The Superintendent's Contract Extension

The previous ESO article described open government and the process of decision making.  This opinion piece describes the lack of transparency and closed government decision making by the School Board (SB).

The 20 June issue of the Rappahannock Times (RT) Erin Kelley reported that School Division Superintendent Melvin's contract had been extended until 30 June 2015 at the last Regular School Board Meeting on Monday, 11 June.  This was a surprise because I attended that meeting and did not recall any vote or announcement concerning that topic.  Perhaps I hadn't listened closely enough.

My careful reexamination of the SB agenda found, within item IV. Consent Agenda; sub-item G. which stated "Approval of Personnel Action."  Not much transparency there.

Other concerns about transparency include:

- Why was a contract, with slightly over a year remaining, extended?

- Why was such an exceptional issue considered without any public notification?  The Code of Virginia permits certain narrowly defined specific personnel matters to be considered in a closed meeting (Section 2.2-3711 A 1). The Code does not prohibit public notification of an intent to discuss a contract extension.  Section 2.2-3712 A mandates that prior to a closed meeting, there must be a "…recorded vote in open meeting approving a motion that (i) identifies the subject matter, (ii) states the purpose of the meeting and (iii) makes specific reference to the applicable exemption from open meeting requirements…" 

- When and how was a decision reached to even consider offering a contract extension?

- Do the minutes of any open Board meeting report a vote, pursuant to Section 2.2-3712 A, which permitted a closed SB meeting to begin discussion of a contract extension?

There are other questions which could be posed.  In my opinion, the contract extension process appears to have been entirely opaque.  There doesn't appear to have been any public notification that an issue of the leadership and financial magnitude of extending the Superintendent's Contract was to be considered, was under consideration, or that an extension had been agreed to.  The first public notification that the contract had been extended appeared in the RT a week after the decision was made and prior to the draft minutes being published.(More about Board Minutes in a future fact article.)

I suggest the SB meet with their legal counsel to review the decision process and to determine if they fully complied with the closed meeting provision of the Code.  Second, the SB owes the public a full explanation of both the timeline and the purpose of the decision to extend the contract.  I have no doubt that the SB has the authority to extend the Superintendent's contract; however they have an obligation to be transparent in the execution of their duties and to ensure that the public is adequately informed and afforded the opportunity to provide comments.

Clickener