Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Superintendent Contract topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board extends superintendent's contract for one year after heated debate
Summary
After a contentious exchange and an initial motion to non‑renew, the board voted to extend the superintendent's contract through June 30, 2026. The substitute motion to extend passed; four members voted no and five voted yes.
The Tangipahoa Parish School Board voted to extend Superintendent Ms. Stilley's contract through June 30, 2026, after a lengthy debate in which one member moved to not renew the superintendent's contract and another moved to extend it for one year.
Mister Piazza introduced a motion to not renew the superintendent's contract, saying stakeholders deserved transparency and that nonrenewal would allow the board to examine options. The board then considered a substitute motion by Miss Richards to extend the contract for one year. After public comment and board discussion, the substitute motion to extend carried by voice vote.
During debate, members expressed sharply different views about the superintendent's performance and the timing of any leadership change. Supporters pointed to recent district gains cited in the superintendent's "state of the district" presentation and warned that changing leadership during ongoing desegregation proceedings and facility constraints could harm progress. Those urging nonrenewal cited concerns about accountability, slower progress on Phase 2 projects and community perception in portions of the parish.
The board conducted a verbal roll call on the substitute motion. The final tally recorded four no votes (Miss Dominguez, Mister Duncan, Mister Westmoreland and Mister Piazza) and the motion passed; minutes summarize that the motion to extend —passed with Miss Dominguez, Mister Duncan, Mister Westmoreland and Mister Piazza voting no.
Board members who supported the extension said the superintendent has guided the district through difficult issues and that continuity would help the district meet near‑term court and facility milestones. Members who opposed the extension said they wanted a different approach to accelerate accountability and capital project delivery. No immediate change in superintendent authority or duties was announced at the meeting.
