Dr. Bob McDowell received a three-year contract extension as Hastings Public Schools Superintendent at the Nov. 22 school board meeting. Board Chair Brian Davis, Vice Chair Stephanie Malm, Director Lisa Hedin, and Director Becky Beissel voted aye on the approval of the new contract. Directors Carrie Tate and Jessica Dressely voted nay, and the motion was carried 4-2.
The meeting room in the Hastings Middle School Media Center was noticeably full, attended by more than 60 residents awaiting the board’s decision, many wearing Hastings Schools shirts. The vote was not without some controversy developed over the past year, but the board’s approval of the contract was ultimately welcomed with a round of applause by a majority of the crowd in attendance, resulting in a call to order by Chair Davis.
Director Tate began the meeting by asking for a closed session to discuss Superintendent McDowell’s performance in a private setting, which was seconded by Dressely. In the Nov. 9 special meeting, it was decided that performance would not be publicly discussed in reference to the contract renewal, as a year-end evaluation had already been conducted in June 2022, and the results awarded the superintendent an “effective to highly effective” rating. At that special meeting, the board also approved the release to board members of emails pertaining to legal correspondence between the school district and its law firm over the past year. Tate’s motion for a closed session discussion did not carry. The vote was 3-3, with Tate, Dressely and Beissel voting aye, and Davis, Malm, and Hedin voting nay. The meeting continued on its original agenda.
“I believe we need to just to take a step back,” Tate said. “We have not yet voted on whether or not we are going to move forward with offering the superintendent a new contract, before we get into the details.”
Davis said that if she did not want to offer him a new contract, she was free to vote no.
Tate continued, “According to his current contract, we have to let him know in writing before Dec. 1 if we are not going to offer him a contract at all. So, if we just vote on the existing contract as it is, and we don’t agree to it, that may just mean that we need to adjust the terms and conditions, which is very different than no, we are not offering a new contract, period. So, I think it’s two separate votes.”
Davis replied, “My understanding was that your expectation was to be able to get something done by Dec. 1. This kills two birds with one stone. If the contract is not something that you can get behind, that’s been worked on, then I would say that you should vote no to it.”
Dressely said, “My understanding is that if we weren’t going to offer a subsequent contract, we had to have it in writing by Dec. 1, not that we had to have the contract approved by Dec. 1.”
Issues raised by Dressely included a 13.87% salary increase over the next three years compared to the average district increase of 2% per year. Also highlighted were an increase to seven weeks’ vacation time, as well as built-in assurances that in the event of dismissal, over $100,000 in guarantees could be paid out by the district, regardless of the reason for termination.
