Attention MH Community - Still unclear on Zoom. Agenda here. Speaker request here.

The meeting this Friday May 31st at 10am-4pm at the FACE center (80 W. Central Ave, Morgan Hill, CA 95037) specified as "Special Board Meeting - Board Retreat" is confirmed to be Superintendent Garcia performance review & potential renew of her contract. Still unclear on Zoom. Agenda here. Speaker request here.

Please note public comments are only allowed at 10am and most likely only in-person. Post public comments the board resumes to closed door session. Unclear on ZOOM. 

CALL TO ACTION: PLEASE ATTEND IN PERSON IF YOU CAN & MAKE COMMENTS (suggested comments at the end)

I CAN NOT attend this session in person. I am hoping for the zoom. And so far, it appears zoom is not going to be an option.

Suggested Public Comments Topics:  

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

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.

• Some districts tie administration performance review to test scores. Interesting concept that can be applied to Superintendent.
• Som advocates suggest using the Student Growth Percentile (SGP) as a key metric for evaluating the performance of a school district’s superintendent. Another promising concept. 
• Defining set timeline to for each performance metric should be another consideration. 
• Lack of transparency and collaboration with the community and other district employees are other areas of improvement for the superintendent (budget, middle school concerns etc). 

Thank you all who can be there and voice our community concerns with the district's top leadership.