Board declines to extend executive assistant Terresa Wilson’s contract after contested debate

The Clintondale Board of Education took up a motion on March 23 to resolve whether to extend executive assistant Terresa Wilson’s contract beyond its June 30, 2026 expiration. Treasurer Barry Powers moved the resolution, saying the contract’s preamble requires the board to review the agreement with the superintendent 'not later than March 31' and to take express action on any extension.

Supporters of taking action tonight argued the board could face contractual liability if it failed to act before the deadline and said an immediate vote would protect the district and the employee by providing formal notice of the board’s intent. Opponents countered that the motion’s procedural framing was unclear, that some contract clauses (non‑renewal, termination, layoff) are distinct from the preamble language Powers cited, and that a departing superintendent’s pending departure complicated any longer-term decision about staffing.

Treasurer Powers, who moved the resolution, described the requirement as an affirmative, time‑bound obligation the board must satisfy. 'We covenanted as stated herein ... not later than March 31 we shall review this contract with the superintendent and determine whether it will be extended beyond June 30, 2026,' he said during debate, framing the motion as a compliance step.

Trustees pressed on the legal and practical implications. One trustee asked whether the motion sought 'non‑renewal,' 'termination,' or 'layoff' — categories in the contract with different processes — and Powers said his motion applied only to the post‑term question of extension, not to mid‑term termination. Others asked whether Michigan statute MCL 380.1229 required additional procedural steps for administrators; Powers and staff said the written contract controls within its four corners and that statutory remedies would apply only if legal violations occurred.

On the roll call for the extension resolution, recorded votes on the motion to extend were: Treasurer Barry Powers (No), Trustee Santini (No), Trustee Miss Wilson (Abstain), Mr. Wilson (Abstain), Vice President Valerio (No), and President Maynard (Yes). That tally corresponds to one yes, three no and two abstentions. The chair subsequently stated on the record that the motion 'passes not to extend the contract.' The transcript records both the numeric roll call above and the chair’s verbal interpretation; the meeting record contains a procedural inconsistency on whether the board’s action should be recorded as an affirmative vote 'not to extend' or as a failed motion to extend. The minutes show neither additional formal motion to explicitly 'not extend' nor an amended resolution with new tallying language.

The debate and vote drew immediate public reaction. During the public‑comment period several residents and alumni criticized the board’s handling of personnel matters and questioned the district’s leadership and priorities. One commenter told the board that residents were watching and urged trustees to act in the students’ and community’s interests.

The board did not take any other immediate personnel votes tied to this item at that session. Trustees requested that staff and counsel provide any needed clarifications in writing about (a) the contract language relied on, (b) the proper parliamentary sequence for recording an affirmative 'not to extend' action versus a failed extension motion, and (c) whether additional procedural steps are required under state statute for administrator non‑renewal. The board listed the item for follow‑up and noted the next regular meeting date for procedural steps.