Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Battle Creek school board approves superintendent addendum amid complaints of rushed process
Summary
The Battle Creek Public Schools Board approved a superintendent contract addendum on Dec. 16 after a contested vote; several trustees said they received materials too late and objected that the chair 'called the question' before full discussion.
The Battle Creek Public Schools Board of Education voted Dec. 16 to approve a contract addendum for the superintendent following a split, contested discussion about the timing and review of the document. Trustee Abby Fulbright moved the addendum and Trustee Arden McClenny seconded the motion; a roll-call vote followed and the motion carried.
Several board members objected to the timing. Dr. Nicole Perry said the schedule was "kinda quick" and said she preferred more time and metrics tied to performance for any stipend or enrollment-growth provisions. Another board member said they received the addendum by email Friday and "could not read it" before the meeting and called the process "really, really fast." The objecting trustees said calling the question before everyone had a chance to speak prevented proper discussion.
Supporters and other trustees said the addendum had been discussed previously with the board president and vice president and that some materials originated from June packet discussions. Trustee Abby Fulbright noted she had sent the addendum and moved approval; Trustee McClenny seconded and the board proceeded to a roll-call vote. The secretary called each member and recorded individual yes/no responses including: Dr. Alicia Johnson — Yes; Dr. Nicole Perry — No; Catherine LaValle — Yes; Nathan Gracheck/Gratje — No; (an entry listed as "Miss Lenny") — Yes; Abby Fulbright — Yes. The transcript records the motion carried.
Board members who criticized the timing said they were concerned about governance and transparency and urged future meetings to allow at least a week for packet review. Supporters responded that calling the question is permitted by board rules and that prior conversations had occurred with board leadership. No changes to the addendum text were recorded during the meeting.
The board did not announce additional public steps or external approvals for the addendum during the meeting. Trustees who raised procedural concerns said they expect future adjustments to packet distribution and meeting practice to ensure fuller discussion ahead of votes.
