With enrollment and test scores going up through his first year on the job, the Fountain Hills Unified School District Governing Board last week voted to offer Superintendent Dr. Cain Jagodzinski full performance-based compensation for the 2022-23 academic year.

Under Arizona law, school superintendents may earn performance-based compensation upon successful completion of certain goals and criteria set by the Board. This money, up to 5% of the superintendent’s contract, comes from Proposition 301 and cannot be used on anything besides performance-based pay.

The Governing Board voted to give Jagodzinski 5%, equal to $6,250. Member Madicyn Reid voted against awarding performance pay. Libby Settle, who led the motion to table the performance pay vote at the meeting on June 7, abstained from the vote Wednesday, June 22.

Last week, Settle asked if Jagodzinski had considered denying the performance-based pay himself as a sign of good faith to the community. Jagodzinski responded by saying his performance is reflective of the staff and their work reflects on him, and he asked what goals he and the staff had failed to meet this past year.

Jagodzinski also said that he accepted the minimum salary that FHUSD has paid previous superintendents when he was offered the job, and he had not had a raise since he started.

Jagodzinski only receives a raise if FHUSD staff receive a raise first. The Board voted 5-0 on a performance-based pay plan for teachers on April 12, and Jagodzinski said in response to Settle that he was “surprised” by her question.

Settle and Reid have each raised concerns over perceived mistrust in the community since they were sworn into office this past January. Board President Jill Reed spoke out against those concerns last week, and listed several community organizations Jagodzinski had joined, including Kiwanis, Rotary Club and the Chamber of Commerce.

“I feel like we’re in a really different position than we were last year at this time,” Reed said. “I understand, Libby and Madicyn, I keep hearing from both of you, ‘well, there’s a lot of mistrust in the community.’ I’m not hearing that same mistrust that I did last year.”

Jagodzinski has held an open door policy since he started, and he hears from all sorts of stakeholders, those with kids in the school system and those without. He’s also had meetings with over 30 local realtors this past year. Jagodzinski told them they can call him anytime they’re trying to sell a house to a new family who are curious about local schools.

“We asked [Jagodzinski] to build enrollment. He has built enrollment,” Reed said. “He has come up with creative ideas to get kids to come over. New programs, you know, building the preschool. He works 24/7, and I’m just not in a position to say, ‘you know what, thanks for all the work you’ve done the past year and building the trust with the community, but we’re still not going to give you that performance-based pay,’ because I think he’s worked for it.”

Resident Dr. Wendy Barnard made the only public comment and criticized inaction regarding Jagodzinski’s performance pay. The Board discussed the Superintendent’s Performance Incentive Goals in executive session on June 7, but Settle moved to table the discussion and stated she never saw his contract in full.

“Even if you did not use the full hour to discuss Dr. J’s performance and his pay, certainly you had enough time to ask questions, seek evidence and make a decision on his pay.” Barnard said. “From my vantage point, Dr. J has done what has been asked of him. I know that teachers have come to express their support, staff and families, but that doesn’t seem like enough for you. You being unprepared is not an excuse to deny Dr. J performance pay.

“…Without Dr. J, the district falls apart. I hope and pray that the district falling apart is not your intent, because it sure is starting look like it.”

Other business

At the beginning of the meeting, Reid motioned to remove the Board Acceptance of the Audit Compliance Questionnaire and a discussion on a purchase order over $100,000 from the agenda. Settle seconded the motion, but Reed then explained how that would be detrimental to FHUSD.

“Before we vote, I would like to let you know, the audit compliance does need to be approved by the end of this month, or we will be docked on that by the auditor,” Reed said. “It is not saying that we fixed it, it is not saying that we have reviewed it or anything, it is just saying that we’ve received it.”

Settle asked for clarification, and Reed explained that the Board would have another meeting to discuss the audit, likely in August. The questionnaire is new this year and it is not clear how much failed passage would impact FHUSD.

Settle abstained and Reid voted for her motion. Reed motioned to accept the agenda as presented so the meeting could begin, and that passed 3-2, with Settle and Reid against the second motion.

The Board voted to move the meeting originally scheduled for today, June 28, to Monday, July 10. The schedule change is due to a conflict in Jagodzinski’s schedule, and he apologized for any inconvenience.