville for a preliminary injunction blocking the law's enforcement. The attorneys say the law violates longstanding Supreme Court precedent and the families' First Amendment rights. 'By imposing a Christian-centric translation of the Ten Commandments on our children for nearly every hour of every day of their public-school education, this law will infringe on our rights as parents and create an unwelcoming and religiously coercive school environment for our children," Samantha Stinson, one of the plaintiffs, said in a news release. Louisiana was the first state to enact such a requirement, and a federal judge blocked the measure before it was to take effect Jan 1. Proponents of Louisiana's law say that ruling only applies to the five school boards listed in the suit, but The Associated Press is unaware of any posters being displayed in schools as the litigation continues.
Yahoo
44 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Growing Fears of Massive Strikes On Iran As Nuclear Negotiations Sputter
U.S. President Donald Trump has been presented with a broad array of potential military options against Iran should ongoing nuclear negotiations with that country fail. Israel is already reportedly moving ever closer to at least being in a position to launch its own strikes on Iranian nuclear sites. The direct and indirect blowback from any such operations against Iran could be immense. Fears that U.S.-Iranian nuclear talks are on the verge of collapse have been steadily growing in the past week or so amid statements from both sides outlining potentially intractable positions. Iran's ability to continue domestic enrichment of nuclear material that could be used to produce nuclear weapons has emerged as a key stumbling block to reaching a deal. 'If the President directed [it], is CENTCOM [U.S. Central Command] prepared to respond with overwhelming force to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran?' Congressman Mike Rogers, an Alabama Republican, asked U.S. Army Gen. Michael 'Erik' Kurilla at a hearing of the House Armed Services Committee today. Kurilla is currently head of CENTCOM, making him the top officer overseeing operations across the Middle East. 'I have provided the Secretary of Defense [Pete Hegseth] and the President [Trump] a wide range of options,' Kurilla said in response. 'I take that as a yes?' Rogers, the present chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, asked in return, appearing to refer to the specific wording of his question, to include the possible use of 'overwhelming force.' 'Yes,' Kurrila said. Top U.S. military commander in the Middle East General Kurilla confirms that he has presented military options on Iran to President Trump & SecDef Hegseth in House Armed Services Committee this morning. — Brian Katulis (@Katulis) June 10, 2025 It is important to note here that U.S. presidents and defense secretaries regularly ask to be briefed on potential military options in light of crises or heightened risks of one erupting. Being presented with a full range of operational possibilities, including large-scale strikes or other significant direct action, does not mean the United States is automatically committed to pursuing any specific course of action, something we will come back to later on. Publicly, Trump has consistently advocated for reaching a deal with Iran to avoid any need to take military action, though he has also raised the possibility of military action in the event talks reach a dead end. He has separately said that he has pressed his Israeli counterpart, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, to hold off on striking Iranian targets while negotiations are ongoing. There have been reports of significant friction between the two world leaders, as well. Amid all this, the U.S. president is said to be facing increasingly intense pressure from a faction of domestic political allies to acquiesce to and/or join in on Israeli attacks on Iran, according to a new report just today from Politico. There have been reports for weeks already that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) have been actively planning and otherwise preparing to launch strikes on Iran, and the country's nuclear sites in particular. Israel's Haaretz newspaper reported yesterday that those plans continue to advance, while the country's Channel 12 television station had said that more active preparations, including the prepositioning of munitions, may now be underway. It is also worth noting that there have been persistent reports about possible Israeli strikes on Iran for some time, but that this actually came to pass on a more limited level last year. Authorities in Israel have also demonstrated a new willingness to launch overt attacks beyond the country's borders, in general. Preparations for an Israeli strike against Iran's nuclear facilities are said to be nearing completion, with the final steps, including the transfer of munitions and operational planning, currently ongoing, according to Channel 12. — OSINTdefender (@sentdefender) June 9, 2025 'Iran is acting much differently in negotiations than it did just days ago,' Trump said in an interview today with Fox News' Bret Baier. 'Much more aggressive. It's surprising to me. It's disappointing, but we are set to meet again tomorrow – we'll see.' Trump had told reporters that the next round of U.S.-Iranian nuclear talks was scheduled for Thursday during a question-and-answer session around an Invest America roundtable with multiple corporate CEOs at the White House yesterday. It is unclear whether or not this plan has changed. 'We have a meeting with Iran on Thursday. So we're going to wait till Thursday,' Trump had said. 'They're just asking for things that you can't do. They don't want to give up what they have to give up. You know what that is. They seek enrichment. We can't have enrichment. We want just the opposite.' US President Donald Trump told reporters that the next round of nuclear talks between Washington and Tehran will be held on Thursday, adding that Iran is demanding things "that you can't do." He noted that Tehran is insisting on uranium enrichment. — Rudaw English (@RudawEnglish) June 9, 2025 'And so far, they're not there. I hate to say that, because the alternative is a very, very dire one, but they're not there,' the U.S. president continued. 'They have given us their thoughts on the deal. I said, you know, it's just not acceptable.' 'We discussed a lot of things, and it went very well, very smooth. We'll see what happens. You know, we're trying to do something with a country we just spoke about, Iran,' Trump said at the same White House event yesterday in response to questions about a telephone conversation earlier in the day with Netanyahu. 'They [the Iranians] are good negotiators, but they're tough. Sometimes they can be too tough. That's the problem, we're trying to make a deal so that there's no destruction and death. And we've told them that, and I've told them that. I hope that's the way it works out, but it might not work out that way. We'll soon find out.' Trump response when he said the US officials have meeting with the Iranians on Thursday and that he discussed Lebanon with Netanyahu . — Hiba Nasr (@HibaNasr) June 9, 2025 Iran 'won't be enriching,' Trump had already told reporters this past weekend. 'If they enrich, then we're going to have to do it the other way.' Domestic Iranian capacity to enrich Uranium to a level of purity required to make effective nuclear weapons has long been a sticking point between Tehran and much of the international community. The U.S. Intelligence Community, among others, continues to assess that Iran does not have an active nuclear weapons program, but that the country has put itself in a position where it could build one within as little as a week if it chose to do so. The United States, Israel, and others, including the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), have also accused Iran of lying, or at least being far less than forthcoming, about the full extent of its nuclear efforts to date. Signals from the Trump administration on the enrichment issue specifically have been mixed in recent weeks. Axios reported just last week that a proposed U.S. deal might allow Iran to continue enriching uranium to lower purity levels associated with civilian nuclear generation. A previous multi-national deal with Iran that the United States was party to, called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), had also put limits on Iranian enrichment, but did not require it to be stopped outright. Trump withdrew the United States from the JCPOA in 2018 during his first term in office. Iran announced in 2020 that it was no longer abiding by any of the agreement's stipulations. For its part, Iran has stressed repeatedly that it is not willing to completely abandon its domestic enrichment efforts. Iranian authorities have also said they want a clear, formalized plan for relief from U.S. sanctions as part of any new nuclear agreement. 'The U.S. proposal is not acceptable to us. It was not the result of previous rounds of negotiations. We will present our own proposal to the other side via Oman after it is finalized. This proposal is reasonable, logical, and balanced,' Iranian foreign ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei said early today, according to Reuters. 'We must ensure before the lifting of sanctions that Iran will effectively benefit economically and that its banking and trade relations with other countries will return to normal.' 'Uranium enrichment is the key to our nuclear program and the enemies have focused on the enrichment,' Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei also said last week during a televised address, again per Reuters. 'The proposal that the Americans have presented is 100% against our interests … The rude and arrogant leaders of America repeatedly demand that we should not have a nuclear programme. Who are you to decide whether Iran should have enrichment?' Majid Takht-e-Ravanchi, Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister for Political Affairs, also indicated yesterday that Iran could be looking to extend negotiations without necessarily outright rejecting a particular proposal. 'Our proposal is certainly not a one-sentence or one-paragraph text that can be easily dismissed,' Takht-e-Ravanchi explained in an interview with state-run IRNA. 'It contains elements that demonstrate our seriousness, show that our position has a defined framework, and indicate that we intend to work based on established principles. Our approach is logical.' 'The reality is that we are not discussing an excessively lengthy text at this stage because we do not intend to present a comprehensive, time-consuming agreement or understanding. The proposal we have submitted serves as a framework for an agreement. If there is mutual understanding regarding this framework, we can then begin more detailed negotiations on specific issues.' If U.S. negotiations with Iran do collapse, and American and/or Israeli attacks on nuclear facilities or other targets follow, it is unclear what the scale and scope of that operation might be, as already noted. The IDF has already demonstrated an ability to launch precision standoff strikes on Iran with virtual impunity in the past year, but only against targets on the surface. Israeli forces would face significantly greater challenges in neutralizing deeply buried sites tied to Iran's nuclear program. TWZ highlighted this reality after Israel announced its special operations forces had conducted a dramatic ground raid on an underground missile production facility in Syria last year. 'What member states decide to do is their prerogative,' IAEA Director-General Rafael Grossi told The Jerusalem Post yesterday. 'I don't advise the Israeli government. They will decide what's best.' 'But one thing is certain,' he added, 'The [Iranian nuclear] program runs wide and deep. And when I say 'deep,' I mean it. Many of these facilities are extremely well-protected. Disrupting them would require overwhelming and devastating force.' This is where questions about U.S. participation typically come into the picture. America's armed forces have a unique conventional deep-penetrating strike capability in the form of B-2 Spirit stealth bombers armed with GBU-57/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) bunker buster bombs. TWZ highlighted the significance of this combination in reporting around the unusually large deployment of six B-2s to the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia between March and May of this year, as well as the use of those bombers in strikes on Yemen last October. In both cases, we also pointed out the clear strategic signalling aimed at Iran. The B-2 bombers on Diego Garcia represented just a portion of the additional U.S. forces and materiel that flowed into the Middle East since the beginning of the year. In addition, last week, reports began to emerge that the U.S. military had diverted counter-drone capabilities originally intended to be delivered to Ukraine to American forces in the Middle East. Like Israel, the U.S. military could also launch its own standoff strikes on Iran via other aircraft, as well as ships and submarines, but would face similar limitations in the kinds of targets it might be able to prosecute. Questions have even been raised in the past about whether some of Iran's underground nuclear facilities might be beyond the reach even of the MOP. Strikes that do not fully destroy facilities could still put them out of commission for at least a limited time. Ground raids could also be launched as part of what might be a protracted campaign. Any such operation would require a much larger force package beyond just the assets tasked with carrying out the strikes, including to suppress and destroy hostile air defenses, and would present additional risks as a result. U.S. operations targeting Iranian-backed Houthi militants in Yemen in the past year or so have highlighted how even more rudimentary air defenses can still present real threats to even advanced American aircraft, as you can read more about here. All of this would be further magnified by any need to mount a combat search and rescue effort to recover American personnel should their aircraft be downed inside Iran. The Houthis' arsenal of ballistic and cruise missiles, as well as kamikaze drones, which the group has amassed with immense help from Iran, also underscores the dangers U.S. warships could face from Iranian retaliation. TWZ already explored the potential broader ramifications of a major conflict between the United States and Iran in detail earlier this year amid another spike in tensions between the two countries. Iran has long vowed to carry out a broad retaliatory response if its nuclear facilities are targeted. This could include missile and drone attacks on Israeli and U.S. interests across the Middle East on a scale and scope not seen ever before, as well as similar actions by proxy forces like the Houthis, along with terrorist attacks globally. 'We have a rule in CENTCOM: you improve your foxhole every single day,' Kurrila also said at today's hearing. Kurilla says an Israeli attack on Iran would increase the risks to safety of US troops in the region. 'We have a rule in CENTCOM: you improve your foxhole every single day.' — Jared Szuba (@JM_Szuba) June 10, 2025 Just this week, Iranian authorities explicitly threatened to strike Israeli nuclear sites if their own are targeted. This followed claims from Iran's intelligence minister, Esmail Khatib, that his country is in possession of a trove of secrets about Israel's unacknowledged nuclear arsenal, which he has also threatened to publicly release. This remains largely unconfirmed, but IAEA's Grossi has indicated that the information Iran has relates primarily to Israel's publicly acknowledged Soreq nuclear research facility. It's also worth noting that Iran's general ability to threaten missile and drone attacks on targets further away from its shores has steadily grown in recent years. The U.S. Air Force's deployment in May of a contingent of F-15E Strike Eagle combat jets to provide force protection on Diego Garcia, which TWZ was first to report, highlights this fact. The island, where a force of a B-52 bombers also remains forward-deployed, has historically been seen as being less vulnerable, especially to smaller potential adversaries like Iran, simply due to its remoteness. Grossi, among others, has also warned that attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities could prompt the country to start an active nuclear weapons program. The U.S. Intelligence Community has publicly assessed that Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei is already under increasing pressure from domestic hardliners to do so. There is clear potential for other second-order impacts, as well. Iranian authorities have threatened the possibility of blockading the Strait of Hormuz, which links the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman, in times of heightened tensions in the past. Doing so would have major impacts on global oil and natural gas supplies. Yemen's Houthis have already massively disrupted international shipping with attacks on commercial vessels in and around the Red Sea in the past year or so. Regional and global impacts could draw in other countries and create additional complexities. Russia and China, for instance, have deep ties to Iran and interests in keeping the current regime in Tehran in place. All told, it remains to be seen whether the United States and/or Israel will launch attacks on Iran, including its nuclear sites. At the same time, that decision looks to heavily hinge on the increasingly uncertain future of ongoing U.S.-Iranian negotiations. Contact the author: joe@
