001I call this meeting to order. Please join me in the pledge of allegiance. May I have roll call, please? >> Mrs. Greenberg, >> here. >> Mrs. Christensen >> here. >> Dr. Lim >> here. >> Mr. Panta >> here. >> Miss Wani >> here. >> Get a little feedback. Is Is that okay? That feedback we're getting. All right. Um, next on the agenda is discussion and possible action on hearing officer's findings, conclusions of law and recommended decision concerning the employment of superintendent C. Todd Cummings. As a preliminary matter, Superintendent Cummings has requested that the board delay this matter until the week of February 16th, 2026. The board has received communication from both Drs. Cummings council and the district's council. The board will hear from Dr. Cummings council on the request. Is he here? I don't know
002if he's here or not. >> Not >> he's not online then. All right. So, I'm going to skip that part. Um would the district council like to speak regarding Dr. Cummings request? >> Yes, President Pantara, members of the board, it's the district's position that uh this is not necessary. We've set this forth in a pleading to you today. Plus, uh I note that Dr. Cummings, uh through his council has submitted a written pleading. So, uh it's our uh opinion and that this is not necessary and that you should deny the request. >> The governing board can now discuss and decide whether to grant the request for continuence. Is there any discussion? No. May I please have a motion? >> I move the governing board to deny the request for continuance from Dr. Cummings. >> Um,
003is there a second? >> I second. >> Okay. It has been moved and seconded that the governing board deny the request for continuence for Dr. Cummings. Uh hearing no further discussion, we will proceed to vote. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> All those thank you. All those opposed say nay. Any abstensions? Motion passes unan unanimously. Five eyes. Zero nays and zero abstensions. Now the governing board will address the hearing officer's recommendation recommended decision. The parties are to limit their remarks to the board to 10 minutes. Because the district has the burden of proof, I invite district council to speak first, then the board will hear from Dr. Cummings if he shows up. The district council will have an opportunity for rebuttal before the governing board discusses and takes action on the hearing
004officer's decision. >> May I proceed? >> Yes, please. >> Mr. President, Pantara, members of the board, my name is Susan Seagull. Uh I work at Gus Rosenfeld and uh my client is the district administration uh in this matter. Uh I will make a short closing argument. You have received today uh the objections of Dr. Cummings to the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommended action of hearing officer Harold Mko. Uh the district supports the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations of Harold MKO and asks that you approve them and adopt them. Uh there were several things raised in the um pleading submitted this afternoon after 3:00 by Dr. Cummings uh attorney. I just want to point out um some errors and inconsistencies in those. First of all, there was a two-day evidentiary
005hearing. Each party called witnesses. Um, we had an opportunity for each party to cross-examine the others witnesses, and it was uh a robust hearing, so to speak. Um, notably, Dr. Cummings, however, did not testify at all on his own behalf. Uh, notably, he would not allow Mr. Hixenba, who you've who was his attorney in South Bend when he negotiated his buyout contract to testify about conversations he had with the South Bend attorney, which were clearly not confidential in our opinion. The hearing process followed the requirements of of Dr. Cummings own contract, negotiated contract in Arizona law. Mr. Mero issued findings of fact conclusions of law and his recommended decision on uh the 4th last week and we have had five working days to respond to that. All of this time since the notice of statement
006of charges u has been adopted all of this time Dr. Cummings has been paid his full salary, benefits, um, and allowances and stipens. Once the board adopts, uh, if it does, and we request that it does, these findings of fact and conclusions of law, uh, these provision where he would, he being Dr. Cummings would receive his full salary will stop. Um, what evidence was presented? The allegation that Dr. Cummings was untruthful on on his application. It's all set forth in in Mr. Merkhouse's uh findings and conclusions and it's also set forth in the statement of charges. The question to him was, "Have you ever been bought out of a contract or placed on administrative leave? If so, please explain limit 200 words." Well, Mr. or Dr. Cummings didn't even need that 200 do 200word limit.
007He answered, "No, I recently retired. I'm utilizing my acred days to get to the end of my contract. My board presumably Southbend did settle my remaining year." This is untruthful and misleading. uh by in Indiana uh unlike Arizona, there's a statute that says that buyouts have to be limited to under $250,000 or uh the amount of the last contract, which is less. In fact, he had he being Dr. Cummings had negotiated a contract with Southbend whereby he was paid $225,000 uh for the 2025 2020 26 year this year and for last year he was which he represented to be the last year of his contract he was allowed to take his acred leave and uh and and be paid that out. So it was only half-truths uh you know truth is the truth and in
008this case uh it is the district's uh argument and we maintain supported by the evidence uh that this was a complete untruth and it was designed completely to mislead the board and anybody else who read it. Um you will see in his argument the art uh that he submitted today that Dr. Cummings argues that Mr. Hixenbaw, an attorney in Indiana who testified, um, testified this was not a buyout agreement. Mr. Murkow didn't believe it. He didn't buy it and didn't believe it. This goes to the weight of the evidence and we ask that you also uh, give it the weight that Mr. Merkow gave it, which was nothing. What we found was in the documents that were submitted by Dr. Cummings um to your staff. There was a page attached to the uh submitted to
009Sarah Hackett. There was a page attached to the settlement agreement um in in the numbered SE sequence in which it says um that what he was being paid out was um $23,000 uh which um was in addition to other benefits which was by statute. statute that they were referring to was the statute in Indiana that talked to buyout of a superintendent's contract. Again, a an attempt to, for one of a better word, bamboozle uh the board, bamboozle anybody who looked at it um and be be tricky. It's not cute by half. It is deceitful. Mr. Ogle testified that this was a buyout of the separation agreement. Um the testimony was clearly there and the hearing officer, Mr. Merkel, uh clearly did not believe Mr. Hixenba and neither nor should he have. Other arguments that were
010raised that are in the pleading and are new is that there was no investigation in writing. Uh there's no requirement in Arizona that there be an investigative report in writing. Um and the fact that um Dr. Cummies did not testify about what Mr. Hicks andba told him. Um, it didn't imply anything. There's something in there in his argument that he submitted today that that implies that Mr. Hicks andba told him this wasn't a buyout. We don't have any evidence in the record that this was not a buyout. Then after Mr. or Dr. coming started here. Uh in the three months that he was here, he initiated uh a practice and pattern of of incompetence, of disrespect, disregard, rudeness, um being just generally difficult to work with and being counterproductive to what the district's mission was.
011Um the we the district hired Lisa Anne Smith of the law firm of Deacon Cini McDonald. No no no no attachment to this board or district other than the fact that she was a qualified individual to investigate. She interviewed many witnesses from the district and found them all to be credible. She did not find Dr. Cummings to be credible. She concluded that good and just cause exist to terminate Cummings contract. uh with the district for incompetence, unprofessional conduct, inefficiency, and violation of district policies and regulations. Uh she found that Dr. Cummings violated both the contract and the board policy in his role as a diff district superintendent. Among other acts, Dr. Cummings engaged in conduct that was in breach of the board policies and the agreement that he had signed with the district. He did
012not fulfill his duties. He created an unprofessional and counterproductive work environment. He did not encourage collaboration among his administrators and made decisions without input from them. He demonstrated incompetence and performance of his duties. He engaged in unprofessional conduct. He failed to demonstrate leadership and build confidence with experienced and professional administrators. He violated board policy. He engaged in conduct that materially interfered with the business and continued or efficient performance of his duties. At the very end of his uh argument that he submitted today and at the argument at the hearing, Mr. uh Dr. Cummings argued that uh that his due process rights were violated. At no time were his due d process rights violated. While he was placed on administrative leave, which was not for disciplinary reasons, but it was on uh dis it was administrative
013leave, Dr. Cummings was paid his full salary, his full benefits, and any other stipens that went along with that. That's not disciplinary. There was no loss of property. Um the hearing set on u uh January 22nd to 23rd satisfies the Louderm Mill case. um due proc and the Pavlick versus Chin Lee school district case. Um the due process were uh requirements were met. Um he was given notice. He was allowed to uh discover documents. He was allowed to cross-examine witnesses. Um and he was allowed to present witnesses of his choosing. Simply because he disagrees with this does not really mean that he was deprived of due process. Now, I was thinking tonight as to what I would say to close this argument. I want to say that your policies demand and your board exemplifi exemplifies
014um good conduct standards in the district, standards in the community, standards that you expect your staff, all of your staff to live up to. same standards of student conduct that you expect your students to live up to. You expect people to act that way. How can you have that those expectations when you have a leader that violates board policy, is unprofessional, and is incompetent? I'm here to answer any questions that you have. >> Thank you. I want to be thorough here for sure. Dr. Cummings or his representatives not online, not here at all. Okay. Then does anyone have a question or or comments? Mrs. uh Christensen. >> Good evening. Thank you for that thorough analysis and um summary to the board. My question is, should we choose to accept the findings and terminate today, will
015we sever all ties and not have to pay out any additional money? >> Uh, Mr. Panta, members of the board, Mrs. Christensen. Uh it would sever all ties and in my view would uh stop you paying any money to him. Of course, anybody can come up with a theory uh for a lawsuit. There may be a lawsuit in the future, but you have followed it by the book. In my view, uh you've followed constitutional and state law. You have followed what your own policy has said and have given a very fair shake to Dr. Cummings to prove that he did not violate all of these provisions and he did not meet his burden of proof and the district by preponderance of the evidence and more we would submit has proven that he should be terminated.
016>> Are there any more comments? >> Mrs. Christensen? >> Yes. I just wanted to thank legal counsel and everyone involved. I know that this has been a very difficult time for our for our district and um while I wished it would have been more of a speedier process, I do understand that we had to cross all the eyes, c cross all the tees, dot our eyes, and um do a thorough investigation. So, I just wanted to thank you and all everyone that was involved in this process. >> Uh if I may, Mr. Pantara, I also want to commend the employees of this district who came forward and testified. It was a brave moment. Um, I'm sure they had a couple of gut checks. Um, that they told me to a person. They wanted to tell
017the truth and get the story out so that people understood that a school district like this is not going to tolerate this type of conduct. >> Any other comments? Um, Mrs. Warning, >> I just want to reiterate um what Mrs. Christensen said. Thank you so much for your thoroughess um and for really I think positioning us so that um upon receiving the objections um I feel like you've provided us with all the information that we need to evaluate that with the um seriousness that it deserves. Um the reality is um we we live in a in a system where anybody can sue anyone for anything at any time pretty much. So um let me ask if if that were to be uh a next step where um Mr. Dr. Cummings decides he wants to initiate
018a civil suit um obviously we would have no choice but to respond to that. Um, in your experience, is there case law statute that we could rely on that if a um a court of law found that there was no credibility to uh to that potential lawsuit where we could potentially seek attorneys fees and reimbursement and that sort of thing if it were to go down that path. >> U Mr. Pander Tara, members of the board, Miss Wanie, um there are uh several statutes that could apply if there's subsequent litigation. It would be speculative of me tonight to say what they would be and what theory Dr. Cummings would pursue. Um but there are statutes that allow the prevailing party in employment matters to um recover attorney's fees. >> Thank you. >> Any other comments?
019Uh Mrs. Greenberg, you there? Do you have any comments? >> I uh I'm here. Thank you, Mr. Pantara. I will keep them short because of the reverb there. Um I I agree with everything Mrs. Christensen, Miss Wani have said. I want to thank legal counsel um having spent many hours with uh all of them both Miss O'Rine and Miss Seagull. I appreciate the thoroughess that Gus Rosenfeld has shown and I do want to thank as she did all of our employees um for everything they have done during this time and I am glad we are here. Thank you. >> Dr. Do you want any comments? >> I think it's just a thank you to our community and to all the work that you guys have put in collectively across the district and our legal council.
020We wouldn't be here without all this support. And while it has gone on for a while, I feel like we've reached the point where we have done everything we can before reaching this point. And I appreciate the support and all of that that has gone into this and all the thankless work that has happened at the district and legal level for this. So, thank you for your time >> and going along with my colleagues. I really thank you all. I really liked the uh communication aspect. We're always in the loop. We knew what was going on the whole time and I really appreciate that. Any more comments? Uh then may I have a motion? I move the governing board adopt the hearing officer's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommend a decision as its
021own and terminate the employment of superintendent C. Todd Cummings effective today. I further direct legal counsel to transmit any notice required by law regarding the termination to Dr. Cummings and his council. Any board members wishing to make comment? No. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> All those opposed say nay. Any abstensions? Motion passes unanimously. Um. May I have a motion to adjurnn. >> So moved. >> All those in favor say I. >> I. All those pay opposed say nay. Motion passes unanimously. We are journ