Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Interim Superintendent topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves interim superintendent contract after last-minute amendment amid public outcry
Summary
The Hazel Park Board approved a two-page interim superintendent contract 4–3 after removing a paragraph members said implied permanent placement; public commenters demanded release of past investigation records and questioned the process and cost.
Get email alerts on the Interim Superintendent topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Hazel Park Board of Education voted 4–3 to approve an interim superintendent contract after amending the document to remove the second paragraph of section 6, language several trustees said suggested the district was already committing to a permanent replacement.
Public speakers at the meeting urged transparency and full disclosure of prior investigations. Jennifer Jackson told the board, “Release the findings of both of those investigations in your entirety, not the summarized letters,” and said the community deserved the underlying documentation. During board discussion, a trustee opposed to the contract argued the board was being asked to vote on “something extremely serious” with insufficient time to review the terms and warned of legal exposure, saying the contract language could “put us in this legal position.”
Board members debated specifics of the contract at the meeting, including whether the interim would be a W-2 employee, benefits (the board was told there would be no health insurance or retirement contributions), an $800-a-day rate for an eight-hour day, and whether the contract’s timing followed normal procedure. After discussion trustees amended the motion to remove the contested paragraph and approved the amended contract by roll call (motion carries 4–3). The board president said the contract would be posted publicly on the district website.
The meeting record shows board members repeatedly asking why the contract and supporting materials had not been provided earlier; several members said they received the contract only at the start of the meeting. Trustees also noted open litigation and warned that language in the contract could affect litigation risk. The board did not provide additional financial details beyond the daily rate during the vote.

