“The negativity has got to stop”: Alachua County School Board approves amended contract for Superintendent Andrew on 3-2 vote

BY JENNIFER CABRERA

GAINESVILLE, Fla. – At their February 6 meeting, the Alachua County School Board approved a new contract for Superintendent Shane Andrew with some amendments; Andrew will still need to agree to the contract before it takes effect.

The proposed contract

The contract posted in the meeting agenda would have paid Andrew a base salary of $190,000, retroactive to July 1, 2023, with an automatic step increase every year on July 1 (including July 1, 2024) equal to the percentage increases for other district administrative employees–if he is rated as “effective” or “highly effective” by a majority of the school board. The contract also provided for an $800/month automobile allowance, a cell phone, and a contribution of an amount equal to 10% of his base salary to a 403(b) supplemental retirement investment plan. The contract was valid through June 30, 2027.

Board Attorney David Delaney introduced the contract, saying that he, Chair Diyonne McGraw, District Attorney Susan Seigle, and Andrew had met “a number of times” to work out the details of the contract.

Motion to discuss

Member Tina Certain started to bring up amendments she wanted to make to the contract, but Delaney interrupted her and recommended that a motion and second be made first, followed by public input, before any discussion by the board. Delaney said the board could take one amendment at a time “once we have a motion and a second.”

Certain said, “All right, so–we need a motion. I’m going to move that in paragraph…”

Delaney interrupted again and said, “What I’m recommending right now is that we get a motion by the board and a second regarding the contract, and then I recommend that we get citizen input, and then, if we have amendments, we take them up at that point.”

Certain made a motion to “discuss the contract as presented,” and Member Leanetta McNealy seconded the motion. The motion was not withdrawn at any point, but the board never voted on it.

Public input on the contract

During public input, speakers had two minutes under a board policy that allocates three minutes to each speaker unless there are 21 or more public speakers.

Three speakers urged the board to do a national search for the next Superintendent, as several board members had promised during their campaigns. One person said the salary in the contract was in line with similar counties; another speaker said Leon County was the closest comparison, and their Superintendent makes just under $170,000. Taylor Gilfillan referred to the Behavior and Attendance Trend Report in the February 7 workshop agenda, which did not include any academic progress information, and asked the board to delay a decision on the contract until they get data on whether there has been any progress on closing the achievement gap under Andrew. One person simply expressed support for Andrew; Amy Trask said Andrew has failed to provide data for his plans or effectiveness. 

Evelyn Foxx said she hoped the board’s decision to not do a national search was “for the betterment of the students” and that she didn’t think anyone “in their right mind” would accept the job, given the turnover at the Superintendent position in recent years. “Who do you think’s coming here? Let us keep what we have until this contract ends. Hopefully, things will get all better… I think Mr. Andrew should stay.”

Following public input, Member Kay Abbitt said she also had amendments to propose, and Delaney requested a brief recess, motioning to McGraw to join him behind the dais. 

When the board returned, one more person gave public comment, saying he fully supported the contract.

Board discussion

Delaney then said that some elements of the contract, such as the car allowance, “are similar to what had been in prior Superintendent contracts with the district.” He also pointed out that some counties in Florida have elected superintendents, and those salaries are set by statute, based on the population of the county, “so it is a little bit of an apples to oranges comparison between us and Leon because Leon has an elected superintendent.”

Motion to reduce proposed salary

Certain made a motion to give Andrew a 3.5% increase over his existing salary, which would result in a salary of $181,125, instead of the $190,000 in the contract. Member Sarah Rockwell seconded the motion.

Abbitt said she had a different idea on Andrew’s salary, and McNealy also said she had a proposal to make. Delaney told them to go ahead and lay out their proposals.

Abbitt said the district needs to “proceed with a sense of urgency and an attitude that change–and I mean ‘step out of your comfort zone’ change–must occur. Now is not the time for a Superintendent search. I don’t think that any quality candidate would apply to work for a board that is clearly divided, especially when our district has a track record of seven Superintendents in 10 years.”

Abbitt proposed offering a base salary of $182,500 with a possibility of additional increases on July 1, 2024, based on the completion of specific tasks: she suggested a $5,000 increase if Andrew were rated “effective” or “highly effective” by a majority of the board for the 2023-24 school year, along with a $2,500 increase in base salary for each low-performance school that raises its grade to a C. After some discussion, that list was set at Lake Forest, Metcalfe, Rawlings, and Shell elementary schools.

Abbitt concluded, “Now, if he does that, it puts him a little over $190,000. But if he can move those four schools to a C, he deserves every cent of that.”

Certain said she could support Abbitt’s proposal, but added, “We need to develop a Superintendent evaluation tool because what we have now isn’t sufficient.” Certain, however, wasn’t in favor of the 3.5% increase from Andrew’s current salary because she didn’t want to set a precedent of paying a higher-than-average Superintendent salary.

McGraw pointed out that $182,500 wasn’t significantly higher than Certain’s proposed $181,125, so she thought it was a good compromise. She also supported adding a clause to the contract that would require the board to make a decision on evaluation criteria within 60 days. Abbitt said they needed to have goals that were measurable with data.

Second motion to reduce proposed salary

Certain withdrew her motion so Abbitt could make a motion with her salary proposal. Rockwell clarified that the bonuses for improving the grades of the elementary schools will only be available for the 2023-24 school year. Abbitt made the motion, and Certain seconded it. The motion passed unanimously. 

Motion to make raise non-retroactive

Certain made a motion to make Andrew’s raise effective February 7 instead of making it retroactive to last July. Rockwell seconded the motion.

McGraw said she didn’t support the motion because all the employee raises were retroactive to July 1, 2023, when the new contract was recently signed, “and I don’t think we should treat our Superintendent any different. I don’t think that’s fair.”

Certain said the Superintendent is “the executive of the organization” and that he gets contract provisions that other employees don’t get. She added, “You can’t eat out of both hands–you can’t have the protections and the benefits of being staff and then want to be an executive.” She pointed out that the board had just agreed to give Andrew bonuses if the low-performing schools improve to a C, and “he’s already getting more than the staff… They’re doing the work, [they] are actually there in the schoolhouse,” and they are not getting the bonus. She added, “We pay appropriately and we’re in a contract already–his contract has not expired. I don’t feel that there’s any reason to backdate… He’s in a contract; his current contract does not expire until June 30 of 2024, this year.”

McGraw said Andrew pitches in wherever he is needed, and “He should have an opportunity to have the same treatment as all of the other employees.”

Rockwell said, “We should have had a salary agreement, based on statute, by October 1,” but the salary agreement came several months later. She added, “As the executive of this district, the Superintendent directs our bargaining team,” and the team did not meet over the summer, resulting in the late completion of the agreement in January.

Rockwell said, “They had to wait until after Christmas break to get that [retroactive] pay because our district leader did not make sure that salary negotiations happened in a timely fashion.” She said she thought it was actually “unfair to give him retroactive pay when he is making a hefty salary that many people in our community would be over the moon to make.”

McNealy called for the vote, and Certain’s motion to not make the pay retroactive failed, 2-3, with only Certain and Rockwell voting in favor of the motion.

Motion to require Andrew to forfeit sick leave if he doesn’t provide 90 days’ notice

Rockwell wanted to change a provision of the contract that allows Andrew to terminate the contract with 90 days’ notice, but he will forfeit half of the sick leave accrued under the contract if he does not provide the requested notice. She made a motion to change that to state that he will forfeit all the sick leave he has accrued, before or after the contract, if he fails to provide 90 days’ notice except if he or a family member is ill. Certain seconded the motion.

McGraw said Andrew had worked for the district for 30 years before entering the DROP program: “Now, if I’m working on a job for 30 years, please don’t come take what I’ve already earned.”

Andrew wanted the clause removed completely, leaving just the requirement for 90 days’ notice. He said, “I’ve come to work throughout my career, I’ve chosen to come to work, and I’ve been blessed to come to work.” He said there should be no “punitive” clause.

Certain argued that the clause was a “guardrail” to protect the district and the taxpayers.

The motion failed 2-3, with only Certain and Rockwell in favor of the motion.

Motion to reduce the contract to two years

Abbitt made a motion to terminate the contract on June 30, 2026, instead of June 30, 2027. The motion was approved unanimously.

Motion to require life insurance premium to be “reasonable as determined by the board”

Certain made a motion to change a requirement that the district will provide a life insurance policy for Andrew if the premium is “reasonable” to state that the premium should be “reasonable as determined by the board.” Rockwell seconded the motion, and the motion passed unanimously.

Motion to not pay 10% of salary into supplemental retirement account

Rockwell said she disagreed with the extra 10% of Andrew’s base salary that the contract requires the district to deposit into a 403(b) supplemental retirement investment plan, arguing that he is already getting a Florida Retirement System (FRS) pension and DROP. She said, “I do not think the board should be contributing to an additional retirement account. We do not do that for any other employees. So I would move to eliminate that entire paragraph.” Certain seconded the motion.

Andrew said previous Superintendents have received 20% and 15% of their salaries toward retirement accounts, and McGraw said the request is “standard”; she added that if the district doesn’t pay “a 403(b)… these people are not coming.”

Chief of Finance Keith Birkett explained that when a State employee enters DROP, as Andrew has, “their retirement is calculated and set, and then there’s no more retirement benefit accrued to the Superintendent.” He said the retirement benefits for DROP employees go into an annuity and earn tax-deferred interest during the DROP period. Birkett concluded, “This 403(b) is a just a supplement because he’s not gaining any benefit to FRS.”

Certain pointed out that even though Andrew is in DROP, the district is required to pay into FRS for him, so “there is still a cost to the district, for the taxpayer… The cost this year is 21% [of his salary].”

Rockwell added that it’s “misleading” to say he’s not accruing any retirement during DROP: “He is currently getting a salary from the district, while also getting his retirement check deposited into an account… Are we going to give an extra 10% to everybody else who’s currently in DROP?… We don’t have that kind of money.” She said previous Superintendents who’d received a supplement had never worked in Florida before and did not have FRS pensions. 

McGraw said Andrew earned the retirement pay and called for a vote. The motion failed 2-3, with only Certain and Rockwell in favor.

Motion to limit dues and memberships to $3,000/year

Certain made a motion to limit dues and memberships to $3,000 per year, and Rockwell seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

Motion to establish evaluation criteria within 60 days

Abbitt made a motion to add a clause that the criteria for the Superintendent’s evaluation will be established mutually by the board and the Superintendent within 60 days of signing the contract. McNealy seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 

Motion to approve the contract as amended

Abbitt made a motion to approve the contract as amended, and McNealy seconded the motion. 

“I made a promise to my constituents that I would have a search… and I am not going to go back on my campaign promise… I cannot in good conscience vote in favor of this contract.” – Member Sarah Rockwell

Rockwell said she “could vote yes on this contract, in the name of board solidarity, and I do realize that Mr. Andrew is going to be our Superintendent, but I made a promise to my constituents that I would have a search… and I am not going to go back on my campaign promise.” She added that several people had brought up “stability” as a reason to keep Andrew as Superintendent, but “stability is not leaving critical staff positions empty for months on end… Stability is not announcing major changes late on Friday afternoons, such as the location of the IB PYP program, the numerous changes to the rezoning maps that ultimately didn’t pass, or the example of trend reports for tomorrow’s board workshop being posted when I was in my car on the way here this evening. That is not stability.”

Rockwell said the board priorities had not been realized, including rezoning and the strategic planning process, and added that “cooperation and unity would have meant having a workshop to discuss [the contract] in detail, not rushing to pass a new contract when there is an existing contract that runs through June 30 of this year… I cannot in good conscience vote in favor of this contract.”

“I’ve never heard the district take responsibility for how we fail students… We’re saying we’re committed to the success of every student, but our actions are not following that because like it or not… there are two different systems of education that’s happening in this district.” – Member Tina Certain

Certain agreed, saying, “Every year that we go on in the name of stability and for continuity for the adults, there are children that are suffering… I’ve never heard the district take responsibility for how we fail students… We’re saying we’re committed to the success of every student, but our actions are not following that because like it or not… there are two different systems of education that’s happening in this district.” Certain said she would work with Andrew as Superintendent, but “there are just too many things in this particular contract that I, in the name of unity, also can’t support.”

She added that while she thinks the year-round school model can work, “I think we’ve eliminated school choice for some families in that area” because if the year-round schedule doesn’t work for them, they have to apply for zoning exemptions and figure out how to transport their student to an alternate school. She disagreed with announcing the change to the public “in a manner where it’s like a done deal.” She also criticized Andrew’s decision to convert Williams Elementary to an IB magnet program without giving the board any information about what that would cost.

McNealy said, “When I hear the distress from my colleagues tonight, I don’t want to come back and un-say all the things that have been stated that’s so wrong, but we can’t ever get some positive stuff to come out of our mouth… I’m so disappointed… At some point in time, the citizens need to understand some of the good things that have happened in this district.” She said her fellow board members should say the negative things privately to Andrew instead of bringing them up at school board meetings.

“Marketing is the key… When you mix negative with all that we’re trying to do in this district, where do you think the public is going to lean toward?… The negativity has got to stop, and let’s work together.” – Member Leanetta McNealy

McNealy said she had been willing to go along with a national search, “but when an individual comes in and proves themselves and works hard to do that and to have made some accomplishments–not every single thing, but some accomplishments, give the individual a credit… Marketing is the key… When you mix negative with all that we’re trying to do in this district, where do you think the public is going to lean toward?… The negativity has got to stop, and let’s work together.”

McGraw said Andrew had only had his team in place since July 2023. She added, “I could not leave tonight without saying–we did not even earn our Master Board because of our behavior as elected officials.”

McGraw said she has been “positive, I go around to the schools, I talk to the children. Every day you can see me posting something positive because I believe in marketing.” She said that behavior and attendance have to be addressed if they’re going to address the achievement gap.

“Mr. Andrew, you’ve done great things, and I want to tell you that because when I lay my head down at night, I can sleep because I know what I have done to help and move this district forward here in Alachua County.” – Chair Diyonne McGraw

McGraw said to her fellow board members, “I hope we can all work together and stay in our lanes because this is the only time we can meet in the public.” She said they should appreciate Andrew because “in the state of Florida, nine Superintendents have resigned. You know why? Because of Critical Race Theory, book banning, all those things that we made political… Mr. Andrew, you’ve done great things, and I want to tell you that because when I lay my head down at night, I can sleep because I know what I have done to help and move this district forward here in Alachua County.” She said the new staff hired by Andrew are “working overtime, trying to clean up… a 30-year system… And when you’re trying to clean up, it’s not gonna come in two minutes… We’re gonna stay in the middle of the road, and we’re gonna do what’s best for children.”

The contract was approved on a 3-2 vote, with Certain and Rockwell in dissent.