Thoughts on the Board's recent extension of Dr. Hamlett's contract

Twitter: @valnmathis

TL/DR:

The CHCCS Board of Education recently extended Dr. Hamlett's contract.

This extension increased the term of her contract to the maximum extent allowed under state law.

This extension increased her salary to more than a quarter of a million dollars a year while granting her an additional full week of vacation time. The Board increased Dr. Hamlett's compensation while the district is facing significant budgetary shortfalls that are affecting the quality of education students receive, particularly children with disabilities.

This extension changed the terms of Dr. Hamlett's contract so that she no longer has to live in the district. This change was obscured by reference to a state law rather than plain language. This seems to have been done on purpose, to hide what this provision actually does. Evidence suggests that she has not been living in the district since July, in violation of her contract at the time. Dr. Hamlett and the Board do not seem to feel constrained by clearly established rules.

The Board extended Dr. Hamlett's contract at the last possible moment they could legally do so, before the November 7th election, evidently in an attempt to hamstring the incoming Board and prevent them taking any action regarding Dr. Hamlett the current Board would not approve of.

The Board and the CHCCS Central Office worked together to hide this extension until after the election, announcing it two days after the election, thereby depriving voters of relevant information that could perhaps have swayed the election.

Full Post:

As the community is no doubt aware by now, on November 2, 2023 the CHCCS Board of Education voted to extend Dr. Hamlett's contract with the district for an additional two years, out to June 30, 2027. It is worth unpacking this extension so that members of community can understand exactly what the Board did and how they did it.

The first thing the Board did was to extend the term of Dr. Hamlett's contract by two years, meaning the termination date of that contract is now June 30, 2027, rather than June 30, 2025. This is the maximum extension allowed by law.

The second thing the Board did was to increase Dr. Hamlett's pay to a staggering $261,845 per year, or $21,820.41 per month. Should Dr. Hamlett work out the remainder of her contract, she will have received more than $1,000,000 in compensation under this extension.

The third thing the Board did is to grant Dr. Hamlett an additional five days off per year. For those keeping track Dr. Hamlett now makes more money but is required to work a full week less.

The fourth thing the board did is perhaps the most curious. In her initial contract Dr. Hamlett was required to "promptly establish her primary residence within the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools District." With this extension the Board changed this requirement, but did not do so in a straightforward way. Instead, the Board referenced a state law. Being unfamiliar with state laws governing superintendents of public school systems, I simply googled it. As it turns out the state law only requires that a superintendent live within the county where the school system he or she leads is located. In other words, the Board decided that Dr. Hamlett no longer needs to actually live in Chapel Hill or Carrboro. Rather than simply come out and say so, however, they tried to hide this provision behind legalistic mumbo-jumbo. My guess is that they did not anticipate people would look into this.

As should be obvious, the Board did more than simply extend Dr. Hamlett's contract. Many stakeholders, myself included, have concerns.

My first concern is the way in which this extension was done.

State law prevents school boards from agreeing to contract extensions or revisions with superintendents between the time an election takes place and the time new members of that board are sworn in. This extension was approved at the last possible meeting during which this current board could make legally binding extensions, mere days before an election in which a majority of the seats on the Board were up for a vote. There was a real possibility that the composition of the Board after the election would not be so amenable to an extension for Dr. Hamlett. The current Board decided to lock in their choice for superintendent, the outcome of an imminent election be damned. They clearly decided their judgment was superior to the judgment of the voters. This reminds me a great deal of the gerrymandering undertaken by the current Republican-captured state legislature. Clearly the Board's actions, though egregious and difficult to defend, don't rise to the level of the General Assembly, but in both cases an elected body determined that now that they were in power the will of the voters was irrelevant and could be ignored. Frankly, this extension, done when it was, shows real contempt for the voting public.

Was this extension legal? Apparently. Was this extension ethical? Clearly not.

Another issue I have with this extension is the lack of notice and publicity. As I have already pointed out the Board approved this extension on November 2nd, at the last meeting during which it could legally do so. Election day was the following Tuesday, November 7th. There was no prior public notice that this was even being considered. Even more damning, in my opinion, is the fact that school district didn't announce the extension until November 9th, two days after the election. It seems reasonable to conclude that a decision was made to sit on the fact that an extension was done until after voting was done. This was a transparent attempt to withhold relevant information from voters, and it was regrettably successful. It is worth pointing out that the announcement of this extension was made by the Central Office staff, not the Board. This suggests collusion between the Board and Central Office to deprive voters of relevant information until it was too late. Do we really want the Board and Central Office staff making decisions about the timing of release of information in order to benefit themselves? I sure don't. 

The fact that the Central Office staff and the Board are working together to shape the same narrative concerns me more than anything else. Both of those institutions are composed of people, and those people have a vested interest in hanging on to their jobs and dodging responsibility when things go wrong. Central Office personnel have an incentive to do as little as possible while collecting as much money in salary as possible. It is the Board's role to prevent this through accountability measures. How in the world are we, the public, supposed to believe in that accountability when the Board and the people they are supposed to be holding accountable collude to their mutual benefit while denying us information we need to make informed decisions? Remember, ultimately this is not about either the Board of Education or the Central Office staff; this is about our children. It is high time the Board started acting like it.

Again, was this legal? Yes. Was it ethical? Again, clearly not.

I would also point out Dr. Hamlett and the Board have repeatedly claimed to be committed to transparency. At this point any such declaration is clearly false.

Changing the requirement for Dr. Hamlett to live inside the District is most interesting to me. It is an open secret that Dr. Hamlett and her family sold their home in July. I assumed at the time that she either had another job opportunity or wanted to be able to take another job opportunity quickly, without having to worry about selling her home. Now, with this revision to her contract, it seems obvious that she sold her home and moved outside of the district in violation of her contract, and the Board knew about and allowed that violation to occur. Dr. Hamlett will probably claim that her conflict with Kevin and Hunter Klosty forced her family to sell their home. That may well be true, but it has no bearing on where they decided to move once that home was sold. It is just as easy to rent a home inside the CHCCS district as outside it, especially when one is making more than $21,000 a month.

Dr. Hamlett and this Board do not seem to consider themselves obligated to follow clearly established rules. That speaks volumes to the plagiarism accusations Dr. Hamlett faced a year ago and Chairperson Dasi's cavalier dismissal of obvious and convincing evidence of that plagiarism.

It is also interesting that Dr. Hamlett is now, in a very real sense, no longer part of the community she purports to lead, and this is by choice. Her taxes now support Orange County schools, not CHCCS schools. I am paying her salary, but she is paying the Orange County Superintendent's salary. I find this offensive.

Finally, there is the question of the additional money Dr. Hamlett will now receive.

Chairperson Dasi rightfully complains, loudly and often, about the insufficient funding facing public schools in North Carolina. She is right to do this; our schools are woefully underfunded. I find it difficult to square her position with this contract extension, however.

As noted in a Daily Tar Heel article, just over a year ago our district had to request an additional $1 million from the Orange County Board of Commissioners in order to pay staff. (Note 1) As Board Member Dr. Jillian LaSerna noted at the time, "we do need this because otherwise, we are floating this and other things out of fund balance [fund balance is excess funds the district maintains as a financial cushion during difficult times]. If Orange County doesn’t do something, the board is going to be facing some really difficult decisions in a few years.” (Note 1) Evidently spending additional money to extend a superintendent days before a pivotal election and then hiding your actions was not a difficult decision. 

In May of this year the Orange County Board of Commissioners recommended funding for CHCCS that was "$3.45 million short of what the district says it needs to carry on with business as usual." (Note 2) In September of this year CHCCS passed a budget that aims to "correct its overspending during the last fiscal year — the board spent $1.38 million over projected costs in the fund balance for the 2022-23 school year budget." (Note 3) In other words, CHCCS is drawing down its reserves. That cannot continue indefinitely. Our schools clearly have financial concerns, forcing cuts to programs. Is this really the right time to increase Dr. Hamlett's salary? What message does this send to the parents whose children don't get to school on time because bus drivers aren't available? What about the parents of children with disabilities who aren't receiving adequate services from the district because budget problems led to the short-sighted decision to cut program facilitators despite public outcry? Is Dr. Hamlett more important than those children? I would argue that no one in district leadership, top to bottom, is more important than those children.

Dr. Hamlett's contract stipulates that if the Board elects to terminate her employment early the cost will be 18 months of salary or the remainder of her contract, whichever is less. Therefore, if the district needs or elects to remove Dr. Hamlett from her position before December 30, 2025, it will cost CHCCS approximately $400,000. That is a lot of money that could be spent on the care and instruction of children. If you believe there is no way Dr. Hamlett will be asked to resign, I would remind you of the situation with Dr. Baldwin. We ended up footing the bill for her removal, too.

By extending Dr. Hamlett's contract in the way that they did rather than allow the incoming Board to make that decision this Board has shown its loyalty to her trumps loyalty to those who entrusted them with the management of their children's education. Indeed, loyalty to her trumps loyalty to the children of this district, particularly the most vulnerable ones.

References:

Note 1: McIntyre, Maggie; "CHCCS plans to ask Orange County Commissioners to add funding for staff pay"; The Daily Tar Heel; September 5, 2022. https://www.dailytarheel.com/article/2022/09/city-chccs-boe-meeting-staff-pay

Note 2: Blankenship, Carl; "Local school funding recommendations fall short of district requests despite millions in increases"; The Local Reporter; May 4, 2023. https://thelocalreporter.press/local-school-funding-recommendations-fall-short-of-district-requests-despite-millions-in-increases/

Note 3: Horne, Caroline; "CHCCS Board of Education passes amended budget for last fiscal year."; The Daily Tar Heel; September 27, 2023. https://www.dailytarheel.com/article/2023/09/city-chccs-board-of-education-meeting-0921