Tangipahoa Parish School Board adopts administrative review process for unsuccessful leadership applicants

At a special meeting April 9, 2025, the Tangipahoa Parish School Board moved to adopt policy GBJJ‑P, establishing an Administrative Review Committee and a formal review process for applicants unsuccessful for school- or district‑level leadership positions. The policy was adopted “subject to the court’s granting of unitary status in the area of staff assigned,” according to the motion on the floor.

The policy, presented by Indigo Diekman, an attorney for the school board, was recommended by a federal judge in the ongoing Moore litigation and is designed to offer an administrative remedy that must be exhausted before an applicant seeks relief through the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or litigation. “This policy will not go into effect until we receive unitary status or a consent in the employment practices area of the Moore v. TBSB case,” Diekman said. She told the board the policy ‘‘creates a pillow between Tangipahoa and litigation or EEOC claims.’’

The new process creates an Administrative Review Committee composed of the board’s personnel committee, the Assistant Superintendent of Innovation (a position the district said would be created if consent is reached), and the Human Resources director. That committee will make a recommendation to the superintendent; the superintendent retains final authority to adopt or reject the recommendation, while the school board retains oversight because it hires the superintendent, the presentation said.

Diekman and board members emphasized that the review follows the district’s existing hiring steps: an open application, an interview panel that scores candidates, and a superintendent selection. The review process would come into play only after that sequence concludes, offering a defined administrative appeal before outside agencies or courts are approached.

Board members first considered a motion to waive the board’s rules under policy BD to allow immediate consideration of the new policy at the special meeting; the board was told that rule waivers require a unanimous vote. A separate motion was then made to move into executive session to consult with counsel before voting on the substantive motion. “I would like to motion that we go into executive session before we vote on the actual motion on hand to make sure we speak with counsel before it is officially voted on,” a board member said. The board entered executive session and later resumed the meeting to take up item 2b.

After the presentation, a member moved to adopt policy GBJJ‑P subject to the court granting unitary status; a second followed and the board was asked to vote using their devices. The transcript does not record individual vote tallies.

Board members noted the policy was recommended by plaintiffs through the court and described the change as a step to institutionalize an appeal process that would otherwise be extinguished if the court‑ordered appeal process tied to the desegregation case were removed upon unitary status.

The meeting moved on to other agenda items and adjourned shortly after the vote was called. The policy will take effect only if the court grants unitary status or the parties reach an equivalent consent resolving the employment practices portion of the Moore litigation.