Las Vegas superintendent on administrative leave after board declines to extend contract
Feb. 12—Las Vegas City Schools have been roiled by controversy for the past several weeks after the school board declined to extend Superintendent Larryssa Archuleta's contract in late January — despite a vote a month earlier that would have extended her tenure with the northeast New Mexico school district by two years.
The board had to reconsider Archuleta's contract extension because its previous action violated New Mexico's Open Meetings Act, Las Vegas City Schools attorney Tony Ortiz said Monday in an interview, though the reason behind the change in outcome remains unclear.
Two new members joined the school board in January after winning election in November. The school district has about 1,200 students and is one of two school districts in a city of about 13,000.
Though her contract remains valid through the end of June, Archuleta is on administrative leave while Las Vegas City Councilor and longtime school administrator Barbara Perea Casey serves as interim superintendent, Ortiz said.
Archuleta and members of the school board declined to comment.
"We're deferring all of our comments to our lawyer," said Paul Gonzales, the board's vice president.
In a 3-2 vote Dec. 21, the school board voted elected to retain Archuleta, extending her contract by two years, the Las Vegas Optic reported. District documents show Archuleta was first hired as superintendent in February 2019.
However, the meeting's agenda did not explicitly indicate the board planned to take action on the superintendent's contract.
As a result, the board's move to extend Archuleta's contract was deemed in violation of New Mexico's Open Meetings Act, which states a public body may discuss a matter but cannot take action unless it is listed among the meeting's action items.
In a Jan. 25 meeting, the board rectified the issue, Ortiz said.
"When the board got together in January and this issue was pointed out to them, they immediately recognized that it was a violation of [the Open Meetings Act]," he said. "So in their meeting, they took action that declared, openly and transparently, the violation."
During the meeting, the board discussed the Open Meetings Act violation as well as the superintendent's contract — with both items listed on the meeting's agenda. The meeting's agenda also included plans to discuss "discuss the Superintendent; possible misconduct/discipline of licensed administrator; and review of Superintendent's contract" in executive session, a setting closed to the public, during which the board may discuss limited matters.
But by January, the board's makeup had changed, after Gonzales and board Secretary Joyce Meserve were elected in November. They were worn in in January.
At the Janaury 25 meeting, the board voted 4-1 not to extend Archuleta's contract.
The reasoning behind the board's change of heart on Archuleta's contract remains unknown, as does the rationale for the superintendent's administrative leave.
Questions about the situation were directed to Ortiz, who also did not provide specifics. He said issues involving Archuleta were confidential personnel matters and that it's "not unusual" for an employee in similar circumstances to be placed on leave with pay.
"The board is reviewing some issues that it wants reviewed and that the superintendent has requested for review," Ortiz said.
Las Vegas City Schools faces a handful of lawsuits. Two name Archuleta as a defendant, with both cases alleging employment discrimination and violation of New Mexico's Whistleblower Protection Act. Three other lawsuits were brought on behalf of children who claimed to be injured or abused at Las Vegas City Schools.
Ortiz said he could not comment on pending litigation against the district.
