Garrick A. Moritz, Gazette
After the last Garretson School Board Meeting, a number of questions have arisen. Most of these conversations have occurred around coffee hour and social media. Why was the school board late to post their agenda? Are they trying to hide something? Why did they renew administrative contracts at the end of the meeting when it wasn’t on the agenda?
Let’s start with the first question. The Gazette posed these questions to business manager Jacob Schweitzer. We confirmed that he had been gone for several days prior to this past week’s meeting, Wednesday the 6th of March through Friday the 8th, and he is usually the one who posts the agenda for the public. We asked him when the March 11th meeting agenda was posted and this was his response.
“It was posted on the window the morning of the 11th (Monday) around 6:30-7 A.M.,” Schweitzer said. “It was posted on the school website the prior Thursday or Friday (7th or 8th). It wasn't posted under the board meeting agendas on the home page, but it was posted in the school board documents in the documents section. It was posted on the website, just not in both places.”
School Board Member Elect Natasha Mendoza said she confirmed this.
“I confirmed with Jacob that the agenda posting did not happen in the usual way,” Mendoza said. “I don’t think Jacob is a bad guy, and I don’t know if I believe there was any bad acting as regards the posting of the agenda, but it was poor timing certainly.”
“I was checking for that agenda, as it wasn’t in any of the usual places,” she said. “What makes me livid was that an important thing like renewing the administrative contracts was not on the agenda. I checked, and for the last several years it’s always been clearly marked as a line item on the agenda. What made this year any different? It just seems deceptive to me. I know that I and others would have liked to speak about this item in the open forum or during the open board session. Now, are those voices going to be heard?
“To me, it’s the exact opposite of what needs to happen,” she continued. “With all the problems and difficulties that have happened in the district over the last several years, we need to do some healing and work on building trust with the community, and I’m not seeing that happening right now.”
This in mind, our editor had a frank conversation with Board President Shannon Nordstrom about this issue. Our editor directly asked why was this done in the way it was done. Our editor noted many local citizens crying foul, and their expressed opinions that the board was obfuscating the process and/or getting the motion passed before public had their say.
“I can understand the optics on this looking bad, as I review what happened and how a series of events unfolded which also included our business manager being out of town, not doing his normal rock-solid routines,” Nordstrom said. “I assure you there was not any cloak and dagger routine being orchestrated by the board. I have since reviewed the process to understand more what happened, as I received a call about this also. I do desire transparency and have learned a lot during my years on the board and talking with members of our community and staff.
“When Mr. Johnson and I put the agenda together, we had a matter involving a reduction in force for one staff member, due to the expiration of a government grant,” Nordstrom continued. “The teacher had been hired knowing that might be a possibility and was aware. As he and I talked about that, we did not want to cause any worry or nervousness for the staff or anyone in the community and we decided to leave that personnel matter as a motion to be made after the executive session discussion. We also needed to discuss staff negotiations and contracts for the administrative team, as yes, that is on our “work list” of things to do in February or March. As we rolled through our agenda setting meeting, we put those items on the same action plan and method for executive session. We had just finished an overall positive evaluation process for the Superintendent over the previous two months with the board and proceeded to do all these items at once with the reduction in force motion. As I review this, I can understand why people would think this way, but it was not my intention at all.”
Our editor then asked Nordstrom about the executive session itself, as the Gazette had been informed by multiple sources that Superintendent Guy Johnson was present during all the executive session, even while the contracts were discussed, including his own, when that is clearly against set board policy. With that in mind, our editor asked Nordstrom to comment on the criticism voiced by local voters, that if the School Board doesn’t obey its own rules, then how can we trust them to make any for our district?
“Executive Session is a confidential time,” said Nordstrom, “and I will not comment about anything within our session nor should others, but I will share that Mr. Johnson has always been willing to leave the room if the board wants private conversations without him, regarding his employment. We were not setting dollar amounts or benefits or anything with this motion, we were giving the nod to the administration team that our intention is to continue their employment on the established cycles.”
That is the latest word on these topics, and we will have more on any further developments in the next issue of the Garretson Gazette.
