Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Superintendent Contract topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kansas City, Kansas board approves superintendent contract after divided vote
Summary
The Kansas City, Kansas Board of Education approved a new contract for Superintendent Dr. Anna Stubblefield following an executive session. The board vote included two dissenting members who cited residency and contract-measure concerns.
The Kansas City, Kansas Board of Education voted to approve Superintendent Dr. Anna Stubblefield’s employment contract after executive session, with a majority of board members voting in favor and two members dissenting.
Board members approved a motion to adopt the superintendent’s contract after returning to open session. The motion was moved and seconded; a roll call followed with Yolanda Clark, Maxine Drew, Randy Lopez, Robert Mylan Jr. and Rachel Russell recorded as voting yes. Wanda Brownlee Page and Dr. Nguyen announced no votes. After the roll call the board president declared the motion carried.
The vote follows earlier closed-session discussion. Board member Wanda Brownlee Page said on the record, “I just wanna say no. And I'm saying no because of the residency segment,” identifying residency language and missing metric provisions as her reasons for opposing the contract. Dr. Nguyen likewise stated, “I must vote no,” and elaborated to colleagues that she had concerns about sustainability and contract provisions carried forward from prior accommodations.
Other members framed their votes as support for continuity in district leadership. Rachel Russell said, “Thank you, doctor Stubblefield, for choosing KCKPS. We are proud that you serve this district as well as show up every day for our students and our staff,” before casting her affirmative vote.
Dr. Anna Stubblefield addressed residency questions during the meeting, saying she has paid taxes in Kansas City, Kansas, and provided a brief clarification on the record about her tax and residency history.
The board did not add new performance metrics to the contract during the public portion of the meeting. Board members who opposed the contract said they wanted explicit performance metrics and a residency requirement to be written into the agreement; the meeting record shows no formal amendment was adopted at the session. The superintendent’s contract was approved and the board moved on to other agenda items.
The board did not announce any immediate administrative follow-up tied to the dissenting statements; staff indicated that standard processes for monitoring contract performance remain in place.
