Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Superintendent Contract topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
School board delays approval of superintendent contract pending attorney redlines
Summary
Board members raised multiple concerns about missing or inconsistent language in the superintendent contract — including benefit placeholders, a misstated evaluation date and whether the district or board bears insurance obligations — and voted to send the contract back to the attorney for revision instead of approving it tonight.
The Woodland Park School District RE-2 Board of Education declined to finalize the incoming superintendent’s employment contract on Monday, directing the district attorney to prepare redlines and return the document to the board for review.
A motion to approve the contract was made and seconded, but several board members said they had not seen a finalized version and identified specific problems in the draft. One board member said, “I think we need some discussion because I don't… I maybe I missed it,” and asked that attorney changes be circulated for review before a vote.
Members pointed to a number of issues they wanted corrected: numeric placeholders in benefits sections that remain “not established yet,” a reference in section E5 that says the "board" will pay for health insurance rather than the district, and an evaluation date (listed as Dec. 1, 2025) inconsistent with the permanent two-year contract. Several members recommended striking or rewording language that appeared to reflect an interim appointment rather than a permanent contract.
Board members discussed logistics for reviewing redlines: the attorney will update the document, the chair and two board members will confer to check changes, and the revised contract will be circulated to all board members for final comment. The board noted there is time to complete the revision before the district’s July 1 transition date, but said they preferred not to approve the contract without clarifications.
The board recorded a roll-call vote indicating the board would not finalize or vote on the contract at this meeting: Davidson, (transcribed as "Gilderness" in the record), Gordon and Greenstreet were recorded as voting No on finalizing the contract tonight; the action was therefore sent back to counsel for revision.
The board adjourned the special meeting and will reconvene to consider the revised contract when the attorney’s redlines have been circulated.
