top of page

If the board is allowed to fire the Superintendent, what's the problem?

1. Ledesma called a "special meeting" to specifically fire the Superintendent. He set it for January 5th, before the board's first scheduled meeting of the year. Special meetings only give the public 24 hours notice, making it hard for anyone to find out about it or attend. January 5th was during the district's Winter Break session with many people out of town or busy at the time. Both the Superintendent and the Assistant Superintendent were out of town for the holidays and were not able to attend this meeting.

2. No one expected the firing, it had not been mentioned before by anyone concerned. None of the board members had talked about this possibility during their campaigns for office and no residents had been calling for it.

3. The board majority did not publicly discuss anything at the meeting. The vote was done during a closed session. Board members are not allowed to discuss business outside of the meeting, but without any warning or public discussion, they were ready to vote.

These actions may be legal, but they demonstrate a lack of transparency and honest conduct. If trustees have concerns about the performance of administrative staff, the should go through respectful actions to address them. Blindsiding staff with a surprise firing while everyone is on vacation is not in good faith and has shaken the standing of our entire district.

If the board is allowed to fire the Superintendent, what's the problem?

bottom of page