Superintendent gets extra year on contract
Clovis schools’ board of education on Tuesday extended Superintendent Neil Nuttall’s contract through the 2005-2006 school year.
Following an executive session that lasted nearly two hours, the measure passed by a 4-1 margin with board member Mark Lansford opposing.
Lansford had no comment on his vote, saying he could not discuss anything that took place in the executive session. Nuttall said he is pleased by the board’s support.
“I work for the entire board. I don’t work for any one board member. Anything that I communicate I communicate to all board members,” Nuttall said. “I take a look at this as the total action by the board and I am very encouraged.”
Nuttall’s contract was due to expire following the 2005 school year. His salary, which Nuttall said is currently $98,500, was not discussed Tuesday, but could be discussed this spring during the budgeting process.
Nuttall is in his seventh year as Clovis school superintendent and the contract extension will keep him through his ninth year. Nuttall said he doesn’t know how long he plans to remain as the school district’s leader.
“As long as the Lord wants me to continue, that is who I leave it up to and I really mean that,” he said. “As long as I feel like I am meeting the goals that I have and I am fulfilling the goals of the board as a whole then I feel like I’ll keep going.”
The board also discussed its policy of adding items to meeting agendas.
At the Jan. 27 meeting, Lansford submitted a request to discuss the policy after he was unable to have a dress-code topic placed on the agenda.
According to the current policy, anyone may request an item be placed on the agenda by contacting the superintendent two days prior to the meeting. Lansford objects to the policy because it allows requests to be denied.
Board members discussed a proposed revision that reads:
“A member of the Board of Education shall be granted the authority to place an item pertaining to school business on the regular Board agenda by requesting in writing no less than two working days before the date of the requested appearance. Requests made by the public and/or a member of the Board of Education must adhere to existing Board Policy. The President of the Board of Education shall review requests and determine compliance within this policy. A board member may appeal the Board President’s ruling and request a vote of the full board at its next regular meeting.”
Lansford said the proposed revision is a step in the right direction but not sufficient.
“It is probably a format that I could accept but it is not where it needs to be,” Lansford said.
“The president of the board should not be in the position to execute policy; we are policy makers. That job belongs to someone in the executive branch. My preference would be an attorney.”
The item will remain open for discussion for 30 days and could come up for vote at the March 9 board meeting.