M-S Superintendent Contract addendum extends goal-setting deadline

BY DANI TIETZ
dani@mahometnews.com

Fulfilling contracts per the terms of the contract was the topic of discussion at the Mahomet-Seymour School Board’s Special Board meeting Monday night. 

All seven board members were present to discuss the need to establish 2019-20 goals for Superintendent Lindsey Hall, who was not in attendance.

The Superintendent contract, which was established in July 2018 states: 

“Prior to the end of October in each subsequent year of this Contract, the Board and the Superintendent shall establish such additional student performance and academic improvement goals including the indicators of student performance and academic improvement determined to measure such goals as the parties deem necessary for the then current school year, a copy of which shall be attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein.” 

Before going into closed session after the Oct. 21 regularly scheduled board meeting, Board member Colleen Schultz added personnel onto the topics for closed session.

It was disclosed on Monday that when personnel came up in closed session, five of the seven board members learned that Hall, Board President Max McComb and Board Vice President Lori Larson had made the decision to forego the October deadline for Superintendent goal-setting because they believed the agenda was already full.

The Oct. 21 meeting, which began at 7 p.m., went past 12:30 a.m. on Oct. 22.

The agreement between the two board members and the Superintendent is that they would discuss her goals on Nov. 4 where there is a study session scheduled, and the agenda is “light.”

Even though the verbal agreement had been made, Schultz called a special meeting on Oct. 28 to ensure that the contract was fulfilled per its terms or that a document was created and voted on to secure the agreement that goals would be discussed at a later date.

Board member Ken Keefe asked how the addendum to the contract, which was included on the agenda and in the board packet, was constructed.

“I talked to the attorney about what it needed to say, and the attorney drafted it,” McComb said.

The second and third addendums to the contract state:

“WHEREAS, discussion of such goals was included as a topic for discussion in closed session during the July 15, 2019 regular Board meeting, but was delayed to the absence of Board members Keefe and Hennesy; and 

WHEREAS, discussion of such goals was subsequently planned for the Aug. 19, Sept. 16 and Oct. 21 regular Board meetings, but was postponed each month due to the lateness of the hour and the priority of other business and discussion items;”

were added to memorialize the timeline of events leading through October.

“This wasn’t a conscious effort to disregard the contract,” McComb said. “Some things came up to make it difficult to do this year.” 

Keefe asked why Hall’s goals was not prioritized.

Board member Lori Larson said that it was on an agenda but not everyone was at the July 15 board meeting. Meghan Hennesy and Ken Keefe were absent, but the item remained on the agenda, even though the board and staff knew that Hennesy would be gone.

It is not unusual for board members to miss meetings, especially during the summer months. Board members Merle Giles and Jeremy Henrichs were absent at the meeting prior. 

Hennesy motioned to strike the second paragraph of the agenda because she said it reads like her absence was stopping goal-setting from being on the agenda; even though it was on the agenda with her absence being known.

“I don’t think that’s accurate,” Hennesy said.

McComb said he didn’t want to rewrite what had been prepared for the meeting.

Hennesy added that she had the minutes and the agendas and Hall’s goals were not on the Aug. 19 or Oct. 21 agendas.

“I noticed one of the things we were supposed to do tonight is memorialize this as being accurate and I don’t believe that the third paragraph is accurate, either,” Hennesy said.

Keefe said he didn’t understand the point of the two paragraphs.

McComb said, “From my standpoint, there has been a thought process put forth that we change things around for no reason, and I think it is important to make sure that it is memorialized that there were reasons for why this was changed.”

“So my question about prioritizing is why if we had this planned for the 19th, 16th and 21st, why didn’t we make that agenda item No. 1 since we were contractually obligated to do this?” Keefe asked.

McComb said the topic was to be discussed in closed session and closed session has been going late into the evening.

Keefe asked what exception goal-setting falls under within the open meetings act.

McComb believed it was the performance and evaluation of an employee. 

Schultz asked if the board evaluates in a goal-setting session.

Henrichs said that it happens in some ways, but McComb said it is not the formal evaluation.

Per Hall’s contract, the Superintendent’s evaluation happens in March. 

At the end of the meeting, Keefe asked why the board put off the Superintendent’s evaluation until right after the election in April this year.

He did not receive an answer.

As the discussion was happening, Keefe said that the evaluation is about a specific employee whereas goal-setting is about where the district is in any given year. 

McComb said the group could wait until Nov. 4 to see if they wanted to move forward with goals in open or closed session. The board of education has established goals in closed session for at least the last six years.

Keefe said he once again won’t be at the board meeting on the 4th, and Giles said that he would not be at the meeting on the 18th.

“My concern here is that if Colleen had not brought this up on the 21st, last week, and said something about this, this would have passed us by,” Hennesy said.

“When we are talking about something that is contractually obligated, I don’t believe that the three of you have the authority to make a decision that breaches a contract.”

McComb spoke for the district’s attorney, saying that he would say that “contractually obligated is pretty strong language.”

He said the contract remains intact, according to McComb.

 “Then why do we need the addendum,” Hennesy asked.

McComb said it was produced out of an abundance of caution.

Hennesy cited part of the contract that states:

“Failure of the Board to complete its evaluation by March 1 of each contract year (or Feb. 1 of the last year) shall not be deemed a breach of this Contract unless the Superintendent, after March 1 (or after Feb. 1 of the last year), has notified the Board in writing of such failure and the Board then fails to complete the evaluation and review within thirty (30) days after its receipt of such notice from the Superintendent.”

And she pointed out that the Performance Goals and Objectives section of the contract does not have the same “breach of contract” language. 

Henrichs said that he believed that the board would not be in breach of contract if her goals were not set by the end of October.

The lack of clarification in the Performance Goals and Objectives section leads Hennesy to believe that the failure of the board to set goals by Oct. 31 is problematic for the integrity of the contract. 

Larson chalked it up to interpretation.

McComb said that board members showed up and the legal document was prepared on the back of what he perceived as a “hot topic.” 

Henrichs said that he did not believe that the addendum was needed at all after a verbal agreement with the employee was established.

“She was fine waiting,” Henrichs said.

Hennesy said once the lawyers weighed in with the addendum, they must have felt it was required. She was fine moving forward with the addendum, but wanted the paragraphs excluded on the basis of being factually incorrect.

Hennesy said that if it is important to include all board members in the goal-setting session, and Keefe and Giles were going to be absent on the 4th and 18th, then maybe the group needed to find a time in November when they could all be present.

Henrichs said that he did not feel that the board needed another meeting. 

“We can figure it out here or change it until the end of the year,” he said.

“We’ve had six meetings in the last month-and-a-half.”

Keefe said the goals should have been set prior to the school year being started because they are goals for the current school year.

Larson took time to point out what she views as the problem.

“We talk that we want to work together,” she said. “This was not a sign of working together and frankly, I was like wow, I had made a commitment to a young man to be in his football game tonight, it’s his last game, but I came because I was elected by the community to be here. I don’t why everyone else came, but you might not have had a quorum. That was unkind okay.

“I mean this is ridiculous. We’re tit for tat. How are we going to move forward when we are in the position that we are in this?

“We have things scheduled, we try to bend, we try to break, we make priorities of policies that go forward and that kind of thing and we’re not working effectively. Okay, we’re gonna make an addendum to this contract.”

She went on to talk about the board schedule through the end of 2019, saying that they have things they need to get done. 

Larson said that planning a meeting over Hall’s scheduled trip was rude, but Hennesy, Schultz and Keefe said they were not made aware of Hall’s trip until four days after Schultz sent the request for a special meeting to Hall. Even then, Hall did not tell the board members she was going out of town; McComb did. 

According to a Facebook post by Keefe, the timeline of emails are as follows:

“10/22 – 5:15pm: Dr. Schultz sends the email to the entire board calling for the special meeting.

10/23 – 8:05am: Dr. Hall emails the entire board about some legal bills.

10/23 – 8:06am: Dr. Hall sends two more emails to the entire board about some legal bills.

10/23 – 1:30pm: President McComb emails the entire board and Dr. Hall about how the necessary steps for a meeting will be completed.

10/23 – 4:21pm: Dr. Hall emails the entire board about a FOIA request.

10/24 – 2:44pm: Dr. Hall emails the entire board with the materials necessary for the 10/28 meeting.

10/24 – 2:51pm: Dr. Hall emails the entire board with additional materials for the 10/28 meeting.

10/24 – 3:48pm: Mrs. Quinley emails the entire board with the board packet for the 10/28 meeting.

10/24 – 3:58pm: Mrs. Quinley emails the community with the announcement of the special board meeting.

10/25 – 12:12pm: President McComb emails the entire board and Dr. Hall with Dr. Hall’s contract and (for the first time) lets the board know that Dr. Hall will be unable to attend the meeting.”

McComb said that in the past 12 years, board members who want to call a special meeting have always consulted with other board members and staff to make sure that everyone could make the meeting.

“Never once has that been dictated,” he said. “It has now.”

Hennesy reiterated that the decision to call the special meeting was to protect the district from breach of contract.

“We’re not trying to do anything here other than make sure that the district is protected,” she said. 

Keefe asked if the group was even going to discuss the goals she presented or the goals from the previous year. 

The group wanted Hall to be present.

“We wouldn’t want to not have our eighth board member,” Keefe said.

Larson asked if Keefe would want to have his performance evaluation without being there.

Keefe stated that goal-setting is not a performance evaluation.

When Keefe asked why the board waited until April to complete Hall’s evaluation instead of March, as the contract states, Larson went back to a previous motion to adjourn the meeting. 

The meeting was adjourned.