Staff and community urge Hamtramck board to reverse proposed nonrenewal of administrator; legal advocate warns of statutory violation

At a Hamtramck School District Board of Education meeting, dozens of staff, teachers and residents urged the board to oppose a proposed nonrenewal of administrator Sean Shackleford and questioned whether district leaders followed state nonrenewal procedures.

The meeting featured sustained public comment in favor of Shackleford and a lengthy legal presentation arguing the district failed to provide statutorily required notice and opportunities for improvement. “Due process requires that the individual receive notice and an opportunity to hear the charges against them,” the presenter said, and warned, “It is a $200,000 mistake in this particular case.”

Why it matters: Under the language the legal advocate read aloud, Section 12 29 of the Revised School Code requires advance notice and a multi‑step board process before an administrator’s contract may be nonrenewed; failure to follow those steps can trigger a court-ordered rollover of one year’s compensation. The advocate argued the district’s written reasons—two words listed as “performance” and “discipline”—did not meet the statute’s requirement to state particular reasons or to provide the administrator with written notice and a 30‑day opportunity to address the specified grounds.

During public comment, teachers and principals described Shackleford as present in buildings, a mentor to staff and a leader on curriculum and school climate. Kristi Taylor, principal of Dickinson East Elementary, told the board she and colleagues opposed the nonrenewal and asked trustees to “do what is best for our students, our staff, our community, and our district.” Cheryl Wilson, another commenter, described reaching out to Shackleford for help on library policy and curriculum work and said he invited teacher input.

Shackleford and a legal presenter also addressed the board directly. The administrator said he had received positive feedback and evaluations and asked that the record include materials showing his work; he added he would “only tell you about things that can be proven.” The legal advocate for Shackleford said the board did not vote to consider nonrenewal at the earlier, required step and that text messages from the superintendent showed different motives than those in the written notice to the administrator.

The administration and board counsel disputed parts of that account. Board counsel said a midyear evaluation was delivered Jan. 30 and that the discipline language remaining in Shackleford’s file concerned allegedly unprofessional conduct during a heated interaction. An outside investigator briefed the board and said their review found the investigation had been conducted properly.

What the record shows: the motion on the agenda was described in the meeting as a “non renewal employment” motion; the transcript does not include a completed, board-recorded vote tally or a clear final outcome on the nonrenewal in the portions of the record provided. Speakers repeatedly urged the trustees to either withdraw the notice or allow the administrator a full opportunity under the statute.

The board did not make a final, clearly documented decision on the public record in the transcript provided here; commenters said the board’s next procedural step should be to confirm compliance with statutory notice and opportunity requirements before taking final action. The meeting concluded with additional public comments urging broader attention to libraries and student access to books.

Next steps: The transcript shows the dispute centers on whether the board and administration followed the multi‑meeting notice process described in Section 12 29 of the Revised School Code and whether the reasons in the written notice meet statutory specificity. The record provided does not show a final board resolution; the matter remains before the board and, according to the legal advocate, potentially subject to statutory remedies if procedures were not followed.