The School Board of Alachua County (SBAC) voted to table its discussion of Superintendent Shane Andrew’s contract until January, after some confusion in a regular meeting on Tuesday. The board also plans to hold a workshop to discuss the contract. 

The board was scheduled to discuss the superintendent’s contract, which Andrew had expressed hopes of re-negotiating to better reflect a standard superintendent’s contract. In Tuesday’s meeting, he mentioned specifically that his current contract does not allow him the five months of severance pay that former Alachua County Public Schools superintendents received. 

The draft contract attached to the agenda also listed a salary of $225,000 with a yearly increase of 3%, or 4% if a majority of board members rated him “highly effective.” The proposed salary is about 28% higher than the $175,000 contract negotiated for Carlee Simon two and a half years ago. 

Andrew said when he started as superintendent in March 2022 after the board fired Simon, he filled positions of both superintendent and chief of operations for 15 months. Board member Tina Certain said Andrew was fully able to negotiate a contract at the time, and he got everything he wanted from that negotiation. 

Carmen Ward, president of the Alachua County Education Association (ACEA), said it is unfair for Andrew to receive a guaranteed raise that is higher than what teachers have been promised. Ward said ACEA has asked for a 4.3% raise for teachers across the board. 

“This is not the time for the superintendent to receive a raise that so outweighs what the people in the trenches, the people that actually are the public school system, what they are looking forward to earning,” Ward said to the board. 

The contract never reached the discussion stage in Tuesday’s meeting, though. Before the agenda was approved, staff attorney Susan Seigle suggested separating Andrew’s position change from interim superintendent to superintendent from the discussion of his contract terms. Board attorney David Delaney clarified that the state does not recognize an “interim superintendent” position, so Andrew’s contract has always read “superintendent,” under the expectation that he would serve for an interim time period. 

Chair Diyonne McGraw said the board and staff need to adjust their references, as they have called Andrew an interim for as long as he has served in the position. 

Certain asked to pull the contract discussion from the agenda and move it to a January meeting, in addition to scheduling a workshop to talk over the contract. She said since Andrew’s contract does not expire until June 2024, there is no need to rush into negotiations. 

“I urge my colleagues,” Certain said during her board member comment time, “there is no need to change the contract, there is no need to be frantic.” 

Board member Sarah Rockwell seconded the motion, but the other three members voted it down. 

At the end of the meeting, when the board reached the contract discussion, Certain made another motion to table the contract discussion until January, with a workshop before the board votes on the contract. 

Seigle said that while the term “interim superintendent” may have been used incorrectly, her recommendation was to recognize publicly that Andrew is the superintendent, then to pull the draft contract and come back in January as Certain had said. 

Board member Kay Abbitt said board members are distracted by a push to remove Andrew from his position. 

“It’s not so much that it’s super important that he is called superintendent every time he’s addressed,” Abbitt said. “But there’s a feeling that he’s an interim, and there is a movement towards not having him be anything more than an interim. And if you’re wondering why staff sometimes struggles to get things done in this district, all you have to do is just look at this meeting tonight… and all the hoopla that went on for nothing.” 

The contract discussion was originally set for Tuesday’s meeting in October, after the board decided in a split vote to cancel plans to conduct a national search for a new superintendent. Delaney advised the board at the time that such a discussion should be publicly noticed in time for citizens to hear about and attend the meeting. 

Several citizens were present Tuesday, and while they were unable to comment on the superintendent’s contract, they spoke in general public comment time, most against the draft contract. 

While several citizens said they like Andrew as a person, they said they wanted to see a thorough search for a new superintendent. 

“This is not a fiscally sound, nor student centered, proposal,” citizen Julie Crosby told the board. She said the draft contract’s salary and benefits package are excessive, and that additional funds should be considered for teachers.