Tension, Transparency Concerns, Take Center Stage In Latest Gateway Unified School District Board Meeting

During a tension-filled board meeting Wednesday night, January 4, the Gateway Unified School District Board voted to begin recruitment for a new District superintendent. The board’s meeting process, which did not provide appropriate opportunity for public comment or include a review of the Board’s own policies, immediately angered some in the Gateway community. It also appears to have violated the Brown Act, a California law requiring transparency in the workings of public boards.

Gateway’s board meeting was attended by approximately 150 members of the public, some of whom publicly commented on their concerns about the future of the District’s leadership. Community questions have swirled since the Board’s decision to terminate long-term Superintendent Jim Harrell without cause last month during a hastily-called special meeting.

Board President Cherill Clifford, Vice President Lindsi Haynes, and her husband, Clerk of the Board Elias Haynes voted for the Superintendent’s termination, while board incumbents Phil Lewis and Dale Wallace voted against it.

The Board had only recently amended Harrell’s contract with the District. His dismissal is likely to cost taxpayers around $180,000 in severance payments.

Transparency Concerns

As the Board’s public meeting opened Wednesday night, Gateway District staff member Debby Boontjer, Executive Assistant to the Superintendent, made an announcement to the public on the Board’s behalf. That statement indicated that the Board was limiting preliminary open comment to items not already on the meeting agenda, but sought to reassure the public that the Board would provide ample opportunity for comment on all agenda items as they came up throughout the course of the meeting.

But when it came time for the Board’s main agenda item, recruitment and hiring of a new superintendent, Board President Clifford did not open the floor for comment, despite a reminder from board incumbent Phil Lewis and repeated requests from the audience.

Clifford’s decision drew immediate vocal expressions of anger from the crowd and a community member moved to the lectern in an attempt to voice their public comment, interrupting the Board’s discussion. In response, Clifford repeatedly struck her gavel and loudly told the individual they were not recognized and should take their seat. Clifford and Lindsi Haynes then engaged in a prolonged whispered discussion before Clifford once again attempted to move forward on a vote. Soon after, a second individual moved to the lectern to call for public participation in the process, prompting Clifford to once again rap her gavel and call out “you have not been recognized and we are moving forward with this vote.”

“Is this really the way you want to run this board meeting?” incumbent board member Lewis asked Clifford.

“Yes,” she responded, completing the vote and attempting to move onto the Board’s next agenda item before being interrupted by yet another public speaker’s appearance at the lecturn. This time, Clifford allowed the speaker to continue. Other public comments followed.

Monica Price, a legal fellow with the First Amendment Coalition, confirmed for Shasta Scout that Clifford’s failure to include public comment prior to the votes appears to violate a requirement of the Brown Act, which specifies that the public must have an opportunity to voice their opinions on items on a public agenda “before or during discussion” on the matter, prior to the vote.

Whispered deliberations between Clifford, Lindsi Haynes and Elias Haynes throughout the meeting also appear to violate the Brown Act by constituting what is known as “serial meetings” or as series of conversations held between a majority of board members about public business that does not provide the public access to those conversations.

Board Action on Superintendent Recruitment

The Board voted to begin recruitment of a new superintendent based on a series of motions made by Lindsi and Elias Haynes, with very little discussion. Board action included a unanimous vote to release a district-wide survey about the Superintendent hire to staff, parents, and community members. The three newly-seated board members also voted to post a job listing for the position, and put Lindsi Haynes in charge of the superintendent recruitment process. 

The Board already has a policy in place for how to recruit and select a new superintendent which requires board members to implement a search and selection process for the Superintendent.

That board policy, including it’s directive that the board should make a decision on whether to hire an outside consultant to lead the recruitment process, did not come up during Wednesday’s board meeting.

After the votes, several public speakers took the opportunity to advise the Board on best steps moving forward.

Those speakers included Michelle Davis, who identified herself as the elected President of the Gateway Teacher’s Association, which represents all certificated employees in the District. She used her time at the podium to remind the Board of the usual role her organization plays in a superintendent search.

“It’s important that the Superintendent has a good relationship with our association so that we can resolve issues before they can become larger problems,” Davis said. “In the past, Union leadership has actively participated in the selection process for the Superintendent position.”

Community member Kay Kobe also spoke, openly questionioning whether the board majority could be trusted with the hiring of a new superintendent based on their actions in office thus far. 

“With less than thirty days of experience on the Board,” she said, “you have followed through on your promise, made behind closed doors with a handful of your friends, and not a promise you campaigned on, to fire Superintendent Jim Harrell.”

In doing so, Kobe continued, “You fired one of the most competent district superintendents Gateway has had in its twenty-seven-year history and for no cause, without bothering to learn the depth and breadth of the job he’s done . . .”

Do you have a correction to this story? You can submit it here.