Public commenter urges board to explain former principal John Guidry’s departure

Carl Stocker, a resident who said he is running for the Board of Education, used the public comment period at the Oct. 22 meeting to press the board for more transparency about the recent departure of Ellington High School principal John Guidry.

"I am running for the board of education. But I'm here to speak about something that's important to me personally ... I was a little bit surprised over the summer when I saw he was stepping away from the high school principal position," Stocker said. He said he later learned Guidry resigned from a newly assigned position just weeks after being appointed and that the circumstances were not publicly explained.

Stocker said he concluded — based on the timing and the fact Guidry resigned from the new assignment — that Guidry "was actually not voluntarily replaced" and that the lack of public explanation has three consequences: it may not stand up to public scrutiny, it erodes public trust, and it could contribute to a culture in which teachers and administrators do not feel supported. He closed by asking that "the board reflect on the role that they may or may not have played in that decision and whether on reflection that you're comfortable with the outcome."

Board members did not take public action or provide a substantive response on the record during the same meeting. The agenda moved on to the consent items and scheduled reports.

The board packet and meeting minutes do not include further detail about personnel deliberations on that agenda item. Stocker identified Guidry as a tenured, experienced principal; the transcript indicates Stocker believed Guidry was the most tenured building principal in the district before his departure, but Stocker said he had not independently verified that claim.

Because this comment was made during the public comment portion of the meeting, no formal board vote or motion was recorded in connection with Stocker’s remarks. Board members later addressed other agenda items including curriculum and enrollment but did not publicly reopen the Guidry matter during the meeting.

The comment highlights a question of process: Stocker asked the board to confirm whether its internal deliberations and any decisions that affected Guidry’s assigned role were consistent with board expectations and whether the board is satisfied that proper procedures and communications were followed.

Ending: The board did not announce any follow-up at the Oct. 22 meeting. The transcript shows the question was raised during public comment; Stocker asked the board to reflect and report back. If the board or administration issues a statement or places an item about the departure or personnel process on a future agenda, that will be reflected in subsequent public records and minutes.