001Item 2.1. I will call the Paris Union High School District special board meeting to order at 4:01 p.m. I will conduct a roll call to determine whether we have a quorum is present. Trusty Compos >> here. >> Trusty Hall here. Trusty Stafford >> here. >> Trusty Annayia. Trusty Annayia. >> She said she was running late. Trusty Garcia present. We've established a quorum. Item 3.1, revision, adoption, ordering of agenda May 28, 2026. Do I have a motion? >> So move. >> Trusty Hall. >> Thank you. Is there a second? Trusty Stafford. >> Any discussion? >> See none, please vote. Item 3.1 passes, four yes and one absent. Item 4.1, invitation to address the board of trustees. Are there any public comments? >> No public comments. >> Thank you. Item 5.1, board policy series 4,000, consideration, discussion,
002or revision of board policy 411, recruitment and selection. Is there any discussion? Oh, yes sir. >> That's my queue. Good afternoon, everybody. It's good to be here in person. Um I understand that this is a a long tabled topic regarding uh the hiring of employees and the board's involvement and the number of individuals that the board is seeking to have brought as far as recommendations to from the superintendent for hiring consideration. So my job here today is we're because we're in open session is I'm going to give you information that I have cleaned over the 26 years of practice that I have done and allow you to take that information and and use it as you wish. My job isn't to make the decision for you, but I want to just make sure that you're
003able to make informed decisions and you understand the potential legal concerns andor what's happening around the state as it relates to this. um can certainly answer any questions um once I've shared and if there's a different method that you would like to utilize I'm certainly happy to handle this however you would like but just at a high level um to start with most districts in the state that I have worked with in fact all of the districts that I've ever worked with all empower the superintendent to bring one recommendation for hiring and typically that those types of decisions where there's formal board action are more at the management level versus hiring lower level classified employees, teachers, etc. and those students are there done through a consent agenda item. Um, and so when you will look
004at your board policy 411, um, in most districts they follow the CSBA guidance, which is that there is one person that the superintendent brings as far as the recommendation for the board's consideration. Um just some thoughts that I put together to share with everybody is uh one while each of you probably when you went to your training um learned about the immunity that you have for most of the decisions you make as you delve into making more granular level decisions right where you step out of your overall role of governance into getting more detailed information. Um there are situations where those decisions and how you make them can end up allowing somebody to challenge that immunity. Um which means just you're named as individuals in lawsuits um potentially and it can in some cases result
005in not having immunity because of the decisions um that are being made. Uh, one of the biggest things and I mentioned this before is right you I know that you've gone through board governance workshops internally that you've attended um CSBA meetings but the overall job of the board as a general matter is oversight right your governance you're talking about the 30,000 foot view as you step into requiring multiple candidates to come in now we're diving down lower to the sea level um and that's pushing you back into management related decisions versus the governance board role that you're really doing. Um, in talking with superintendent over the years, um, I do know that these types of places where the superintendent feels like the board is kind of encroaching into those types of decisions, not that the
006board doesn't have a right to ask questions. U, it takes away some of the accountability for the superintendent, right? the superintendent is the board's true one employee that you hire um as your employee. Um and so that creates issues as far as what you expect of them. Like where's where does their responsibility lie when it comes to a candidate if they bring you one and they're standing behind them and says our staff has vetted this person. we feel that are the best candidates versus having to bring three and recommendation from the superintendent and their team that hold everything together isn't taken into account can take away from the accountability that the superintendent itself has along that same vein is can have an impact on the trust of leadership right because when the leadership feels like
007they're not being accountable for what their tasks are which is the day-to-day running of the district that impacts that the domino effect of that and I've seen this not necessarily on this issue but in other places where we have seen boards become more active on things that are typically at the management level versus at the governance level is that it becomes harder to recruit good candidates because whether for good or bad is we live in the day and age of Tik Tok, Instagram, Facebook, social media where information gets out very quickly and as that gets out and if you're looking to hire a superintendent. That may be a factor in whether somebody decides to apply or not. Again, all of these things are just me thinking through what are the ramifications. They're not a right
008or a wrong issue. Um, a couple of other thoughts that I did come up with is as you bring more candidates in from a recommendation standpoint, it can lengthen the hiring process, right? Because if the superintendent brings in one candidate, we're good. If we bring in three candidates and then there's further followup that needs to happen, we've now elongated when we're actually going to put somebody into that position and be able to provide the support and assistance we need to whether it's direct support to students. Um whether it's curriculum building, whether it's chief business officer, whatever that role is, right? It can lengthen those processes. Uh the other thing that I have seen happen is that as boards get more involved, if there are three candidates and they realize that the board is the individuals
009making the decision, we can start to see additional lobbying to the board of hey I'm a good candidate versus it coming from one place. So the funnel widens versus getting narrowed. Again, these are just kind of preliminary thoughts that I had that I wanted to share. um that's kind of where it is. So again, not a right or a wrong, but in my experience over the 26 years, I've probably worked with between 50 and 60 districts. And I know there's over a thousand in the state, so I don't know everybody. Um but I've worked with HR where I've helped at countywide meetings where we host things. This is traditionally what we do see is the what you currently have in place, excuse me, which is the superintendent brings one recommendation That's kind of the thought
010process of what I was asked to share um for the board's consideration. >> Any questions? So I guess um and maybe so this was something that when I was elected in 22 uh was brought to my attention in terms of how things had happened before and and I believe Tony was uh on that those boards before as well as Edward. So if they can explain to me kind of or us the the purpose behind what the original intent of that was because that's kind of the way it all came about. And so I don't know if if they can just share that as to what was going on or why was that brought forward? >> Right. Right now it's public comments. >> Oh, >> that's okay. >> Discussion. >> No, no, no. Well, I was
011saying any questions for for Mr. Fist. >> Okay. I'm confused. >> So, he's he's the public speaker right now. >> No, I'm not a public speaker. I'm so comments. discuss for invitation to address on board on close session items only. >> No, no, we moved past that. We're on the open session 411. >> Oh my gosh, my bad. Okay, so we're on consideration discussion on revision of board policy 411, recruitment and selection and then is there any discussion? That's where you get Okay. So, I'm sorry. Can you repeat one more time? >> Well, I I guess >> I can paraphrase the question if it helps. Go ahead because I'm not sure the I know the answer. It sounds like at some point prior to Mr. Campos's being elected to the board, there was a process
012in place and I'm not clear on what that process was. So, you may want to specify that. And then there was some change and I think he's trying to find out what was the process before, where have we morphed to and where should we land? Is that correct? So I guess the question if I'm paraphrasing because I'm curious myself is has the district always utilized the the recommendation from CSBA which is I mean not in every case obviously there are exceptions but as a board policy rule that there's one candidate who's brought from the superintendent to the board for consideration >> and did that change at some point? Right. >> So, >> okay. Um, since I've been on the board, it's been about nine years now. The reason, the main reason we asked for that,
013it was a different superintendent, all different staff. None of the people here were here at the time. The process and um, in no way am I talking about current, okay, was being manipulated. People were being hired as a favor. People were being transferred in positions. Superintendent was vouching for them. Months later, they they pulled out of the job themselves. So, because he knew, so he had been in the district 30 years. He knew everyone. So, everyone came to him and who knows what favors he owed during that 30 years. So, it was obvious the process wasn't fair. But we we've changed staff. We we've made all the changes to make it that way. Our last request, which we never finished, was to change the policy, two, three candidates to come before us. Um I don't
014see the such the need for it now with the change in staff and the change. Uh I trust what Dr. Rob will bring to the table. Um, but it was something that uh having been with the district well nine as a board member and 10 working there's a lot of things I see that I already know the answer before you finish what you're saying but I keep my mouth shut but in this case I have to say there was some some good old boy tactics going on and it had to stop and that was the reason my reason um because too much manipulation Does that kind of answer your question? >> Yeah. I mean that was Yeah. I mean that is what I understood. So when when I came in and walked into it um
015I thought that the process was a good Well, did you want to add anything else or? >> No. >> Okay. Um I I thought the process was good because um in in in that process in doing it uh when we came to decisions uh for hires um we came to like a consensus. And so for me that I thought was a good way to do it because instead of just meeting one candidate, we were able to meet you know three candidates in some situations and then uh we were able to score them, rate them, have discussions, pros, cons, and then ultimately with a decision came out with the candidate that kind of everybody um had input in. And so I kind of liked that process and that kind of changed when with the changing of
016the superintendent. All right. Any more discussion? Okay. See none. Uh let's move on to item 6.1. Invitation to address the board on close session items only. Are there any public >> to provide direction please? But >> that wasn't an option here. >> So, we're supposed to make that decision. >> There's a the recommendation is to pro provide direction. >> Well, you know what? I guess I'll add because I just didn't realize um kind of how the process is going to go. So I would like to advocate for this process and I know that we've discussed the language and so not being a firm three because what if you don't get the three and and so obviously in the language with that but I mean I think the the I don't want to say safety gaps
017um but to avoid corruption um nepotism that kind of stuff I think this process is a little bit more and and maybe nobody else is doing it which is fine um but it's our project to be able to do it if that's the the situation because to me it it again it brings us more to a consensus uh decision. Um since then we've had some hires um that in my my opinion have been it's been interesting. It's been different. Um and so you know a nothing's been consistent. Um so for me it's like this is a good way of doing it because I believe that there's there's a process you'll have the initial you know when they get a pool of candidates um they can read review kind of sift sort and then when it's
018time for us to um bring forward and there's three candidates I think us having that discussion is helpful because we can kind of narrow down hey we saw three different people as opposed to um in the past couple years we I felt we've been pressured um and not pressured uh but by time. So we were sitting without an assistant uh superintendent for ed services for a while. Um and then so it was kind of like okay now we have you know the one candidate and if we don't get this candidate it delays everything by you know months again because now if we're if if the consensus is you know what let's move forward with someone else. we're going to reject this one and move forward. Then it's another 90-day search. We're moving on and to
019see another candidate. So, and I understand the recommendation of the superintendent, which wouldn't change anything. That the recommendation could also still be there. But, um, for me, I just feel that this process is a lot more um I don't know what the term would be, transparent. um everybody kind of gets to see multiple candidates, multiple strengths. Understanding the need um would also be kind of important for us to see kind of whose strengths are what and how they'll be able to fill that position. And then that that also came up with uh the CBO when our CBO left. It was kind of again, you know, we only have one candidate. We're under the gun to close a year, start a year. So for me, everything has been done under like a high pressure. we haven't
020seen or timeline. Um we haven't seen other candidates. Uh kind of like when we we selected the superintendent, we saw multiple candidates and we were able to kind of have a discussion on that. And so for me that's why I would like to see the language changed in this and and we can change you know how the language goes but I would like to move forward with the direction of selecting a few candidates um or at least having two or three however um the wording would be so that we don't cancel out you know two if there's only two. Um, so anyways, that would be kind of my position to move forward and uh amend the policy for board uh for 4111. >> Thank you. Any more discussion? >> No, I think it's uh what
021Mr. Compost says is is is pretty clear from even where I'm standoint on the outside. Uh it's better to see more candidacy and get a a view of what superintendent is thinking about. Uh totally respect everything that he brings to the table and his uh number one candidate that he would like. Uh so I'm along with those lines as to see the the three and just keep it where it's it's open to us and we can have a better discussion on who best fits that position. Whether it's the person that the superintendent picks or it's mixed, it doesn't matter. So >> thank you. I I think I'll add some comments myself then. uh listening to the attorney's advice, I think it's uh dangerous and it opens our the door to liability as he explained in
022his comments earlier. So, I personally uh because they're asking for direction, I'd like to make a motion to recommend that we go with the current board policy and if there's a change where we feel we need to have more than one candidate because like he said, that's manager's level and we're governed and I'm understanding the difference. the more he uh talks to us and informs us of what we're supposed to do, what we're not supposed to do, the more I'm understanding. I do want to stay out of a lot legal issues. So, I'm going to make the motion to go with the recommendation. >> Can I ask a question for Adam? >> Sure. Okay. So, now you had mentioned earlier um that the more that we I guess have input, it's less responsibility put on
023the superintendent. So, um, so let's just say, um, superintendent makes a recommendation, you know, rents the candidate, however we feel about it, it gets passed, and then there's problems with, uh, one of the the the choices that they've made and it maybe wasn't a good fit. How do we or things happen and the superintendent doesn't handle um disciplinary action or doesn't handle uh a certain situation from it to get getting worse or whatever and it could potentially lead to dismissal. So if something happens then how do we hold who or who do we hold accountable? the person who created the situation, the superintendent who oversees it and it's under his watch. Um or is it um you know do they then handle the I mean I'm confused as to kind of I mean I understand
024that but it's like okay so what so so then who is ultimately held accountable if there's problems with with particular hires? Well, I think we want to be careful of how we're using responsibility and letting it fray into six months down the road the employee engages in misconduct and there's discipline that may not or may be handled properly because I think that's not a good analogy to what we're talking about which is how many people the responsibility piece is more of you when you hire the superintendent in their most superintendent contracts and I believe it's in Dr. lose as well is the day-to-day management of the district to bring recommendations for the hiring of individuals as you step in and now say we're not just taking your recommendation. We want to see three. We want
025to vet them out ourselves. That's the responsibility that you're taking away from the superintendent. Right? As the board, you have made a decision. We trust this person. We are letting him. We are entrusting him not only with the operation of the district, which is in and of itself very critical, but with making sure that our students and our community are receiving the educational services that we strive to provide. And so as you pull those powers away, that's where the responsibility goes away. Nothing is different regardless of whether you're getting three candidates and you're helping vet them or one. If there's misconduct or other issues downstream, that's a whole separate issue. And there, yes, if things aren't being done appropriately, we figure out who is the person who didn't hold that. And ultimately, at the end
026of the day, the superintendent is the ultimate responsible employee of the district to ensure that all the policies and procedures that the uniform complaint procedures are all followed and adhered to. The board make sure that's your management level, right? Is you're making sure that he's doing that. And if he's not, that's when we get to go into close session and discuss this under, you know, either dismissal discipline release because you can discipline the superintendent or we're looking at it from an evaluative standpoint of like we don't feel you're effectively managing. And not that it's happening here, but just right. Those are the ways you do that. But the the the goal is is that the superintendent is on top of those things and we don't see those things arising. where you're getting input is is
027the superintendent is giving you updates of like we've had these issues just so that you don't hear it in the newspaper or on the news of we've had this situation with an employee u but they're responsible for the day-to-day the the actual hiring decision component responsibility is less that they're just you're pulling that decision-m and they're coming forward and saying this is the person I want so you're diffusing or taking away some of what you have tked them to do um so responsibility may be the best or maybe it's they feel a lack of trust in the process that if I'm bringing my recommendation, you trusted me to hire me as the superintendent, trust me to bring in the right people. And I do understand the timing constraints and oftentimes boards feel, you know, like
028their hands are tied. I don't know that it changes whether you have one or three candidates because there's generally a reason why one candidate is being brought to you out of two or three. So if you have those three, you're not necessarily making the process any faster because you may have a super strong candidate from the that the superintendent believes in and then two candidates that are not as strong. So you meet with all three of them and now that takes a board meeting to happen or two board meetings for everything to happen and you decide none of these are the fit. So you still end up in the same place whether you have one or three. I don't know that the three quickens the process. Um I think it can in some cases slow
029it down a bit. Yes, Mr. We have the one candidate. I'm trying to think what I want to ask you. And we decide no, we don't want the candidate that the superintendent brings. Can we just automatically go to number two? >> I would not recommend that as a policy >> to consider rather than we're saying fly it again and do all this. Why are we doing that? We've got three here. That's I mean >> I think you can inquire with if the first candidate is somebody you choose not to go to. I think you can ask questions about subsequent candidates and have them brought >> back. Okay. And I just to be clear your advice is one >> I think that is the what we see across the board. I think it is the place
030that aligns with what we see as standards with the legal responsibilities and goals of what a board member does. So that is what I when I work with districts most typically that is what I'm accustomed to see. >> Okay. So if I may I was uh making a motion and I'd like to continue with the motion. I'd like to make the motion to stay with the current board policy and I believe it addresses most of you guys's concerns if I'm correct. So that is my motion and if there is a second. >> I'll second. >> Thank you. Any more discussion? See none. I'm going to call for the vote. >> It has to be oral. Okay. Uh, Trusty Compost, no. >> Trusty Hall, >> no. >> Trusty Stefer, >> yes. >> Trusty Annayia, >> yes.
031>> And myself, yes. There it is. Uh, two nazs and three yeses. Policy stays in place. Thank you. Okay. Item 6.1, invitation to address the board on close session items only. Are there any speakers? >> No public comments. >> Okay. Thank you. Item 7.1, adjourn to close session. Do I have a motion? >> So move. >> Thank you, Trusty Staff. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Thank you, Trusty Annayia. Any discussion? See none, please vote. Not yet. >> Item 7.1 is a 50- vote. We're going to close session adjourning at 4:27 p.m. All right. The time is 506. The special board meeting is well, the special board meeting is reconvening at 5:06 p.m. Item 9.1, report out of close session. Is there a report out of close session? Thank you. Item 10.1 adjournment of
032the special meeting of the board of trustees for May 28, 2026. Do I have a motion? >> So vote. >> Thank you, Trusty Hall. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Okay. >> I got staffer. I'm sorry. All right. Any discussion? See none, please vote. Item 10.1 passes 50 and this meeting is adjourned at 5:07 p.m. Good night everyone.