Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Superintendent Evaluation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parents, union leaders and former trustee clash over superintendent evaluation and contract at Edinburg CISD meeting
Summary
Public commenters urged the board to act on the superintendent's contract and transparency while other speakers defended his tenure; the board later authorized its president and legal counsel to act as discussed in closed session.
At the June 2 meeting of the Edinburg CISD Board of Trustees, multiple members of the public criticized the superintendent’s handling of district matters and urged the board to address his contract; others defended the superintendent and called for recognition of district accomplishments.
Marshall Gonzales, president of Edinburg AFT Local 6583, criticized the timing and format of public comments and raised questions about purchases, hiring and the superintendent’s contract, saying, “The superintendent has knowingly violated the terms of his contract and should step down from the district.” Gonzales asked why the district was creating a chief academic officer late in the year and whether the superintendent had violated an announced hiring pause.
Alondra Flores, speaking as a parent and community member, asked how the district will retain students with school vouchers pending statewide, questioned the district’s spending priorities and asked for greater board transparency. She raised specific concerns about Canterbury Elementary after a sewage incident and asked whether construction and renovation money were being prioritized over health and safety.
By contrast, Miguel Fadir, who identified himself as having served eight years on the board with the superintendent, urged trustees not to cut the superintendent’s contract and highlighted district initiatives, including collegiate high school expansion and early‑childhood programs. “That man’s heart is in the right place for the students, for the staff, the teachers, and the community,” Fadir said.
After an executive session on personnel, the board returned to open session and approved a motion authorizing the board president and legal counsel to “take action as discussed in closed session” regarding the superintendent’s evaluation and contract. Earlier in the meeting, the board chair reported that, for the record, “no action was taken in executive session,” and the later authorization to the president and counsel passed in public vote.
Ending: Commenters pressed trustees for more transparency and for opportunities for two‑way dialogue; trustees approved the limited authorization to the president and counsel and asked staff to return with documentation as appropriate.
