Lodi Unified board approves consent items, nutrition‑services proposal and announces personnel appointments
Loading...
Summary
At its regular meeting the Lodi Unified Board approved multiple consent motions (with item A16 pulled for return), approved a nutrition‑services proposal, and reported closed‑session approvals including Claim 650811 and two principal appointments for 2025–26.
The Lodi Unified School District Board of Education approved multiple routine items and announced personnel actions from closed session at its March 20 meeting.
Closed‑session results: The board reported it approved a legal claim (Claim 650811) in closed session by roll call (motion by Mr. Nava; second by Ms. Alexander) with a recorded vote of six ayes and one absence (Miss McFarland). The board also approved two personnel appointments for the 2025–26 school year: Ed Gehrke as an elementary principal (motion by Mr. Porter; second by Mr. Stroh) and Tim Sheppard as principal, Alternative Program at Turner Academy (motion by Mr. Porter; second by Ms. Alexander). Staff indicated location assignments for Ed Gehrke would be determined later.
Consent votes and pulled item: The board moved and approved Consent Agenda A with item A16 pulled for return at a future meeting so Mr. Warren could be present to answer questions; the remainder of Consent A passed 5 yes, 1 no, 1 absent. Consent Agenda B (student matters) passed by a recorded vote of 6 yes, 0 no, 1 absent.
Nutrition services proposal approved: Public commenters and nutrition‑services staff presented a proposal to add positions and clarify job descriptions for nutrition services. Staff presented the item (OAI1) and the board approved the proposal. Public supporters, including school‑food employees and CSCA leadership, urged that all job descriptions for nutrition services be updated together and that negotiations include those changes.
Procurement/facilities question: A board member queried a purchase‑order report line described in handwriting as 'class leasing' (district staff confirmed it referred to classroom portables for the Bridge program). The board noted approximately 13 entries of roughly $215,000 each—"just under $3,000,000" in aggregate—and requested clearer documentation and funding detail.
Ending: The board took no roll-call vote on the teacher‑evaluation policy that drew sustained public comment; it approved routine business, the nutrition‑services proposal and announced the closed‑session personnel actions. Several items (notably A16 and the teacher‑evaluation redlines) were set aside for follow up at a future meeting.
