7/9/24 Board Meeting Recap

• ​​Item 3, Presentation of Superintendent's Contract. The board discussed Mr. Alvarado's proposed contract.  Gilkerson, Kangas, and Wagstaff recommended altering the contract from four years to three years.  In addition, Trustee Wagstaff proposed making the first year of the contract probationary.  Trustee Englekirk moved to accept the proposed contract.  Trustee Wagstaff moved to amend his motion to include a probationary first year.  This motion failed 4-3.  The vote on approving the contract as presented passed 4-3 with Burns, Dickerson, Englekirk, and Jansen voting for it.  Mr. Alvarado is officially the new superintendent of DCSD.

• Item 4, Special Counsel Report on Investigation (information only). Because Mr. Hardy, the attorney from Marquis Aurbach, was delayed, this item was moved down the agenda.  When Mr. Hardy arrived, the board held a "litigation session" behind closed doors.  This took over 40 minutes.  When the meeting resumed, Mr. Hardy read verbatim the letter that was attached to this meeting's agenda as well as the May 21st agenda.  Mr. Aurbach closed his presentation by saying, ". . . at this point in time, the investigation is concluded, and we look forward to the fact that these incidents have been resolved."  Mr. Hardy did not provide any findings in public, so if this matter is truly concluded, board trustees and members of the public should stop making suggestions and innuendo that wrong-doing occurred. The only follow-up comment came from Trustee Burns who stated, "Thank you so much for being here and your investigation.  We appreciate your input, and I am sure that our new superintendent is going to be all over this." Also, the cost to the district for this investigation is at least $31,529.39, not including the final charge for Mr. Hardy's attendance and presentation/reading at this board meeting.

• Item 6, Student Representative for Board Meetings. Trustee Gilkerson moved to approve the second reading of this policy in order to enact it.  After some discussion with Trustees Dickerson and Jansen sharing concerns about having student input for the board to consider, the board voted 5-2 to approve it, with Dickerson and Jansen opposed.

• Item 9, iNVest Resolution.  This item did not seem significant at the time, but it revealed some interesting trustee perspectives. The iNVest plan is created by the superintendents for all seventeen school districts and the charter school authority in the State of Nevada.  It attempts to communicate the specific and agreed-upon needs of our schools with the legislature in order to craft effective laws and directives from that body in the next legislative session.  Trustees Dickerson and Burns had many questions and needed more information.  It seemed that they believed that this advocacy could relinquish the "sovereignty" of DCSD to the legislature, that is the ability to make decisions for our students and staff.  Mrs. Dwyer explained it was the opposite:  She said that this is an important and unified education perspective that can impact the information legislatures receive and express the priorities of all school districts in Nevada.  After much discussion, Trustee Gilkerson moved to endorse the plan with DCSD's support.  The motion passed 5-2 with Dickerson and Jansen opposed.

• Item 14, Legal Counsel Explanations of Attorney General's Opinions [on Open Meeting Violation Complaints].  The two Open Meeting Law complaints were presented by Kendra Jepsen, the first with no finding and the second with a finding of a violation.  This met the requirement given by the Nevada Attorney General's Office.

• Item 15, Prioritizing Agenda items.  Trustee Dickerson had a concern about a cell tower that is being installed across the street from Douglas High School.  She wants to know about possible health effects for students and staff.  We will look for this on an upcoming agenda and follow up.

​

• We hope that this summary is helpful and informative.  Please email any questions you have that we can pursue.