Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Administrator Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board debates administrator job titles, at-will status and CFO role in updated employment policy
Summary
During its policy work session the South Bend board discussed revisions to policy 1520 that redefine which positions count as administrators, whether to retain assistant superintendent titles, classification of noncertificated administrators as at-will employees, and explicitly adding the CFO to the administrator list.
The board spent a substantial portion of its April 15 policy work session examining proposed changes to policy 1520, which would update which positions the district classifies as administrators and how certain administrators are employed. Counsel said the revised list explicitly identifies executive directors, directors, coordinators, principals and assistant principals as administrators and removes references to deputy superintendent; several board members debated whether assistant superintendent should also be removed from the policy text.
"We don't have any assistant superintendents," one board member said during discussion, while others noted the title had appeared in some policy language and should be consistently eliminated or explicitly retained. Matt Lawson, general counsel, said the changes were recommended by NEOLA and committed to make consistent edits. The board also discussed language declaring that noncertificated administrators would be at-will employees under contract; Lawson said that phrasing originated with the NEOLA rep.
Members raised the CFO's classification. Mrs. Lee said the CFO reports to the superintendent and should appear on any list of administrators; Lawson agreed to add the CFO to the list and ensure alignment across policies. The board and counsel also discussed process controls for creating new positions and emphasized that a superintendent-created position would need board approval and funding.
No vote occurred; Lawson said he would make the requested edits and resubmit the packet. The board left open the possibility for the superintendent to propose a new position in the future, but emphasized that establishing and funding those positions requires board approval.
