The League of Women Voters of Manatee County Education Issues Action Team observes the School Board of Manatee County meetings for items of interest to citizens and to the League, and notes adherence, or lack of adherence, to good governance procedures and the Sunshine Law. The League also provides feedback to school board members.
The meeting was called to order by Chair Choate at 9:01 AM. He led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Public Comments
There were 6 public commenters. One spoke about naming schools as an honor. Another addressed the lack of adequate notice for this meeting. The others spoke in support of the Superintendent.
New Business: Board Discussion Regarding Superintendent Contract (General Fund)
Chair Choate said they felt a special meeting was appropriate and they wanted to wait until after graduations. He did not want to hold this discussion during a regular Board meeting where student achievement is celebrated.
Mr. Choate complimented Dr. Wysong as a person, but said there’s a need for change in leadership at the top. Chair Choate asked for a motion to terminate the superintendent’s contract without cause, effective today, May 20, 2025. Mr. Kennedy moved, and Ms. Spray seconded the motion.
Chair Choate asked Attorney Dye to explain what has been done so far. Attorney Dye stated he collaborated with Dr. Wysong’s attorney on the separation agreement. The attorneys viewed this as a potential termination without cause. They worked on a written amendment to his contract: With termination without cause, Dr. Wysong is entitled to severance payment that is not provided with cause or for resignation. The severance payment is 20 weeks of full compensation, plus the 90-day notice period of compensation.
[Dye starts speaking at 36:51 here.]
Board Discussion
LWV Note: Each Board Member made lengthy comments, which have been edited for brevity. The meeting can be viewed in full here.
Board Members Choate, Kennedy and Spray desired to terminate the Superintendent’s contract. Their reasoning was based on their perceptions of communication failures.
Members Tatem and Felton did not support termination.
[Note: A case in January was mentioned several times in discussion. The case is still ongoing. The initial board action is described in the January 25, 2025 LWV Notes here.]
Mr. Tatem made a motion to indefinitely postpone the motion on the floor so they can go through “counseling before divorce” and Ms. Felton seconded. Members Choate, Kennedy, and Spray said they will not support the motion to postpone.
In his comments, Dr. Wysong thanked the Board that this meeting was set aside for a few days to focus on graduations. He expressed dismay that it has come to this, and had hoped to be here for much longer.
Dr. Wysong highlighted gains and accomplishments for the district and complimented his deputy superintendents. He said he understands concerns about transparency, but he always follows the advice of legal counsel. He stated he is going to leave the Board with a document of considerations for future situations. Dr. Wysong concluded saying it has been a privilege to serve.
Mr. Tatem’s motion to indefinitely postpone failed 2-3 with Mr. Tatem and Ms. Felton voting yes; Members Choate, Kennedy, Spray voting no.
Ms. Spray called the question. Board Members Choate, Spray, and Kennedy voted in favor of the motion to terminate the Superintendent’s contract without cause, while Members Felton and Tatem voted against it.
Ms. Spray made a motion to authorize the Board Chairman and Board Attorney to finalize amended terms of the Superintendent’s contract for a severance package with Dr. Wysong’s attorney. Mr. Kennedy seconded and motion passed 5-0.
A recess was called. After the recess, the Board discussed nominees for the role of Interim Superintendent. Board members said they wanted to consider someone who would not be applying for the position.
After discussion, Mr. Kevin Chapman, current Executive Director of Administration, was nominated and approved 5-0 to serve as Interim Superintendent.
The meeting adjourned at 1:40 p.m.
GOVERNANCE AND SUNSHINE
This meeting exhibited an egregious lack of good governance and has potentially jeopardized the public’s trust in this Board. There were multiple examples of poor governance with regards to scheduling, transparency, and accountability to the students, employees of the district, and the community at large.
Meeting Schedule
Communication with the public about meetings is a responsibility of the School Board. The post for this morning’s meeting was made on Friday, May 16, giving stakeholders only four days’ notice. Most residents, parents and district and school personnel could not attend a weekday morning meeting on short notice, which reduced the public’s ability to give their input. While this short window may conform to requirements of the law, it is disingenuous at best for an issue this serious to have so little notice.
The purpose of Special Meetings must be specific. The description of the meeting’s topic was vague and bordering on deceptive. It was only through news reports on Monday that the community learned the board would be discussing the Superintendent’s termination. Again, the public’s ability to comment on an important topic was diminished.
It is important to note that consideration of the Superintendent’s evaluation and timeline was already scheduled for June. Nevertheless, Board Members Choate, Kennedy and Spray stated it was best to have this meeting right now. They later contradicted themselves when they claimed the termination of the Superintendent was not a knee-jerk reaction, and that they had been dissatisfied for months. It begs the question of why they couldn’t wait, especially considering the activity level at this time of the year.
These actions give the impression that the Board was trying to hide from the voters and that public input was not welcome. It also lends to questioning fidelity to the Sunshine requirements.
Justifications for Termination
All board members agreed the termination was without cause. By most measures, Dr. Wysong was doing an outstanding job. Board Members Felton and Tatem provided ample examples of his successes. The public can see the difference at board meetings. He has surrounded himself with a highly qualified and effective leadership team, important information about programs and student progress is provided to the board and public at each meeting, and board questions are answered accurately and in depth. We observed this to be a far cry from previous administrations. Good governance would suggest that the board would want to stay the course, not cause unnecessary disruption.
It was concerning to the observers that the three board members voting for Dr. Wysong’s termination gave the same reason – communication issues – and no other specific reasons were offered. Ms. Felton noted that it was the board who glossed over the communication section of board/superintendent joint training before the training was discontinued altogether. Board Members Choate and Kennedy themselves acknowledged that they too, were not perfect, and could have communicated better on occasions.
None of the complainants described any efforts they had made to provide constructive feedback to the Superintendent or the steps they took to improve their own communication with Dr. Wysong. In fact, Mr. Kennedy reported that Dr. Wysong had asked for specific feedback, but that he (Kennedy) had declined, preferring to stay “general.” Mr. Tatem’s motion to postpone the termination so that they could work on a solution together was rejected. Dr. Wysong did acknowledge that he could improve.
Good governance would suggest the appropriate action for the Board was to take steps to work with the Superintendent to rectify their communication issues, not take the drastic step of termination, as was suggested by Mr. Tatem when he said they needed “counseling, not a divorce.”
Observers agreed that Mr. Tatem was correct when he questioned what impact it would have on their workforce and on the search for a replacement. He rightly stated that employees and candidates alike would be concerned about getting fired despite lack of cause. Observers concur that today’s actions could have a chilling effect on present employment and future recruitment. We fear this action will impact the quality of applicants for Superintendent.
Lastly, it was not lost on the observers that these Board Members wanted to terminate the Superintendent for failures in communication during a meeting that was not correctly communicated to the public.
Accountability to the Public and District Employees
Good governance requires that Board actions be in the best interest of the school district, and there are reasonable expectations that the Board supports the Superintendent if he is meeting his goals, following the law and acting responsibly to carry out the duties assigned to him. The LWV Manatee has already commented on the two occasions earlier this year when the Board called out the Superintendent in public for taking personnel actions that are in his purview and were handled according to the law with the advice of counsel. A particularly low point at this meeting was Mr. Kennedy’s comments challenging Dr. Wysong about the context for the data Dr. Wysong cited, as if Mr. Kennedy was searching for something else to criticize. Then the Board terminated him without cause in a very public meeting. This is not good governance.
As of this meeting, the district is now in the position of having to find a new superintendent – in uncertain fiscal times and when there is much to be done to prepare for the next school year. This is not good governance and is certainly not in the best interests of students, staff and the community of Manatee County.
Taxpayers’ dollars will now be spent on the severance package for Dr. Wysong that amounts to approximately 20 weeks’ pay. Interim Superintendent Kevin Chapman and whomever is selected to succeed Dr. Wysong will of course be paid during these 20 weeks. And then there is the cost of a search for a new superintendent. The search that concluded with hiring Dr. Wysong cost $40,000. This is an expensive tab for firing someone without cause and does not serve the schools or community.
Over the years the observers have watched different School Boards follow many good governance principles and sometimes fail to do so. We note that there had been significant improvement in the conduct of board meetings since we first started these observations. Tuesday’s meeting, however, was a reversal of that improvement trend. It was, in a word, appalling.
Despite a very difficult topic and a stark division in opinions, Board Members addressed each other respectfully throughout the meeting.
The observers commend Mr. Tatem for his conscientious comments about leadership responsibilities and for his reasonable suggestion on how they could choose “counseling” over “divorce.” During the discussion about nominees for Interim Superintendent, Mr. Tatem clarified that he was only using his phone to text the individual being considered to get a written answer that he did not want to be nominated.
Ms. Felton is also to be recognized for her preparation for this meeting and use of concrete evidence to make her position to retain the Superintendent.
Comments
No comments on this item
Only paid subscribers can comment
Please log in to comment by clicking here.