06/02/2026
I ran for the Preston County Board of Education because I believe our students, teachers, and community deserve better than more of the same. Unfortunately, only 27% of eligible voters participated in this election, and now we are left to continue down the same path.
The reality is that only 43% of our students are proficient in reading and only 37% are proficient in math. These numbers should concern every parent, grandparent, taxpayer, and community member. They represent children who are not being given the opportunities and support they need to reach their full potential.
This election serves as a powerful reminder that apathy often produces the very outcomes people say they want to change. When nearly three-quarters of the electorate stays home, we lose the opportunity to demand accountability, new ideas, and better results for our schools.
Given today's social media post by an elected Board member who has not yet been seated, we have to ask ourselves an important question: Are we confident in the direction of this district and county? The actions and conduct of those entrusted with leadership matter, especially when our students' futures are at stake.
I wanted to share the contents of an email I sent to Superintendent Martin and the current Board of Education after the public post was removed. During my campaign, I pledged to work for complete transparency in our district, and I intend to continue advocating for openness, accountability, and improved outcomes for our students and community.
Regardless of election results, my commitment remains the same: our children deserve better, our community deserves transparency, and our schools deserve leadership focused on student success.
Good Evening,
I would like to bring to your attention a recent social media post by elected, but not yet seated, board member Amanda Alexander that raises questions regarding governance, communications, and district operations.
As reflected in the original post, several statements appeared to represent positions, intentions, or actions of the Board and/or the District. It is unclear whether those statements were authorized, approved, or otherwise endorsed by the current Board.
In response to my inquiry regarding the legitimacy of the post, Mrs. Alexander indicated that she had obtained an opinion from counsel. This raises an important question regarding the capacity in which that opinion was provided. Specifically, was the opinion obtained on behalf of the current Board, the District, or solely in her personal capacity?
Additionally, the post referenced the email address [email protected]. Because communications transmitted through a district-issued email account may be subject to applicable public records and Freedom of Information requirements, the suggestion that individuals could communicate anonymously through that account may create confusion regarding the nature and accessibility of those communications.
I also seek clarification regarding whether Mrs. Alexander was authorized to use this district email account for board-related activities at this time, and, if so, under what authority. If the account was issued for another purpose, clarification on that point would also be helpful.
Because the original post has reportedly been removed, I have included below comments and discussion points reconstructed from my review of the exchange. While these may not be verbatim quotations, they accurately reflect, to the best of my recollection, the substance of the discussion and the concerns raised.
Given that the original post has reportedly been removed and questions have been raised regarding related communications, I respectfully request that any potentially relevant records be preserved pending review. This would include, to the extent applicable:
• Copies of the original social media post and any edits, revisions, or deletions.
• Communications concerning the post.
• Communications related to any legal advice referenced in the discussion.
• Emails or other records associated with the district-issued account referenced in the post; and
• Any other records reasonably related to these matters.
Preservation of these materials will help ensure that any review is based upon a complete and accurate record and will promote transparency and public confidence in the process.
I respectfully request that the appropriate parties review the matters outlined above and provide clarification regarding any governance, operational, or policy implications involved. Such clarification will help promote transparency, maintain public trust, and reduce the likelihood of unnecessary disputes that could divert time and resources from the District's core mission of serving students and the community.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Respectfully,
Thad Marsh
My Response: Mrs. Alexander, your intentions appear commendable, but as a former Public Information Officer, I would encourage you to ensure that both the establishment of this mailbox and the language used in this post have undergone an appropriate ethics and legal review, if that has not already occurred. The creation of a separate reporting channel could be perceived as establishing a parallel process that may bypass the superintendent, the Board, and established administrative procedures. Depending on how information is received, maintained, and acted upon, there may also be implications related to public records retention requirements, chain of custody considerations, Open Meetings Act compliance, and other applicable federal and West Virginia laws and regulations. Given these potential issues, it may be prudent to seek guidance from legal counsel or the appropriate ethics authority to ensure the process is fully compliant and transparent.
Mrs. Alexanders Response: 7m Reply Amanda Alexander Thad Marsh For Preston County Schools Thank you for your advisement. I have already spoken with counsel and the ethics committee regarding this matter prior to establishing this P.O. Box.
My response:
Thank you for the clarification. I appreciate knowing that counsel and the ethics committee were consulted prior to establishing the P.O. Box.
My comments were intended less as a challenge to the creation of the mailbox itself and more as a recognition that any reporting process can raise important questions regarding records retention, transparency, due process, and how information is ultimately handled. I trust those considerations were part of the review and appreciate your willingness to address the matter.
In the interest of transparency and public confidence, would you consider publicly posting the legal and ethics guidance or review that was provided, to the extent it is permissible to do so? Making that information available would help reassure the community that the process has been thoroughly vetted and is being conducted in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, and ethical standards.
Mrs. Alexander
I will hold off on my other post until I can provide all the information requested by Mr. Marsh. I am currently waiting on 2 separate emails addressing the PO Box matter solely, so that I can post them along with the other information. I apologize for the delay, but was not expecting to be asked for proof of my due diligence in the matter.
My response:
Mrs. Alexander,
It appears your original post was removed. If the goal is transparency, removing the original post while promising documentation later raises more questions than it answers.
Respectfully, due diligence is not something that is created after concerns are raised. Due diligence is the contemporaneous collection and preservation of records, communications, approvals, and authorizations as actions are taken. Requesting emails after the fact to justify a decision is not the same as documenting the decision-making process when it occurred.
As a member of a Board of Education, you have a fiduciary obligation to ensure that actions taken in the name of Preston County Schools are properly authorized, documented, and accountable to the public. Written records matter because they provide an objective and verifiable account of what occurred. Verbal conversations, standing alone, do not.
With that in mind, I believe the public deserves answers to the following questions:
1. Did the Board formally authorize the opening of this PO Box?
2. Was there a vote, motion, or documented approval authorizing the use of "Preston County Schools" on the application?
3. Who is paying for the PO Box and from what source of funds?
4. Are any other Board members listed as authorized signatories or account holders?
5. If Board approval was not obtained beforehand, under what authority was the PO Box opened?
These are not personal questions. They are governance questions. If public resources, public authority, or the name of Preston County Schools were used, then the public has a right to know who authorized those actions, how they were authorized, and who is accountable for them.
Transparency is not achieved by promising information later. Transparency is achieved by providing complete documentation and answering legitimate questions directly.
