Days before the Fresno Unified school board potentially chooses a new superintendent, GV Wire has obtained a confidentiality agreement used during the search process.

Related Story: Why Fresno Unified Tried to Keep Superintendent Search Secret

Fresno Unified, the state’s third-largest school district, has been without a full-time superintendent since May 2024, when Bob Nelson gave his farewell speech at a board meeting. He had announced months earlier he would step down to take a job with Fresno State.

The school board later named deputy superintendent Misty Her as the interim, and she is reportedly a top contender for the full-time job.

Related Story: Trustees Select Fresno Unified’s New Superintendent. Was ‘the ...

Wednesday’s board agenda includes an item under “public employment/appointment” regarding the “superintendent search.” The closed-session item is set to start at 4:30 p.m. at the district office (2309 Tulare Street in downtown Fresno).

The FUSD board hired executive recruiting firm McPherson & Jacobson, LLC, to recruit and present candidates under a $34,000 contract approved in February. Firm consultant Ben Johnson II told GV Wire last week that all seven trustees, and members of a community panel, signed the non-disclosure document.

Several members of the school board said they signed to protect the confidentiality of the search. Neither the members, the firm, nor the district immediately provided a copy of the document. However, a source provided an unsigned version.

It is unclear if this is a version the school board members signed, the community panel signed, or if there is a difference.

“The Committee Member and the District are engaged in a process for selection of a superintendent for the District. As such both Committee Member and District will have access to the confidential application materials and information which has protection from disclosure pursuant to State law, including (add a state statute if applicable),” an unsigned version of the document stated.

“No legal advisory was necessary for the district in this case as these documents were signed by individuals to the search firm, not signed by the district or for the district,” Fresno Unified spokesperson Nikki Henry said.

A Public Records Act request with the school district for a signed version of the document remains pending.

What the Agreement Says

The two-page, five-paragraph confidentiality agreement said the applicant name is among the confidential information not to be shared.

The document also allows sharing of information to “other Committee Members, or to such individual District staff for third-party consultant(s) that the District and the Committee identify as assisting the committee in its process.”

Committee members shall not discuss aspects of the search with others, the document said, including conducting their own interviews and/or investigations.

“The Committee Member and the District expressly agree that failure to maintain confidentiality pursuant to this agreement is a material breach with irreparable damages that may be remedied by an award of damages, an injunction, and other award deemed equitable by a Court of competent jurisdiction,” the agreement said.

“Further, if the Committee Member is an employee of the District she or he is on notice that breach of confidentiality can and may result in disciplinary consequences,” the document said.

The elected board trustees are not considered district employees, Henry said.

“All members who signed the confidentiality agreement are aware of how recourse may be taken if a breach of confidentiality happened,” Henry said.

Community Panel Members Remain a Mystery

The district has refused to share the names of the community panel members.

“The Community Advisory Panel was discussed in closed session by the board on March 26 and April 3 and the panel’s role was to give feedback directly to the search firm, not directly to the board. Each Trustee was able to suggest one community member to join the search firm’s Community Advisory Panel. We will not be releasing the names of the community advisory panel to respect the confidential process,” Henry said.

David Loy, legal director with the First Amendment Coalition, said holding such discussions in closed session is improper. While discussions about specific candidates may be OK, talking about the search process itself is not, Loy said.

“If they created a community advisory panel, that should have been a separate agenda item and that should’ve been done an open session,” Loy said. “The board should not be refusing to disclose the names.”

Loy said the panel itself should be covered by the state’s open meeting laws, the Brown Act.

Board members Susan Wittrup, Keshia Thomas and Valerie Davis declined to name their appointee, citing the confidentiality agreement. Elizabeth Jonasson Rosas also declined to speak. Other board members did not respond to requests for comment.