Lakeville Schools Seek Agressive Solution to Growing Superintendent Controversy

Lakeville's School Board on Tuesday discussed an aggressive timetable for seeking departing Superintendent Gary Amoroso’s replacement. Amoroso submitted a  to the board two weeks ago and is scheduled to leave the district effective June 30.

Hundreds of Burnsville families have students in Lakeville schools so the growing superintendent controversy directly affects them and their future education.  

The school board reached a consensus agreement during its work session Tuesday night to draft a Request for Proposal (RFP) and seek an outside consulting firm to conduct the search for a replacement for Amoroso.

Ideally, the board will complete the RFP at a special meeting on April 13 with the goal of reviewing proposals from consultants and tentatively setting May 3 as the target date for making a decision on which firm they will entrust to conduct the search.

Board member Jim Skelly pressed for an aggressive timetable and suggested the April 26 selection date as an alternative to a proposed May 10 date.

“May 10 is an aggressive time schedule,” said Skelly. “So is April twenty-six. But we may be in a different marketplace on the 26 if we can get it done by then. The sooner we start the better.”

Board member Bob Erickson had noted earlier that the Rochester, Shakopee and Farmington school districts were also engaging in searches for new superintendents and that “Rochester has already selected a firm and RFPs are already going out in other districts.”

The hiring decision is critical for a Lakeville school district that is fresh off a  that saw the  school and widespread staff reductions.

While the hiring timetable remains flexible, the sense of urgency was evident with members also targeting Aug. 1 as a potential deadline for hiring a new superintendent.

The unplanned expense will obviously cause additional budget considerations but no estimate was available as to what the search might cost.

“Many people are saying we can do the search ourselves,” said Board memer Michelle Volk during discussion of the issue. “What is the answer as to why we can’t?”

Board member Kathy Lewis said that Lakeville “deserves the best superintendent we can possibly get,” and that the process of finding a high-quality candidate requires a “certain level of expertise” that only a qualified search firm could provide.

“Search firms are networked much more differently than we could ever be,” said Coard Chairwoman Judy Keliher. “They would be able to tap into people we couldn’t reach.”

Erickson emphasized the importance of a thoughtful and well-planned RFP in the hiring process and said that the board focusing on defining the expectations and parameters of the RFP would result in a more effective and less costly search.

“To me, those are the most important single elements,” said Erickson. “We don’t need a search firm to be doing compensation negotiations. I think the board can handle that. I don’t want the search firm’s main focus to be compensation.”

Compensation was an obviously disconcerting subject as the board also held in-depth discussions surrounding the terms of Amoroso’s contract that allows him to receive , unused sick pay and health benefits upon his departure.

Terms of that contract were approved by the board last summer as part of a three-year agreement. Amoroso’s announcement that he was leaving this summer to take a position as Executive Director of the Minnesota Association of School Administrators caught the board mostly by surprise.

Volk noted the outrage the terms of Amoroso’s contract have caused from a steady stream of phone calls she has received on the issue.

“I could not believe the number of calls I received from people that… were absolutely furious with us,” said Volk. “I had to tell them the truth, and the truth is that I approved that contract. As a school board member my goal has always been about trying to look out for the taxpayer. I told them that I didn’t realize that by approving that contract that something such as retirement would trigger that payout.”

Volk said she thought that only by the board deciding to discontinue employment would the severance package kick in and vowed not to approve a similar contract for the incoming superintendent.

“I think retirement is something you plan, not something that just comes up,” said Skelly. “I think the severance portion is just wrong. It defies reason.”

Erickson stated that the questions he had received most often were if the board was obligated to accept Amoroso’s retirement and if it was possible for the board to modify the retirement date to reduce the cost of the entitlements.

Administrative Services Director Tony Massarsos clarified that the board was obligated to accept the retirement date but that it could be modified “upon mutual consent.”

Amoroso, who was absent for the latter portion of the work session when the discussions surrounding his replacement and contract occurred, has given no indication on whether or not, or to what extent, he will exercise the provisions in his contract. He has stated previously only that he expected the board to abide by the contract.

Lewis relayed phone call conversations from a different viewpoint that she said she had received in response to the controversy.

“The ones that I received were, ‘did you know that was in the contract’, and I was able to say, yes, I did,” she said. “And two, ‘so why are you welching on it’?”

Lewis supported the contract wording by saying that “the main reason I have as to why you have severance in a contract is because you don’t want a revolving door for your superintendents.”

Keliher, for her part, said the board should respect the fact that Amoroso froze his salary for two years and that Amoroso is willing to forego a scheduled performance review that would potentially entitle him to an additional compensation package.

While the lively debate may have helped clear the air about board members’ feelings surrounding the situation, it was also apparent that the members were resigned to living with the situation.

“That’s too much money for someone that leaves a district for another job,” said Skelly. “That’s a bad deal for Lakeville schools. But looking forward, I don’t think it’s the right place to be cheap when looking at that position either. It’s a fine line of intricacies.”

After the board determines the specifics of the RFP for search firms to find Amoroso’s replacement, they will then turn their focus to determining how best to address the terms of a compensation package for the incoming candidate without deterring potential applicants.