Peñasco school board votes ‘no’ on censure of one of its members

Peñasco Independent School District board member Mary Mascareñas escaped censure on Tuesday (May 4) after the board voted against the motion to curb Mascareñas’s authority for an alleged abuse of power.

The vote came after an hourlong debate, including a reading of the definition of censure (a strong disapproval). School board members Carlos Abeyta and Dorothy Lopez-Sherman voted yes, while Sherry Archuleta and Mascareñas voted no. After a long pause, school board president Amanda Bissell cast the deciding vote against the motion to censure.

At issue was a series of anonymous letters written by school faculty that were critical of PISD superintendent Lisa Hamilton. Through testimony given to its legal counsel, the board was informed that Mascareñas orchestrated the letter campaign, in clear violation of her role as a board member. Mascareñas denied playing the role of orchestrator and said she simply passed the letters on.

“Madam Chair, I’ve heard you. And I feel also that if this is going to happen to me, it should happen to the other two that have anything to do with the letters or with asking for letters, because that’s the same action that I’m accused of,” said Mascareñas.

In a second vote — to issue a warning to Mascareñas — Abeyta, Lopez-Sherman, Bissell and Archuleta voted yes, Mascareñas abstained, and the motion carried. A third vote to issue a warning to others who might have been involved passed unanimously.

An envelope of letters

In the fall of 2019, during the first few months Hamilton served as PISD superintendent, a dozen anonymous letters critical of her performance were given to the school board by school faculty.

When Bissell took over as

school board president in January 2020, she was given the letters and instructed to review them by the outgoing president, Mascareñas.

“The then-president kept wanting us to review them,” said Bissell. “And we, as a board, were reticent, because we didn’t feel like we had all the information about the process.”

“She just kept on reiterating that ‘the lawyer said we could, the lawyer said we could.’ And we just felt like we needed more guidance,” Bissell said.

In the spring of 2020, the school board’s legal counsel advised the board to review the letters in

executive session. According to those with firsthand knowledge, a few letters were signed, but most were not.

When the letters were brought to the attention of the school faculty during an open session, teachers were offered the chance to sign the letters they had submitted anonymously, and new letters came forward, some lending support for Hamilton.

An accusation and a denial

“There’s an accusation that a board member solicited letters of concern against the superintendent,” said Bissell during the May 4

school board meeting.

“Our only employee is the superintendent. And that’s who we give direction to. That’s who we evaluate. Anytime that we’re giving direction to employees, we’re overstepping our bounds and our role,” she said.

“I don’t think any of the board members — including myself, and I’ll take responsibility for that — asked where these letters came from or how they came to be,” said Bissell.

“I heard the testimony here that I asked for letters. That is a lot of lies,” said Mascareñas. “I never asked for letters, and I have witnesses that will state exactly who asked for letters.”

“I think you remember there was an open meeting, and there was a person there who stated who had asked for letters. If you fail to remember that, that’s not keeping good notes, because somebody mentioned another name,” Mascareñas continued.

“I later on heard about this other [board] member who had asked two teachers by phone and one had taken one hour to be with this person in the school system and asked for letters. I don’t know what kind of letters — I cannot say — but this is what the witnesses are saying,” Mascareñas said.

“And so, if this is to be brought on me, it should be brought on all those who have done the same thing, or worse. And those who had to have those letters signed, which for me was not a good thing — I didn’t think that letters should be signed at that time — or any time — because they were supposed to be legitimate,” said Mascareñas.

Hamilton’s departure

Divisions between the superintendent, the school board and the faculty went beyond the cache of letters to include staffing and other issues, and resulted in Hamilton not having her contract renewed. The PISD school board is searching for a new superintendent, and has narrowed the field of applicants to four.

Hamilton leaves with a record of accomplishments, including new hires and financial stewardship — she raised the district’s operational funds from $350,000 in 2019 to nearly $1.2 million in 2020 — with new grants and reduced expenditures.

“The only thing that I could do was just keep doing really good work — trying to improve systems and operations in the district and provide extra money in funding,” said Hamilton. “And to be available to parents and teachers.”