- This topic has 3 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Trustees,
I have major concerns regarding the contract process that was or wasn’t followed to develop the “final” version of the contract we are to review and vote on tomorrow (6/14/2021):
1) The official motion for the contract development gave only President Weir the ability to negotiate and develop a proposed contract and this motion was not followed as the motion was made and approved by the board. The email we received with the proposed contract indicated that changes “that were negotiated with Dr. Azaiez through the parties’ respective attorneys.” The Board attorney also indicated in a meeting that he had been negotiating the contract. The board did not authorize our counsel to negotiate. The motion was for President Weir to negotiate, and she can not give this duty to someone else without Board approval. I believe this nullifies the current contract as it was not developed as authorized by the Board.
2) Dr. Azaiez was given a draft copy of the contract before the Board, as a whole, had input. This is not acceptable contract negotiations in my opinion. I personally have worked on many contracts and the person or entity being offered the contract does not “help” develop the contract. This process also made it impossible for the Board, as a whole, to have constructive input into key aspects like the starting salary and term limit. This process in my opinion has not been in the best interest of the district or the students we serve. I also question if this is the typical process of Superintendent contract negotiations in which the board is left out of almost the entire “informal” process and then is presented with a final contract to rubber stamp? I was fully under the impression that the contract had to come before the full board for final vote before Dr. Azaiez or his attorney would be able to see it for the first time. This is the typical contract experience I am familiar with. Why would Dr. Azaiez get to basically develop his own contract?
3) Two Trustees have not actively participated in the contract conversation. Trustee Xiao has not been involved with the Board discussion of the contract up to this point and Trustee Vessa was only involved in the short 30-minute discussion where we only had time for mostly Trustee Weston to share her comments. Having two Trustees that did not participate in this important conversation on an 11-page contract is concerning.
4) I am requesting the contract process be started again and this time it be done correctly with appropriate Board approved processes and fidelity.
Trustee Bone,
The motion approved by the full Board was “The Board President be authorized to negotiate a proposed contract with the superintendent finalist subject to Board approval …” The word negotiate clearly contemplates a discussion between two parties, not just me talking to myself.
As is my practice, I tried to be as inclusive as allowed by law even though the motion did not require it. In fact, you were one of the two trustees that had access to the contract during the negotiations, prior to the full Board seeing it on Thursday. You did not raise any issues at that time. You agreed to assist in the process.
This contract negotiation is standard practice in the State of Texas for superintendents. The contract was not done incorrectly, therefore there is nothing to correct.
If the full Board feels we need to discuss these concerns tomorrow we can.
President Weir,
Thank you for responding but the main issue is that you had the board counsel negotiate the contract which was not the motion. While I understand your normal Board President responsibilities can be delegated for others to do a motion by the board has to be followed per the motion. The motion was not for board counsel to negotiate the contract if that is what the board wanted then that should have been the motion. The motion clearly states President.
This also is a financial concern because now the board has attorney expenses that was not authorized by the board corporate for contract negotiations. I would agree that you could have requested some advice for contract negotiations through the board general counsel, but it was evident by the email we received with the proposed final contract and the meeting we had to discuss the proposed contract that the attorney was doing the negotiations for you. This was not the motion in any shape or form. Like I said you have created expenses that the board did not authorize along with a process that the board did not authorize through the motion. This must be discussed by the board and understand the legal implications.
You also stated: “This contract negotiation is standard practice in the State of Texas for superintendents.” Can you point me to a reference for this assertation? I know this is your first hiring of a superintendent as it is mine so I would appreciate a reference to read about this “standard practice” and ensure we followed it. If not a reference maybe you could detail it out here so we can see all the steps followed in this contract negotiation process.
Trustee Bone,
1. As to whether I improperly delegated my responsibilities to negotiate, I will say that your accusations are false and misleading as to what has transpired.
May 21st, the Board authorized me to negotiate. I used the previous superintendent’s contract as a starting point, made the changes that I felt were best for the district and checked with Board Counsel that it was legal and appropriate to make the changes. On June 2nd in an attempt to include more board members I asked Trustees Harrison and Weston to review the first draft. Trustee Weston suggested that you, Trustee Bone be asked to do the review. I then asked you and Trustee Harrison to review the first draft, explaining that the conversation was only to be between us to avoid quorum issues, and the contract would be presented to the full Board on the 10th. On June 3rd you and Trustee Harrison offered edits. On June 6th Trustee Harrison responded again and offered her thoughts on the edits. On Monday, June 7th the edits were finalized and Board Counsel sent the proposed contract to Dr. Azaiez’s attorney for review. On June 9th the full board was provided a copy of the contract and it was reviewed at the meeting on June 10th. On Friday, June 11th, the 21st day following the sole finalist designation, Dr. Azaiez and his attorney were provided a second proposed draft based on the comments/edits from the June 10th meeting. On Saturday, June 12th they provided their feedback and I, as Board President, as authorized by the Board, finalized the negotiated edits of the second proposed contract. The Board was provided that version on June 12th.
2. Board Counsel has been a part of this process from day one, advising and assisting the Board. Never, not once, did you or any other trustee raise a concern about his assistance or the cost of his assistance. Even on Thursday when the contract was discussed, you raised no concerns, monetary or otherwise, about Board Counsel’s involvement to me or the full Board as a Board Corporate. To do so now is disingenuous. Are you really suggesting that Round Rock ISD not utilize an attorney to review a mulit-year contract when the candidate for the position is utilizing an attorney?
- The forum ‘Round Rock ISD Trustees Message Board’ is closed to new topics and replies.