Trustees of the Santa Clara Unified School District faced sustained public criticism at their May 22 meeting from Wilcox High School employees, parents and students who said the board disregarded stakeholder hiring panels and established procedures when selecting a high school principal.

Speakers told the board they felt the recommendations of multiple interview panels and committees were dismissed without explanation, that confidential panel deliberations were leaked, and that the board’s actions have damaged trust in district governance.

Why it matters: Public trust in school hiring and personnel processes affects staff morale, community partnerships and students’ sense of stability. Multiple speakers said the Wilcox decision will have long-term consequences for that campus and asked the board to review and publicly explain the decision-making process.

More detail: Andrea Cabello, identified as a Wilcox employee and a voter trustee for Area 3, told trustees the hiring process “was not followed,” that “the parent community was ignored” and that staff and students “were dismissed,” calling the handling of the Wilcox principal search “a shocking lack of integrity.” Laura, who presented a petition, said roughly 110 people had signed a document asking the board to “uphold bylaws and respect stakeholder input,” citing specific board policies and administrative regulations by number.

Counselor Glenna Hall and science teacher Mary Pat Slate said staff at Wilcox feel betrayed and that the decision harmed staff morale. Jeff Merault, a longtime Wilcox teacher and coach, said the campus follows “the Wilcox way” — a collaborative approach centered on students — and asked trustees to “trust us at Wilcox rather than trying to dismantle it.” Ian Jackson, vice president of the UTSC union, told the board he felt “duped” and said recent actions had made the labor-management partnership appear “fake.”

Speakers and the petition named three recent cases where community committees’ recommendations were not followed: the 2026 school-year calendar, a physical education waiver policy, and the Wilcox principal hiring. Petition language read at the meeting listed board references by code (for example, BP 0100 and BP 4111) and called for a public review of the decisions and an explanation for why stakeholder input was disregarded.

Concerns raised included alleged leaks of confidential interview-panel material, cited by multiple speakers as a breach of confidentiality agreements signed by panel members. A public commenter who identified herself as a long-time community member described the leak as unacceptable and said the community expected better.

What the board did at the meeting: The meeting’s public-comment period was the principal venue for the Wilcox complaints; the board did not announce a reconsideration or reversal of the hiring decision during open session. Several trustees and district staff listened while public commenters urged transparency and accountability. There was no formal board vote or action taken on the Wilcox hiring during the May 22 open session.

Context and next steps: Multiple speakers asked the board to publicly explain why three committee recommendations had been set aside, to reaffirm that future committee work would be honored, and to ensure hiring and personnel decisions follow the district’s policies and administrative regulations. The petition requested a public review of the three decisions and a reaffirmation of transparent, inclusive governance.

Ending note: Speakers said they will continue to attend meetings, pursue follow-up with the board and consider additional steps if they do not receive an explanation that addresses their concerns.