I was quite surprised to read in The Sun that the Howard County Board of Education had voted to ask the State Board Education to remove Allen Dyer ("Howard Board of Education votes to request removal of member Dyer," June 10). But not really. It may be that the "old guard" on the BOE has been out to hinder any initiatives proposed by Mr. Dyer since he was elected, by the people of Howard County. He has always advocated for open meetings and transparency in the workings of the BOE within the constraints of state law. Rather than meet Mr. Dyer half-way, the old guard would not give him the courtesy of a second to most of his motions. For example, when he moved to stop shredding board emails until a policy could be implemented governing their destruction, he received no second and no discussion, none.

Would it have been a good idea? Was there fear of some "secrets" getting out or were there just too many emails? The public won't know as there was no second and therefore no discussion. Is the old guard afraid of an open discussion? I think not, so why not second the motion?

The BOE accused him of a breach of the board's confidentiality provisions. But it was only an accusation and one that he denied. Is there proof of that breach or was it enough just to make the accusation?

The comment that the two new BOE members who voted against the removal request had only been on the BOE since December is totally out of line. They both have been actively involved in educational issues in Howard County for years and aware of the issues championed by Mr. Dyer as well as the actions of the previous board.

I believe Mr. Dyer to be committed to continuing to provide an excellent education to the children of Howard County within a process that is both transparent and open. He should remain on the Board of Education and be re-elected if he chooses to run for re-election.

Marcelino Bedolla