Parents, former board member criticize handling of San Tan Foothills employee; board moves to appoint hearing officer

At the Feb. 11 Florence Unified School District Governing Board meeting, public speakers criticized the district’s handling of a personnel matter involving a long‑time San Tan Foothills employee and the district’s contractor and asked the board to ensure due process. Board President Beatty then asked for a motion to allow the superintendent to appoint an employee discipline hearing officer under policy GDQD; the meeting transcript records the motion and a second but does not record a vote tally for that item.

The issue drew several speakers during the public‑comment period. Sherry Cole, a former board member, told the board she had researched the matter and said the employee, Rick Romero, had “dedicated over 20 years to Florence Unified School District” and “truly cares about the students and works harder than most employees.” Cole said she believed Romero had been asked to resign, later rescinded that resignation, and that a form was placed in his personnel file marking him as non‑rehireable.

“I have serious concerns about how the situation unfolded,” Cole said, adding that Romero and his family had at times cleaned his school campus “for free” after reporting alleged cleaning problems. Cole asked the board where due process had been in the district’s response.

Parent Lindsay Anderson urged the board to reconsider the district’s actions and warned of staff morale and safety consequences, saying, “You threw away someone with 23 years of dedicated service.” Anderson also called for investigation of the district’s contracted cleaning company, identified in public comment as SSC, which she said still holds a contract with the district.

Renee Musselli, speaking for families associated with San Tan Foothills, described Romero as “an amazing employee” and said the district’s handling felt unfair. “The punishment does not fit the crime,” she said, urging the board to review procedures and ensure fair process.

During board business later in the meeting, a motion was made that “the governing board approve for the superintendent to appoint an employee discipline hearing officer pursuant to policy GDQD.” The motion and a second are on the public record; the transcript does not include a recorded vote or a vote tally for that specific motion.

The meeting record also shows the resignation item for the employee was removed from the published agenda before the meeting, a fact commenters cited when asking the board for transparency and clarification.

No board member statements adopting or rejecting the public commenters’ factual claims appear in the meeting record; the public comments and the motion to authorize a hearing officer are documented in the transcript. The district did not provide additional detail about the personnel file action, the contractor’s internal practices, or the disciplinary timeline during the meeting.

The board did not take further public action on staffing changes during the meeting; other agenda items proceeded as noticed.