Hello everyone – Hope you are having a great weekend. There is a lot to cover here. Following is the focus of this update:

1. Suggested Talking Points for May 21st Board Meeting (more details below)
2. Deeper Dive into Executive HR Roles That Are Needing More Clarification (more details below)
3. A few redflags worth noting in Superintendent Dr Garcia’s employment contract (more details below)
4. Link to Survey – and Link to View Results
5. Link to May 7th Board Meeting Video (will permanently be on YouTube) – Superintendent Garcia comments regarding Budget Advisory Committee and how community members wont be considered prior to June. Maybe by Sep. (link here & here).
6. Upcoming Events
   • Tuesday May 21st General Board Meeting
   • Tuesday May June 4th LCAP Public Hearing and General Board Meeting

1 ) A few suggested Talking Points Regarding Budget and Transparency for May 21st Board Meeting

• The application process for the Budget Advisory Committee, which includes parent participation, requires a clear deadline. Furthermore, the selection process needs to be clarified. It’s worth noting that neighboring districts, such as the San Jose Unified School District, make a point of publicly announcing the time, date, and location of upcoming Budget Advisory Committee meetings.
• In light of our current financial climate, it’s crucial to reassess the superintendent’s authority to approve expenditures under $100,000 without board approval.
• In the face of a projected deficit and potential layoffs among teachers and staff, two additional HR supervisor positions were created in August 2023. This was followed by the appointment of Assistant Superintendent Sanchez in September 2023, and the hiring of an Executive HR Assistant with payroll expertise in February 2024. Given these circumstances, it’s crucial for the district to reassess its budget allocation. To minimize the impact on school sites during this financial crisis, it would be prudent to start by streamlining top-level staffing, particularly among high earners such as the executive staff in the HR department.
• It’s essential for the community to have the opportunity to review the 2024-2025 LCAP report prior to the hearing on June 4th. When will the final draft of the 2024-2025 LCAP report will be available for review?
• On April 9, I shared the 2022 financial statements report from the district’s hired auditor, Eide Bailly LLP. A significant concern was the identification of a ‘Significant Risk’ as ‘Management Override of Controls’ by the auditor. In a one-on-one meeting with Dr. Garcia on April 11, she suggested that the language used to identify this ‘Significant Risk’ is common in such audits. However, upon reviewing the 2022-2023 financial audit report of the San Jose Unified School District, also conducted by Eide Bailly LLP, I found no such language or significant risk area identified. This discrepancy calls into question the accuracy of Dr. Garcia’s claim that such language is common, and it raises a significant concern that the board should investigate further.

2 ) Deeper Dive into Executive HR Roles That Are Needing More Clarification

As previously mentioned (in item 1.C), the district personnel commission report from April 17, 2024, indicates that two HR supervisor positions were added in August 2023. These positions were created to compensate for the departure of Ms. Kristen Storehouse, who previously served as an HR supervisor at MHUSD alongside another supervisor-level employee. Following the departure of these two employees, Assistant Superintendent Patrick Sanchez, with an annual salary of $260,371, was hired in September 2023. Shortly after his appointment, Ms. Riena Gonzalez was hired in February 2024 as an Executive HR Assistant, specializing in payroll. This has resulted in MHUSD’s HR department now having four executive-level employees, compared to the two who previously carried out the same responsibilities. It’s worth noting that there are concerns about Assistant Superintendent Sanchez’s qualifications for his role. I have previously written about these concerns in an earlier update.

Given the qualifications of Assistant Superintendent Sanchez and the recent hiring of additional executive HR roles, it’s worth noting that MHUSD has been laying off staff and teachers. This arguably reduces the need for extra HR resources. The decision to make cuts at school sites, rather than trimming high-paying district roles, raises questions about the district’s rationale and priorities.

The district expects teachers and classified staff to take on multiple roles, all while receiving the same compensation. This raises an important question: Why aren’t the district’s high earners expected to wear multiple hats, adjusting their compensation for same work or combining some roles into one?

This provides a perfect transition to my next topic: a closer look to Superintendent Dr Garcia’s employment contract and a few noteworthy redflags:

3 ) A few redflags worth noting in Dr Garcia’s employment contract

Superintendent Dr. Garcia’s contract is currently set to run until 2026. The board conducted a performance review during their March retreat, which was not widely publicized and was announced at short notice. This review led to a one-year extension of her contract. Dr. Garcia’s annual salary is $297,357, with an additional $5,000 bonus for her doctorate degree. This compensation is for 224 working days per year (as stated in Section 3.C, Page 3 of her contract). In contrast, the typical worker has 247 working days in a year, factoring in weekends and holidays.

According to Section 1.C, the Superintendent’s salary is not fixed and is subject to continuous negotiations with the Board. The Board also retains the right to increase the Superintendent’s salary at any point during the contract term, provided that such an increase is approved in an open session at a regular Board meeting. This raises a concern for me due to the absence of explicit performance metrics that would justify merit-based salary increases. Instead, it’s left to the discretion of the Board, whose composition and climate may change over time, creating an indefinite potential for salary increases for the Superintendent. It would be more prudent to establish limits or link increases to specific performance metrics.

Section 3.D of the contract mentions that the district covers all professional development costs for the Superintendent, including leadership coaching. However, the contract does not specify the exact amount allocated for the Superintendent’s executive coaching and professional development, nor does it seem to set a limit on these expenses. Given our current budget deficit, this lack of financial clarity is a significant concern. Further, Section 7.K defines the Superintendent’s duties to include subscribing to and reading relevant periodicals, and participating in suitable professional associations, all at the district’s expense. Section 7.L also states that the Board is responsible for funding a leadership coach for the Superintendent. These provisions raise questions about the allocation of resources, particularly in light of our current financial challenges.

Section 7.A of the contract explicitly assigns the responsibility of implementing board policies to the Superintendent. However, it’s worth noting that the most recent Budget Advisory Committee meeting was conducted without community participation, despite the stipulations of Board Policy 3100. This could potentially indicate that the Superintendent has not fully met her obligations as outlined in the contract.

Ending with an interesting find in the contract: According to Section 10.E of the contract, should the board terminate the Superintendent’s contract, she is entitled to 12 months of pay and benefits. However, Section 10.F stipulates that if the Board suspects the Superintendent of fraudulent activities, misappropriation of funds, or other illegal fiscal practices, they have the right to terminate her immediately upon written notice. In such a case, the Superintendent would not be entitled to any compensation.

I like to leave you with a comment from Trustee Horner near the end of May 7th board meeting (2:25:06). When other board members sought crucial information and due diligence from Superintendent Dr. Garcia, Trustee Horner cautioned against the ‘slippery slope’ of overloading the district staff. It’s important to remember that the district should inherently strive for more due diligence and transparency in its decisions, irrespective of requests from Trustees. As the district’s governing body, the board has a responsibility to request, assess due diligence, and approve district decisions with sufficient confidence and reasoning. Trustee Horner’s comments suggest a potential lack of clarity regarding the board’s responsibilities as the district’s governing body and community representative.