Is someone (important) leaving?

At the March 28, 2023 Regular board meeting, Agenda Item 5, the Consent Agenda, received considerable attention. Did the public understand why?

Had there been discussion during the Executive Session? There shouldn't have been, because that topic (the Consent Agenda) was not on the Executive Session agenda.

When it was time in public session to vote on Consent Agenda, Item 5.4 (Ratification of Personnel for the 2023-24 School Year) was removed.

This discussion begins in the meeting recording (https://livestream.com/richland2/events/10813202/videos/235603761) at 1:31:51. When Item 5 was called, Chair Agostini announced that Item 5.4 would be pulled for separate discussion.

How and when was that decided (out of public view)? Somebody should have made a motion for that to happen. Otherwise, some might think that something was going on behind the scenes that had to do with that Item. You mean, the Richland Two board do such a thing? The board that promised transparency?

The other items in the Consent Agenda were approved, and the Board returned to Item 5.4 for discussion and vote.

Trustee Porter moved to approve Employees 7 and 237. After the second, the Board approved.

Trustee Porter then moved to approve Employee 366. It wasn't clear why 366 was not included in the first Motion. The Board approved.

That splitting out was due to different trustees acknowledging a conflict of interest on those three employees.

Then Trustee Trapp moved to approve all the other employees EXCEPT #526, #542, #560, #578, and #1849. His motion was seconded and approved in a 6-0 vote.

How and when the the trustees gang up on those five employees?

Yesterday I learned who those five employees are. Four of them are senior administrative employees. 

My understanding is that at least four of them have three-year contracts. What does not ratifying these employees mean? 

Are their contracts ending and in need of renewal? If the contracts are not ending but are not ratified, what is the legal significance of that vote?

Even more importantly, why is the Board meddling in an employment decision that is fully in the hands of the superintendent? The board does, by law, get to say yea-or-nay on teacher hires, but administrative employees are hired and fired by the superintendent. I didn't hear the superintendent ask the board to make such a decision.

What did the Board learn on March 23rd during the presentation by Attorney Ashley Story about how a board functions? Did the Board weave out of its lane just five days later?