Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Public commenters accuse district of personnel favoritism, warn against Coronado repurposing plan
Loading...
Summary
Three community members used the public‑comment period to raise personnel grievances and express concern about potential consolidation in the Coronado learning community; one parent urged a strategic working session to refocus district priorities and retain families.
During public comment at Tuesday’s Scottsdale Unified School District governing‑board meeting, three speakers raised personnel grievances, criticized proposed changes in the Coronado Learning Community and urged board action to address enrollment and school experience.
Jeff Rittertay alleged he faced retaliation after refusing to use students’ preferred pronouns without parental permission and said he was moved from a paid coaching role to volunteer status. "I was rehired as a seventh grade flag football coach... Doctor Munsell changed my coaching contract from paid to volunteer," Rittertay said. He also alleged the district had violated court orders and questioned hiring and stipend decisions.
Debbie Schumacher, who identified herself as an SESD homeowner and grandparent, criticized district plans she said would "continue the destruction and dismantling of the Coronado Learning Community," including a reported proposal to close Yavapai and move students into Tonalea and to make Coronado High School grades 7–12. She warned of developmental and safety concerns when younger and older students are combined and urged the district to work with the city and tribal partners to attract families.
Parent James Mayo urged a different approach to the district’s enrollment challenges: "For the first time, families don't have to stay... With ESA, they get to choose," he said. Mayo called for a working session with the board, a planning group to operationalize changes and coordination with superintendent Dr. Menzel to align a new plan focused on improving in‑school experience rather than fighting school choice.
The board did not take action on personnel allegations during the public comment period; by policy, comments not on the agenda cannot prompt immediate action but may prompt staff review or future agenda placement. Board members acknowledged the comments and thanked speakers for bringing concerns forward.
