|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Mountain View Whisman’s school board has formally approved a resignation agreement with now-former Superintendent Ayindé Rudolph, and has also signed off on hiring two longtime local school administrators to serve as successive interim superintendents for the rest of the school year.
The board voted 4-0 in closed session to ratify a resignation agreement with Rudolph, board President Devon Conley announced when the board reconvened into open session at a Thursday, Nov. 7, meeting. Under the terms of the deal, which became public last weekend, the district will pay Rudolph nearly $100,000. Rudolph signed the deal on Nov. 1.
The board also voted unanimously in closed session to appoint former Los Altos School District Superintendent Jeff Baier as interim superintendent, starting on Feb. 3. Kevin Skelly is currently serving as interim superintendent, a role he began two weeks ago.
The board voted later in the meeting to approve employment agreements with both Skelly and Baier.
Rudolph’s resignation agreement
Rudolph announced last week that he was resigning from his post as superintendent, a role he’s held since 2015. The decision came after Rudolph had been on a leave of absence for much of October. No reason for the leave was given. The district has been facing controversies on multiple fronts in recent months, including over spending decisions, disputes with the city of Mountain View and a potential state audit.
Rudolph said in a letter posted on social media that after a “recent health scare,” he had realized the “demands of the job continue to have an adverse impact on my health.” He said that he would be focusing on his health and spending more time with his family.
The resignation agreement calls for the district to pay Rudolph three months salary, plus a 4% retirement contribution, which comes out to $98,259.72. He also will remain eligible for health benefits and life insurance through Jan. 31 or until he finds another job, whichever comes first.
Rudolph also agrees under the terms of the deal to pay back the outstanding balance on a home loan that the district gave him, as well as 40% of the appreciated value. In 2020, the school board voted to give Rudolph a low-interest loan to buy a home, a decision that was controversial at the time. Under the terms of that deal, Rudolph would have 180 days after ending his employment to pay the district back. The resignation agreement gives him a couple of months longer, until June 30, 2025.
The resignation agreement also includes language to prevent lawsuits over Rudolph’s departure. The contract calls for both parts to release each other from “any and all claims, demands, causes of action, obligations, damages and liabilities.”
At Thursday’s meeting, several members of the public made comments raising concerns about the resignation agreement. They objected to certain terms in the deal, including the district paying Rudolph when he is resigning, the extension on the deadline for his home loan repayment, and language releasing him from claims and liabilities.
Speakers noted that the district may be subject to a state “extraordinary audit,” which is meant to investigate possible fraud, misappropriation of funds or other illegal fiscal practices.
“Under his contract, the district isn’t obligated to pay Dr. Rudolph a dime if he resigns voluntarily. So why are we giving him almost $100,000?” Mohan Gurunathan asked. “Why are we rewarding a man who is walking away in the midst of several large controversies?”
“This seems to be a very one-sided settlement,” Nancy Achter said. “If we are releasing all claims, there should be no payout.”
Conley told the Voice that three months of severance is “less than what is typical” for this type of agreement, and that the waiver of claims also protects the school district. She added that any criminal findings from an extraordinary audit would be referred to the district attorney.
When previous Superintendent Craig Goldman resigned at the end of 2014, the school board approved paying him 12 months of his salary, which equated to roughly $230,000. The deal was controversial when it happened.
Hiring interim superintendents
At Thursday’s meeting, the school board voted unanimously to approve employment agreements with both Skelly and Baier to serve successively as interim superintendent.
The board voted last month to appoint Skelly to lead the district on a temporary basis, effective Oct. 25. Previously, Chief Academic Officer Cathy Baur had been filing in as acting superintendent.
Thursday’s votes formalized the terms of Skelly’s employment, as well as Baier’s future employment. The agreements note Skelly’s Oct. 25 start date and a Feb. 3 start date for Baier.
Neither agreement has an end date, with both renewing weekly until termination by either the board or interim superintendent. However, the plan is for Skelly to lead the district until Baier takes over on Feb. 3, and for Baier to then remain for the rest of the school year, Conley confirmed to the Voice.
According to district officials, Baier is being brought on so that Skelly can comply with limits on the number of days he can work annually while remaining eligible for the state’s teacher retirement system.
Both Baier and Skelly will be paid $1,400 per day that they work. They aren’t entitled to vacation pay, overtime or compensatory time off, the agreements state. They are both set to receive $500 per month for a car allowance and $5,000 per month for health benefits.
Baier and Skelly’s agreements both include language that they “shall not be reelected or reemployed in the position of Interim Superintendent upon expiration of the term of employment.” Conley said that this language underscores that they are serving on an interim basis. She added that they are both retired and “it is highly unlikely either wishes to leave retirement for a permanent superintendent position.”
Baier was previously the longtime superintendent of the neighboring Los Altos School District, until his retirement in 2022. Earlier in his career, Baier worked in the Mountain View School District, including as principal of Landels elementary school from 1998-2001, according to his LinkedIn page.
Skelly also has a history in Mountain View Whisman. He served as interim superintendent before Rudolph was hired in 2015 and was previously superintendent of the Palo Alto Unified School District. He also served as superintendent of the San Mateo Union High School District from 2015 until his retirement in 2022.
At Thursday’s board meeting, Skelly said that it was great to be back and that he can see a lot that has improved in the district over the past decade. He added that he’s been visiting all the schools and that seeing the students reminds him “why this work is so wonderful.”
“I’m only here a short time, but I plan to work hard to do everything I can to support the district during this time,” Skelly said.
What a farce. It looks like this board, under Blakely and Conley can be shook down. No accountability at all. I hope the two interims can start to begin to restore accountability here. Others should be in line to resign
“Accountability” comes in many forms Yes? I believe that Conley in seeking City Council status was relegated to the bottom half of contenders in this election cycle. It is clear, the City electorate* did not think her a compelling person to take over “oversight” of the bigger City civic responsibility.
Blakely – maybe she ‘saw the light’ and realized that she was not likely to earn reelection to her Trustee post of ‘civic responsibility’.
Will the electorate (*of MVWSD, slightly smaller than MV City) continue to keep Conley in her position? Or will they clearly ask her to resign or recall her?
The $500/month car allowance seems quite unnecessary.
IVG, both live further away than a typical supt (I think skelly lives in San Mateo still), so kind of makes sense if they are doing us a favor.
Mohan and Nancy have lost my trust after jumping up and down that AA shouldn’t be passed….and 75% of the voters approving it. Kind of shows out out of touch they are with…the right thing to do.
Steve, I think the parcel tax vote is a vote for the school board as is. If things were as dire with the Board as you insinuate, fewer would have voted for it. You can’t argue with 75%. And the only reason it’s that low is the Imai area voted in the low 60s. Everyone else was well north of 72%.