001I now call to order the special executive board meeting for the Lake His Unified School District for June 12th, 2025. Roll call, please. Here, here. We will now have a moment of silent prayer and private reflection. Amen. Would you please stand for the pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. All right. And I now need a motion for approval of agenda 2.1. Move to approve agenda item 2.1. A second. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. And now we are in need of a motion to go uh into executive session. Item 3.1. I move to go into executive session. I'll second. Yes. Yes. Yes. All right. A motion to come out of executive session. I'll second.
002Yes. And now I will need a motion um if a board member has one on item 3.2. Possible action on item 3.1. I move to offer LHUSD principles who will will have completed three consecutive years of full-time employment as a principal with the district as of the end of the 2024 2025 fiscal year with the opportunity to mutually resend their respective existing one-year term principal contract and execute a new three-year principal contract with the district. We have a second. I second. And before we um take a vote, I'm going to open this up for discussion uh from the board. First, I have a a statement I want to read. Um I understand not everyone on this board agrees on this issue. Um but I'd like to lay out a clear case why moving forward with
003multi-year contracts for our principles is not only reasonable but critical for long-term success and stability of our schools. Number one, it provides stability and continued leadership. Student achievement thrives under stable leadership. When principles know they have time to implement a vision, they can focus on strategic improvement and not survival. One-year contracts foster uncertainty and short-term thinking, whereas two-year contracts encourage principles to invest in long-range planning, staff development, and school culture. Number two, it helps with recruitment and retention of highc caliber leaders. The best leaders have options. districts offering greater job security or more likely to attract experienced and innovative administrators. By contrast, offering only one-year contracts makes us as a district less competitive in hiring and more vulnerable to turnover. Number three, it provides professional respect and morale. Principles carry enormous responsibility, often serving as
004instructional leaders, crisis managers, and community liaons. contracts, multi-year contracts is a sign of trust and professional respect. Empowering principles with multi-year agreement shows we believe in their leadership and want them to grow with us. Number four is it provides um there's still evaluation and accountability and those things are not lost. Multi-year contracts do not mean principles are untouchable. Clear performance expectations, annual evaluations, and mid-contract reviews can still hold leaders accountable. We're not removing accountability. We are here today to replace those things with um replace instability with structure. And it provides district-wide consistency and culture. When principles are constantly in limbo, staff and students also fill it. Consistent leadership helps build consistent district culture and reinforces trust in our administration. It also reduces the hidden cost and financial and relational and frequent turnover. In a time
005where we are demanding more than ever for our principles, let's not undermine their ability to lead. Let's be the kind of district that rewards excellence with stability, not scrutiny. Two-year or three-year contracts are not just good policy, they're good leadership. Thank you. Open it up for further discussion. Yeah. And I'm in opposition to this. First off, this limits the ability of the board to bring annual review. Uh there has never been a time in this district where we have not been able to fill the principal seat. This is the industry standard is one year and this takes away the ability for the district at the time that does not rise to cause to say we are are moving away from you. It takes our ability from our superintendent to have that oversight over us. It
006also places the district in a financial burden by extending multi-year contracts past that one year which again industry standard. Uh you place a property and interest right for that individual to the financial gain that they would have had those coming years. So, if we want to separate with someone past that one year mark where we now have the protections that we can simply part ways amly, we would be looking to have to buy out the contract or go through the full cause of firing. It does not place the district in a better position. My duty as in this board is for the fiduciary protection of the district, not the individual principles. And so that I will be voting no on this. And again, it should not be a threeyear, but Dave, it should be two
007year at most. And the motion currently is for three years. So, and we are perfectly within our rights to discuss two-year if this motion fails. Um, but yes, the motion on the table is for three years. I uh disagree with a few of your points, but the one I want to focus on is that this somehow takes away um our ability to annually review our principles. We still um have an evaluation process. Principles still have the professional expectations that they've always had. Um it's just that now their contract is for a longer period of time giving them more job stability and as um President Rose correctly pointed out um this replaces instability with structure for them. And again they all have current contracts that are valid through April. There is no reason to resend these
008now and not just enter in these longer contracts in April or negotiate at when their contracts are up. This is rushed. It is not appropriate. Further, uh it does we if we have review, let's play this out, right? A principal is doing something. It's not to the level of cause, but it is to the level where we don't think they're doing a good job. We don't have the ability simply to resend their contract. We don't not to resend, but to not renew their contract. We have to basically either give them a buyout which can cost 20, 30 or more thousands of dollars to this district rather than saying you're not doing a good job. You're not meeting our standards. We are simply going to inevitably part ways. This puts us in financial risk or it
009puts us in a place where we're keeping a principal who is underperforming in a position until we are able to separate ways with them. Once again, I am voting no. And just to further address that concern, so um this contract, this multi-year contract is not offered to our new principles. It's only offered to people who have been in their position for three years or more. Um so they've already undergone a probationary period. If they were underperforming, we would already know it. And we always know that people with tenure just are the most excellent performers. So here here's my opinion on this. As you can see, there's um a lot of different opinions and Uh, and that's okay. Um, I I've had conversations with a lot of administrators, not just here, but in rural Arizona. Um,
010this is something I know that is is new. You know, this it is the norm around the state for one-year contracts, but why can't we be the district to change that and say, you know, let's let's look at what does two or three year look like? and we have the the three, you know, they can't get this type of contract until they're going into their fourth year. By that time, um this board and the superintendent is well aware if they're a great administrator or not and if we need to separate. Um also, um it helps with recruiting. So, I I just want to be very clear and and this helps that discussion. While I respect your your opinion, I disagree on the recruiting part because our top school was just open and we had candidate
011for a principal was a great candidate, but one candidate for the best school that we have in this district. And it just goes to show that potentially we could change the narrative for not just this district, but all of rural Arizona of what recruiting could look like, retention could look like. Um I would I would actually like to ask Dr. Stone who is here um virtually. What principles will um how many and what principles will these contracts be available to if this does pass today? Currently four principles um would would have this opportunity that's Mrs. Mercing at Mr. Becker at High School Mrs. Williams at Mrs. And could you share with the board how many years each principal has been with the district or or in I'm sorry not with the district but in their
012their administrative principal roles. So Mrs. Ping has been doing this for five years. Mr. Becker I believe Mrs. Williams is her fourth year going and Mrs. going into court. Okay. Thank you so much. Um is there any further discussion at this time? I will I'm not going to say it as good as Matt. He's got the words that flow. I'm still learning on that. Um we don't have trouble getting principles because once we get them, they stay. We have no issues. There's this is not a common practice in Arizona. I feel like we don't need to make a change for the years in contracts. I feel like we need to make a change in pay. Um opening this up and voting this in uh It could create more lawsuits. It increases risk, which is just
013not in the best interest of the district. We have a principal that's been here for 10 years. That doesn't seem like there's an issue. But we also have, and while I respect that, we also have several principles that have only been in their positions for four or five years. Um, and and again, Oral Grande Elementary School, one of our top schools, only had one candidate. Um and and so you know I I I think everyone has great viewpoints, different viewpoints. Um and and this is one time that the board is all not going to be in in agreement and that's okay. That's what governance sometimes looks like. Um but this time I am going to call for a vote. Yes. No. Yes. No. Yes. Um, I would like to make a secondary motion. Um, I
014move that the board that the board approved the new three-year principal contract presented to the board today and authorize Dr. Stone to prepare the final form of the contracts and extend the board's offer to qualifying principles. I second. Yes. No. Yes. No. Yes. All right. Um, any announcements? There is a governing board meeting tonight at 6:30 or at 6. If you 6:30, you'll be late, but um 6 pm. We hope to see you here. Thank you so much all of you for being here today. And I do want to thank all of our board members. I know I have not yet. No, ma'am. I I do want to give a just a statement to my fellow board members. I know this topic has not been easy. Um, I know this has not been a popular
015discussion, but it's one that I have been having and I I believe that we have an obligation, while I understand all of the opinions given to this board today, um, we have an obligation to make our staff in this district, um, while I do believe in accountability, um, I also believe in them feeling secure in in their position. So um thank all of you for your input and uh this is something that moving forward this board will monitor um based on the decision that we made but if there's nothing else I motion to second. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Thank you for being here.