Grand Prairie ISD superintendent's future unclear after mysterious school board vote
GRAND PRAIRIE, Texas - Grand Prairie ISD's superintendent is still on paid administrative leave after a mysterious vote by the school board.
The vote was taken Wednesday after hours of discussion behind closed doors.
The motion voted on Wednesday night was vague, only stating that, if approved, it would allow the school board officers to "move forward."
After returning and listening to public comment, the board voted 4-2 on a motion stating that Grand Prairie ISD Superintendent Dr. Jorge Arredondo violated the district’s discrimination, harassment, and retaliation policy.
"I move to let board officers move forward as discussed in closed session due to the violations of local DIA policy," motioned GPISD Trustee Terry Brooks.
There was a brief discussion about the vote that did not shed much light on what it meant.
"We are going to continue to stand on what policy states and make decisions on what is best for kids, staff and community," said Grand Prairie ISD Board President Amber Moffitt.
Grand Prairie ISD superintendent placed on administrative leave after 3 months on the job
In a statement, the district says the decision was made "in order to protect the district and Dr. Arredondo."
Arredondo officially started with the district on July 1. Just two months and three days later, he was placed on paid administrative leave on Sept. 4 so an investigation into a policy violation could take place.
The investigation was presented to the school board behind closed doors Wednesday night.
"But when someone, as you heard, violates policy, we stand on policy," said board secretary Emily Liles.
The two trustees who voted no defended their decision.
"I stand strong by my vote tonight," said trustee Daniel Espinosa.
"I was asking that Dr. Arredondo be reinstated, that he be allowed to do the job that this board voted 7-0 for him to do," said trustee Gloria Carrillo. "Numerous false and hurtful allegations are harmful to Dr. Arredondo and our community. His professional reputation has been damaged."
Liles said the allegations circulating on social media are unfortunate.
"We did pick the best superintendent. We got out of the information that was provided to us by a search firm. I stand by that," she said. "But if someone, as you heard, violates a policy, we stand on policy. This board stands on policy."
Arredondo is continuing to receive his $317,000 salary while on leave.
Grand Prairie ISD parents call for transparency in superintendent investigation
Concerned parents in Grand Prairie are calling for transparency after the district’s superintendent was placed on leave. He’s under investigation, but only trustees know why.
Before the vote, many in the community called for transparency.
"I would like to know what is going on," said resident Lupe Adell Castillo. "We've been waiting hours. We don't know what is going on."
"Please be transparent with the students, employees, parents and stakeholders," said resident Dorris Hill.
"Do better than a last-minute special session that goes two hours that keeps us in darkness," said parent Eric Smith.
The board again refused to reveal what the allegations were, frustrating some community members.
"If your investigation has brought forth evidence that this man needs to go, I understand that. But it's going to come out, and it had better rise to that level. Because if this is a back door to remove a superintendent that some of you didn't want, that erodes our faith in you as elected officials," a parent said during public comment.
Trustee Bryan Parra said the results of the investigation will be made public.
"There had to be a process that played out. The community will receive a report and understand the basis of the decision tonight," he said.
It’s unclear when the report will be made public.
While it’s also unclear exactly what the authorization to "move forward" means, another vote would be required by the full board if the superintendent is to be terminated or face some sort of disciplinary action.
FOX 4 submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the district for more clarification.