Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board OKs revised interim superintendent contract over objections about pay, days and procurement
Summary
Board members debated a revised April–June independent contractor agreement for the interim superintendent — including a change from 260 to 220 days that affects per-diem calculations, unclear scope, reporting and procurement for amounts over $10,000 — and approved the revision 4–1 after extended questioning.
The Liberty Elementary School District governing board approved a revised agreement for the interim superintendent on April 27 after an extended debate over contract language, compensation calculations and procurement procedures.
Member Todd asked that item 2.4 be pulled from consent and challenged placing the contract on consent, arguing the revised language (changing a reference from 260 to 220 days) appeared to alter the superintendent’s per-diem calculation and that the contract’s independent-contractor language was vague about duties, oversight and proration if terminated. Todd also asked whether the district sought bids for agreements exceeding $10,000.
District staff and legal counsel explained the narrow change: the 260-to-220 correction was intended only to match the district work calendar and to calculate a per-diem for pre-start transitional days; they said every other term in the contract remained the same as previously approved and that legal had reviewed the revision. Counsel reiterated the contract’s intent was to set the per-diem rate for pre-contract transitional work.
Todd remained critical, telling the board the agreement sounded broader than "transitional duties," questioned whether the district was double-paying an incoming superintendent who might be on leave elsewhere, and said the contract’s reporting and supervisory provisions left the board without a clear method to evaluate satisfactory performance. Todd also highlighted that the contract contains boilerplate language appearing copied from other documents and asked where the funds would come from amid proposed budget cuts.
After discussion, the board voted to approve the revised superintendent contract; the vote recorded as 4–1 with Member Todd in the minority. No detailed funding source was announced in public session; board members requested follow-up documentation and noted that legal had reviewed the material before public vote.
What happens next: Board members requested clarification in writing about the per-diem basis, reporting lines for transitional work, procurement records for vendor thresholds, and whether any retroactive payments were to be issued. The board also directed staff to provide these clarifications at an upcoming meeting.
