The School Board of Alachua County postponed its selection of an interim superintendent of schools at a special meeting on Monday and scheduled another meeting to continue discussing candidates for the position.
The board will meet at 6:30 p.m. on Nov. 4 to choose a candidate to replace former Superintendent Shane Andrew, whose contract the board terminated on Oct. 15 after a 3-to-2 vote following Andrew’s unsatisfactory performance evaluation.
Audience members at the meeting voiced their concerns over the board’s decision-making process, emphasizing the need for stability and better governance in the school district.
The meeting began with community members sharing their opinions regarding Andrew’s firing.
“I don’t feel like this approach will benefit the children, and it is fiscally irresponsible,” said Allison Forte, an Alachua resident.
Many meeting attendees expressed concern regarding students and the financial issues facing the county. Others criticized the board’s hasty decision on Oct. 15.
“The decision to terminate the superintendent was arbitrary, capricious and motivated by bad faith,” said Julian Kinsey, a former school board district candidate.
The five board members appeared taken aback by the audience’s anger and called for a five-minute recess.
Following the break, each board member – starting with the two members who voted against the firing – spoke about their decision to terminate Andrew’s contract.
SBAC board member Sarah Rockwell said she felt she had not expressed herself adequately at the last board meeting and was upset with how events transpired.
“Quite frankly, I was blindsided and shocked,” Rockwell said.
The other board member who voted against the termination, Tina Certain, said she thought Andrew was still learning on the job and lacked the necessary skillset, but added that she did not believe termination had been warranted.
Board member Leanetta McNealy spoke about her efforts to recruit potential candidates for the position.
“Everyone from the inside and outside of this county turned me down. No one is going to want to come in with a 3-to-2 vote,” McNealy said.
Several audience members asked whether Andrew would consider coming back if the board members were to reverse their original vote, but McNealy said Andrew had “personal reasons” that made it difficult for him to resume the position.
Board chairwoman Diyonne McGraw, whose term expires Nov. 19, commented on the criticism she has received throughout her four-year term, which has increased following Andrew’s termination.
“I don’t like the fact that people insinuate that I did something wrong. When you are criticized for no reason, people get tired,” McGraw said.
School board staff attorney Will Spillias requested a recess after a brief back and forth between board members, board attorney David Delaney, and himself.
“This is ridiculous,” said McGraw as she exited the meeting during the recess period.
After the 10-minute recess ended, McGraw asked Deputy Superintendent Cathy Atria whether she would consider replacing Andrew. Atria said she needed time to discuss it with legal counsel.
After the board discussed several candidate options for the superintendent position, it became evident there was not going to be an appointment at Monday’s meeting.
Newly elected board member, Thomas Vu, who will fill McGraw’s seat, shared his thoughts on the decision to fire Andrew via a Facebook post.
“Well… that happened. These are the types of political games our students, teachers and families can’t afford. Our community deserves better,” he wrote.
Board member Kay Abbitt cited in her evaluation that Andrew “needs improvement” and said she felt a change was needed.
Andrew was the seventh school superintendent in the last 10 years, which observers contend has left the district in a state of limbo.
McGraw, who was in favor of the termination, described the board’s relationship with Andrew as “unsatisfactory” and had harsh words for the board and the former superintendent in her evaluation.
“It is an unsatisfactory state as a result of constant undermining of operational decisions made by the superintendent and district staff, constant disrespect and unprofessionalism displayed by some board members, and consistent unethical behavior,” McGraw wrote in her evaluation.