Superintendent's contract extended despite criticism

In an emotional meeting Tuesday night, Superintendent Carol Lark got the vote of confidence she was denied in June.

School board members voted 4-3, with members Sharla Hales, Tom Moore and Teri Jamin voting nay, to extend Lark's $123,000-a-year-contract until June 2011. They also approved reinstating Lark's regular merit pay increases, which were added back to the budget for all administrators in July.

"I've been in the district for 31 years, and there have been problems like this for a long time; it's not just recently," board member Randy Green said of the internal conflict between Lark and her staff.

Green said the situation required an all-or-nothing response: terminate the superintendent or give her a chance to mend relations. He said not extending her contract would virtually equate to firing her, and he was reluctant to do that. He said as a high school government teacher, his students often resented the hypocrisy of adults, that adults could be just as incapable of resolving conflict as children.

"Making people who disagree with you instant enemies is what society does," Green said. "What a horrible lesson for our young people if these issues can't be resolved.

"I always told superintendents they have the highest head-coaching job in the district. But it takes everyone to make a contribution to an entity, not just one person."

Lark asked board members if they wanted another year of accomplishments or if they wanted what a small group of people think.

"A superintendent who has been working for three years probably won't win a popularity contest," she said. "This is a great district, the best district. Remember the accomplishments and what we've gone through this last year. I think I've done an excellent job for you."

Lark's extension was later amended by a 4-3 vote, with Green, Karen Chessell and Cindy Trigg voting nay, to include an additional condition, that the board adopt an improvement plan within the next three meetings geared at resolving the issues between Lark and her staff, including bringing in a professional mediator and/or mentor.

Trigg accused Hales, who introduced the amendment, of trying to undermine the preceding vote on the contract extension.

"This an attempt to go around the board's decision, to go through the back door," said Trigg. "It's profoundly unprofessional."

Moore defended the amendment, arguing it was necessary to ensure relations improve between Lark and her administrators.

"This is another condition of the contract that gives us some reassurance," he said. "We have to be the best stewards of the taxpayers' dollars.

"Extending the contract outright is not in the best interest of the community. It's locked, and if there's no condition, no improvement, our only option is a buyout, and that's not being good stewards of the taxpayers' dollars," Moore said.

In response, Trigg pointed to Lark and the other two members of her administrative cabinet, Chief Financial Officer Holly Luna and Human Resources Director Rich Alexander.

"Those three people sitting there have the best interest of the district at heart and can work it out," she said. "The best interest of the students is to have Lark proceed without a guillotine over her head."

Board members did agree in one area. They unanimously approved moving the notification deadline for renewal or nonrenewal of the superintendent's contract from June 2010 to December of the same year, giving board members, the next time around, six more months to weigh the issue.

Board members also voted again on the evaluation itself. They voted 4-3, with Hales, Moore and Keith Roman in the negative, to approve a satisfactory evaluation of the superintendent.

Roman took issue with language in the motion that stated Lark "exceeded expectations."

"In personnel relations, she falls short," he said. "She was given direction to fix the problem, but at this point, the problem is worse."

The second vote on the evaluation was advised by district counsel to "remove any doubt about our compliance with the Open Meeting Law."

Before Tuesday's regular meeting, board officers Trigg, Moore and Roman meet for a special meeting during which they formally approved the evaluation materials and compilation process.

"We have this matter on the agenda, at the suggestion of our legal counsel and the Nevada Attorney General and without admitting any violation of the Open Meeting Law, which we have denied," Trigg said.

Following the June 17 evaluation, The Record-Courier filed an Open Meeting Law complaint with the state attorney general's office. The R-C was concerned that prior to the June meeting board officers had met in private to compile the evaluation materials, some of which were not available at the June meeting. In the complaint, The R-C said the officers' meeting constituted a subcommittee and should have been subject to public oversight.

"Earlier today (Tuesday), the board officers held a meeting and formally voted to approve the presentation of the evaluation summarization and backup materials for presentation to the entire board for its consideration on this matter," Trigg said.

Also during Tuesday's special meeting, Moore disclosed that his wife Carolyn works in the district office as Lark's and the board's secretary.

"I want to make clear for the record that my wife has provided me no documents or information, confidential or otherwise, to assist me in forming my opinions on this agenda item," Moore said. "My opinions are based on research I have independently conducted with other staff that does not include my wife, as well as feedback I have received from my constituents."

Moore said given the disclosure, he would not abstain from voting on Lark's evaluation and further added, "she (Carolyn) has made a conscious effort to remain neutral on matters involving the superintendent's performance and contract."

The same couldn't be said for other employees in the district office, specifically 12 who signed a petition opposing the extension of Lark's contract.

Virginia Peterson, who works in the human resources department, said Lark's lack of job skills is a "recipe for disaster." She claimed the superintendent had not taken advantage of the last 60 days to mend the fractured environment in the district office.

"She spends her time in the office with the door closed, a clear sign to stay away," Peterson said. "She doesn't contain the leadership or tools needed for the healing process."

However, Mike Ivie, a custodian at Meneley Elementary School, disagreed.

"I've been with the district for four years, and have seen a positive change in internally forcing employees to be responsible and to do what they're supposed to be doing," he said. "Everything has been thrown at her (Lark), and she has been able to handle it better than any superintendent I've seen."