CCSD board fails to select process to pick interim superintendent

The Clark County School Board abruptly adjourned a meeting Thursday night after more than an hour of discussion on the process of appointing an interim superintendent ended without a decision.

A motion to accept letters of interest and resumes until Nov. 10 for interim superintendent failed. Trustees Evelyn Garcia Morales, Katie Williams and Lola Brooks opposed, and Irene Cepeda abstained.

Williams made a motion saying she wanted to follow a policy related to emergency superintendent succession. Her motion was superseded by one from board President Linda Cavazos to adjourn the meeting, which passed 6-1 with Williams opposed.

The board voted 4-3 last week to terminate Superintendent Jesus Jara’s contract “for convenience,” meaning they didn’t need to provide a reason. Brooks, Williams and Garcia Morales voted no.

Jara has been superintendent since 2018, and his contract, which was extended in May, was slated to run through Jan. 15, 2023. He’ll remain on the job until Dec. 1.

After about 30 minutes of public comments about the process for appointing an interim superintendent, the board began its discussion.

Board counsel Mary-Anne Miller said she needs direction on how to solicit people who may be interested in acting in the role and how long that window will be open.

Cavazos said none of the seven trustees has been through an interim superintendent process, adding that said she has heard the need for transparency in the interim superintendent process.

During a discussion, all seven trustees agreed the interim superintendent won’t be someone who will be considered for the position permanently.

Garcia Morales brought up a board policy about emergency superintendent succession, saying it states the superintendent identifies at least two other executives who could step in.

“I consider this an emergency because we’re in the middle of the school year, and we have a lot of work to do,” she said.

Garcia Morales asked whether anyone has talked with Jara about how those two people are.

Cavazos and Miller both said they don’t know who those people are and haven’t asked him.

Garcia Morales said it may be helpful to start there.

Brooks, who was previously board president, said those two people are Deputy Superintendent Brenda Larsen-Mitchell and Chief Financial Officer Jason Goudie.

Brooks said she wants the interim superintendent appointment process to be transparent, noting it must be a group project.

It’s also hard to proceed without knowing how many people will remain in the executive cabinet, she said.

During last week’s meeting, at least some of members of the cabinet walked out after the vote on Jara’s contract.

Brooks said her goal is stabilization with someone who’s familiar with the district. Garcia Morales said there needs to be healing that exists throughout the interim superintendent appointment process, and she noted students are the ones who benefit or suffer from the board’s action or inaction.

Cepeda said she’s a little less inclined to say it’s an emergency. She also asked for clarification of the difference between an acting and interim superintendent.

Miller said that traditionally, an acting superintendent steps in temporarily when a superintendent is unable to act but is expected to return. An interim superintendent is someone who serves between two permanent superintendents, she said.

Guzman said she agreed with Cepeda on the emergency piece. She asked if there’s a definition of what an “emergency” looks like.

Miller said the definition of emergency has evolved over the last 18 months because of the COVID-19 pandemic, noting there’s not one in regulations or board policies.

State law defines it as an imminent threat to life or property, she said, and it’s up to the board to decide if that applies.

The majority of trustees agreed that they didn’t think it was an emergency situation.

Jim Frazee, high school teacher and vice president for the Clark County Education Association, said during a public comment period that firing Jara was done for pure political reasons, noting trustees didn’t disclose reasons for their decision to terminate his contract.

The interim superintendent search process must be transparent and some trustees have demonstrated they don’t know what that means, Frazee said, so he read a dictionary definition.

The process must be established and explained from the beginning, and there can’t be hidden personal agendas, he said.

Teacher Jamie Tadrzynski said some trustees have been hurling insults at each other on Twitter that if her students made, they’d get suspended.

Tadrzynski said students watched what happened at last week’s school board meeting. “Our kids are watching and I cannot repeat that enough.”

The district became a national embarrassment, Tadrzynski said, and noted a superintendent is needed who makes the “#1ForKids” more than a hashtag.

Teacher Karlana Kulseth said she wants the community to have the opportunity to ask questions of those being considered for the position, including being able to understand their ethics, if they’re going to put students first and bring healing to the community.

Redistricting

On Thursday, the board also voted 6-1 to approve trustee rezoning map scenario five, with Trustee Danielle Ford opposed.

An October presentation about redistricting led to a conversation that spanned more than two hours, and some public commenters expressed concerns about representation and equity issues.

The redistricting process happens every 10 years due to population changes and is based this time on 2020 U.S. Census data. It doesn’t affect school attendance zones.

Public commenters generally supported map scenarios four and five — additional maps drawn in response to community feedback — but some suggested a handful of changes.

Requirements for a map include that a sitting trustee can’t be taken out of their current district, and districts must be contiguous and nearly equal in population, within 5 percent.

Jara fires back on pay increases

In a Monday memo to the school board, Jara informed trustees he plans to award $408,564 in base salary increases to members of his executive cabinet.

Jeff Horn with the Clark County Association of School Administrators and Professional-Technical Employees said during the Thursday school board meeting the raises are “nothing less than unconscionable.”

He requested the board immediately rescind “inappropriate and outrageous” pay increases.

What message does it send to overburdened site-based principals and teachers who have struggled to pay for medical services? he asked. And what message does it send to the district’s lowest-paid employees, support professionals, who are still working without a contract? Horn said.

The largest pay increase is about $45,000, more than a starting teacher’s pay, and more the double the pay of a school bus driver, Horn said.

In a Thursday memo to the board, which the school district released in response to a Review-Journal request, Jara said every trustee was informed starting in January of the need for the school district to compete for talent “in our competitive employment marketplace.”

The memo also includes a copy of a salary survey analysis from August, which compares executive cabinet salaries to other large districts across the nation, as well as local municipalities.

Jara expressed frustration, saying “each of you was aware of this effort, and now one or more trustees chose to release the November 1 memorandum to the media.”

“This is another example of how difficult it is to operate a school system when a simple clarification or explanation request could have been made,” Jara said.

In the memo, he said the item has been discussed with the board as early as October 2020 and it was also brought up during multiple one-one-one meetings with trustees over the summer.

The board was informed during closed session meetings in January of the intent to review and compare executive cabinet member compensation, Jara said.

Trustees were briefed again June 17 on Regulation 4291, which allows the superintendent to adjust pay for at-will administrators who don’t participate in collective bargaining, and adopted it in August, he said.

Throughout the process, trustees were informed of the intent and purpose to update the policy, Jara said.

“After eight months of work on this effort, how the November 1 memorandum was a surprise to any trustee is unclear, as you participated in briefings throughout the year and passed the measure 6-0,” he said. “To pretend otherwise denies the timeline, record of events, and your participation, further demonstrating the unprofessional tactics of some trustees.”

Contact Julie Wootton-Greener at jgreener@reviewjournal.com or 702-387-2921. Follow @julieswootton on Twitter.