School Board postpones discussion of Superintendent’s contract to January 16

BY JENNIFER CABRERA

GAINESVILLE, Fla. – At the December 5 Alachua County School Board meeting, the Board voted to postpone discussion of the Superintendent’s contract to January 16 and to set the second vote on rezoning for January 11.

The issue of Superintendent Shane Andrew’s contract came up multiple times in the meeting, starting with the adoption of the agenda, when Chair Diyonne McGraw deferred to Staff Attorney Susan Seigle. Seigle said, “The Interim Superintendent and the Board Chair and the Board Attorney are in active negotiation regarding the terms of the contract.” She said that when Andrew was named as Interim Superintendent, it took two months to negotiate his contract, so she requested that the agenda be modified to change the “Superintendent Contract” action item “and have it be a vote on whether he should begin as full Superintendent tomorrow but deferring action or decision on the specific contract terms until Mr. Andrew, the Board Chair, and the School Board Attorney can come to agreement.” She said she anticipated that the contract could be ready for the January 16 School Board meeting.

Seigle continued, “So there is precedent for this, and I would request that we modify it so that we can try to resolve many of the issues that appear to be arising now over the next month and a half instead of arguing too much about it tonight.”

Board attorney: Andrew is not Interim Superintendent

Board Attorney David Delaney asked to “clarify” what Seigle had said: “When the Board voted to have [Andrew] come on, the agreement was that he would serve as the Superintendent of the district. That’s what the… contract with the Superintendent recognizes. That’s what Florida law recognizes; there’s not a status of Interim Superintendent… So I just wanted to clarify that Mr. Andrew was employed through the agreement to serve as the Superintendent of the district for an interim time period, but there was not a qualifier that he was hired as the Interim Superintendent.”

Motion to table the contract fails

During the adoption of the agenda, Member Tina Certain made a motion to table the Superintendent’s contract until January since his current contract doesn’t expire until June 30. Member Sarah Rockwell seconded the motion. McGraw asked for votes on the motion and declared that it passed.

However, Member Kay Abbitt said she hadn’t voted, so they voted again, and the motion failed 2-3, with only Certain and Rockwell voting for Certain’s motion. The Board then voted to adopt the amended agenda that included a discussion of the Superintendent’s contract.

Certain: Andrew “asked for and received everything that he negotiated” in March 2022

During member comment, Certain said she didn’t want to wait for the end of the meeting to make her comments about the Superintendent’s contract. She said the contract signed by Andrew after his appointment in March 2022 was “in no way to minimize or to short him; he negotiated a contract, and he asked for and received everything that he negotiated.” She said the intent at that time was not to hire him as the permanent Superintendent and that his contract acknowledged that by stating that if the Board did a search and filled the position before the end of June 2024, he would go back to his former position, Chief of Staff, or a position at the same pay grade. 

Certain added, “There was some things that the Board was promised… that did not get done… We were told that [transportation] routes would be redone and consolidated to bring some efficiencies, and that didn’t happen. We’ve had a number of things be late and not a good report. We’ve had significant turnover in key staff people… [That] has been a hindrance.”

Certain said Andrew hired two Turnaround Principals, while the State only requires one; she said her concern was that Andrew hired someone to a position that did not exist, “and that violated Board policy.” Certain said that was not disclosed to the Board; she discovered it while looking through budget documents. 

Certain added, “Offering things that are excessive in nature sets a very bad precedent, given the time and the tenor of where we are in our school district. We have significant financial challenges… I don’t want the citizens… to think that the Board [in March 2022]… entered into some type of negotiations where we shorted Superintendent Andrew, and we didn’t give him what he was due or what he deserved.” She said she thought the salary was “generous,” given that Andrew doesn’t have a PhD and had not been in a cabinet-level position for a significant amount of time. She concluded, “I urge my colleagues: there’s no need to change the contract, there’s nothing to be frantic about… I don’t think [the proposed contract is] in the best interests of the citizens of Alachua County or this Board.”

Certain again makes a moment to table the contract

When the agenda item was discussed, at nearly 10 p.m., Certain immediately made a motion to table the contract and have a workshop on the contract terms, and Rockwell seconded it. McGraw asked Seigle to repeat her initial recommendation, which was to simply vote on making Andrew the permanent Superintendent but wait until January to vote on the contract.

Abbitt said she thought they’d already decided not to consider the contract, and McGraw said the change was adding a workshop. 

During a discussion with Delaney about whether a citizen who commented on Certain’s motion would give up the ability to comment on another possible motion regarding the contract, McGraw said that given the late hour, they would not take citizen input; she said they should just “table the whole thing.”

Delaney said his impression had been that the contract was pulled during the adoption of the agenda, so they didn’t need a motion to table the contract. 

Certain pointed out that Andrew is working under a contract that is valid through the end of June. She opposed making any changes, including changing his official title, until the Board has a chance to fully discuss the contract in a workshop. Seigle added that given Delaney’s statement that there is no such thing as an Interim Superintendent, perhaps they should simply stop referring to Andrew as Interim and come back in January to discuss a new contract.

Abbitt said, “There’s a feeling that he’s an Interim, and there’s a movement that he not be anything other than an Interim.” She said this impression that he is in a temporary position contributes to the staff’s inability to get things accomplished. McGraw agreed to bring a contract back on January 16.

Certain withdrew her motion, and the Board moved on to General Citizen Input.

Second reading of rezoning set for January 11

Before moving to General Citizen Input, Seigle interrupted the Board to say she needed them to set a date for the second reading of the rezoning plan. The meeting was set for Thursday, January 11, at 6 p.m.