Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Superintendent Search topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Vineland teacher criticizes superintendent search process during public comment
Summary
Marlene Krainock, a teacher at Vineland High School North, told the board she believes the superintendent search contractor HYA Associates failed to seek input from major stakeholders and did not interview qualified internal candidates; she also said she was locked out of a special meeting after the board entered executive session.
Get email alerts on the Superintendent Search topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
At the May 6 Vineland Board of Education meeting, teacher Marlene Krainock addressed the board during public comment and criticized the district’s use of HYA Associates for the superintendent search.
Krainock said HYA previously helped place a superintendent in Camden and that the Vineland board contracted with HYA at a higher cost than other search firms. She said HYA’s community input—limited to a survey and virtual sessions—"fell short on seeking input from major stakeholders," and that the search committee did not include internal applicants who met posting requirements.
Krainock said the committee’s approach sent a negative message to district staff seeking promotion from within. She also recounted attending a special Board of Education meeting on April 19 where, she said, after the motion to move into executive session passed, members of the public were escorted out of the building and locked out. She characterized that action as "a violation" of open meetings requirements.
The board heard Krainock’s comments during the public comment period; there is no record in the transcript of a direct response on the specifics of her allegations during that meeting.
Separately at the same meeting the board moved forward with routine personnel items and voted on several agenda items by roll call. One board member announced a recusal related to a non-tenured termination (employee number 6976), and a board member recorded a 'no' vote on two finance subitems (4.5 a and b).

