A call for accountability, transparency, ethical governance
By MCFUSE union members
Dear GMCS School Board President Kevin Mitchell, Vice President Priscilla Benally, and members of the GMCS School Board,
The members of the McKinley County Federation of United School Employees are asking the Gallup-McKinley County Schools Board of Education to confront a serious and growing crisis of public trust.
This crisis did not arise from a single disagreement.
It has developed through a series of events involving the Stride contract, the conduct and supervision of former Superintendent Mike Hyatt, the appointment and supervision of Superintendent Jvana Hanks II, the district’s relationship with its employees and their union, the termination of McKinley County Federation of United School Employees President Sawyer Masonjones, and repeated disputes over collective bargaining.
Taken together, these events raise a fundamental question:
Is GMCS being governed in a manner that puts the public interest, the law, employees, students, and taxpayers ahead of administrative power and institutional self-protection?
We believe the Board has an obligation to answer that question publicly.
THE STRIDE AFFAIR EXPOSED SERIOUS FAILURES OF GOVERNANCE
The circumstances surrounding the termination of the district’s Stride contract remain deeply troubling.
Former Superintendent Mike Hyatt sought employment with Stride while he was superintendent of GMCS and while Stride was a district contractor. According to the ethics complaint filed by Stride, Hyatt interviewed for a position with the company, was rejected, and shortly thereafter initiated the process that led to termination of Stride’s contract.
Whether or not Hyatt’s actions ultimately violated a specific statute, this created an obvious appearance of a conflict of interest.
A superintendent who has recently sought employment from a district contractor should not be placed in a position where he can personally direct adverse action against that contractor without independent review.
Yet that is essentially what occurred.
The administration issued the breach notice and began the process of replacing Stride before the Board itself had made its final decision.
The Board then attempted to ratify the administration’s prior action.
The New Mexico Department of Justice subsequently identified significant violations of the Open Meetings Act in connection with the Board’s May 16, 2025 meeting. Among other findings, the Department concluded that the Board could not ratify a decision it had never made and found that subsequent actions relying on that purported ratification were likely invalid.
These are not allegations from the union. They are findings by the New Mexico Department of Justice.
The dispute eventually ended through settlement rather than a judicial determination establishing GMCS’s allegations against Stride. GMCS dismissed its claims, Stride was reinstated under a modified agreement, debarment proceedings were terminated, and GMCS withdrew and retracted public statements concerning Stride.
The Board owes the public an explanation of how a dispute that was serious enough to generate termination, litigation, arbitration, public accusations, and ultimately a multimillion-dollar settlement was handled in the first place.
Where is the $24 MILLION COMING FROM?
The financial consequences cannot be ignored.
Publicly reported settlement terms indicate that GMCS was required to pay approximately $24 million to Stride, while the settlement also addressed approximately $51.25 million in obligations relating to prior years.
That is an extraordinary amount of public money.
The Board owes taxpayers, employees, parents, and students a complete accounting.
We demand that the Board publicly identify:
• the source of the $24 million payment
• the funds being used
• the effect on district reserves
• the effect on staffing and compensation
• the effect on instructional programs and student services
• the effect on capital projects
• the legal and other costs incurred during the dispute
• any remaining liabilities
• the projected financial impact through at least the next three fiscal years
Most importantly:
What will GMCS not be able to do because of the financial consequences of this dispute?
The public should not be asked to accept a $24 million obligation without being shown its consequences.
THE DISTRICT’S RELATIONSHIP WITH ITS EMPLOYEES HAS ALSO DETERIORATED
The Stride controversy is part of a larger pattern.
During the 2025–2026 school year, GMCS employees worked while the district and MCFUSE struggled to reach a collective bargaining agreement.
The dispute ultimately went to binding arbitration.
The arbitrator ruled in favor of MCFUSE on the disputed proposals.
Instead of viewing arbitration as the mechanism the parties had agreed upon to resolve their differences, the district subsequently considered ways to challenge or mitigate the result.
Now, as the 2026–2027 school year begins, GMCS and MCFUSE are again engaged in difficult negotiations over the calendar and compensation. No agreement has been reached.
An impasse is increasingly possible.
This should concern everyone in McKinley County.
A school district cannot maintain high-quality education while simultaneously maintaining a dysfunctional relationship with the people who provide that education.
Persistent labor conflict contributes to:
• teacher turnover
• difficulty recruiting qualified educators
• declining morale
• instability in classrooms
• diminished confidence in district leadership
We ask the Board to demonstrate that it understands collective bargaining as a good-faith labor relationship, rather than a contest over which side can impose its will on the other.
THE MASONJONES CASE RAISES TROUBLING QUESTIONS ABOUT EQUAL TREATMENT
The treatment of Masonjones requires particular scrutiny.
The district accused Masonjones of misconduct, including conducting union business during the school day, and ultimately terminated him.
An independent arbitrator later ordered his reinstatement with back pay and other relief, determining that the district had not established just cause for discharge and that termination was disproportionate under the circumstances.
GMCS has stated that it disagrees with the arbitrator’s conclusion and is considering its legal options.
We recognize that the district has the right to pursue those options.
But the Board has a responsibility to ask a larger question:
Why did this matter become a termination case in the first place?
The timing creates an especially troubling comparison.
Masonjones was accused of misconduct for conducting union business during the school day.
At approximately the same period, Hyatt was conducting a personal employment search during the school day involving a company that was a GMCS contractor.
These situations were not identical, and we do not claim that they were.
But the comparison raises an important question about whether GMCS applies its standards consistently to employees and administrators.
If the district expects employees to adhere strictly to rules governing their time and conduct, the same standards must apply to senior administrators.
The Board should investigate whether they did.
WE DEMAND AN INDENDENT INVESTIGATION OF THE MASONJONES MATTER
MCFUSE calls upon the Board to commission an independent investigation into the district’s handling of the Masonjones case.
That investigation should determine:
who initiated the investigation
whether Masonjones’ union leadership influenced the decision to investigate or terminate him
whether progressive discipline was properly considered
whether similarly situated employees were treated comparably
whether district administrators expressed hostility toward Masonjones or MCFUSE
what role the superintendent and senior administrators played
whether any retaliation, intimidation, discrimination, or interference with protected union activity occurred
The investigator should have no prior involvement in the Masonjones matter.
THE BOARD MUST ALSO EXAMINE ITS TREATMENT OF MCFUSE
The Masonjones case should not be viewed in isolation.
Over several years, GMCS and MCFUSE have repeatedly found themselves in disputes concerning collective bargaining, employee rights, union activity, contractual obligations, and administrative conduct.
Some of these disputes have required intervention by the state’s labor-relations system or independent arbitrators.
This pattern deserves an independent review.
We therefore call upon the Board to investigate whether district administrators have engaged in a pattern of:
unnecessary or disproportionate discipline
hostility toward union representatives
interference with legitimate union activity
retaliation against employees who challenge administrative decisions
failure to bargain in good faith
unilateral changes to working conditions
attempts to circumvent negotiated dispute-resolution procedures
The purpose should not be to punish administrators.
The purpose should be to determine whether GMCS has developed a culture of institutional hostility toward employees who exercise their rights or challenge administrative authority.
If that culture exists, the Board has a responsibility to change it.
THE BOARD MUST DEMONSTRATE THAT SUPERINTENDENT HANKS IS ACTUALLY BEING SUPERVISED
The transition from Superintendent Hyatt to Superintendent J’vana Hanks presents another critical governance question.
The Board’s responsibility is not simply to hire a superintendent.
The Board must supervise the superintendent.
The experience of the Hyatt administration demonstrates why that responsibility cannot be delegated away.
The public therefore deserves to know what safeguards now exist.
We demand that the Board publicly disclose:
Superintendent Hanks’ written performance expectations
the measurable goals against which she is evaluated
the frequency and procedures for Board evaluations
conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements
safeguards governing the superintendent’s involvement with district contractors
procedures for independent review of major contract disputes
procedures ensuring that decisions reserved to the Board are actually made by the Board
safeguards against after-the-fact ratification of administrative decisions
procedures for Board review of serious employee complaints
procedures ensuring compliance with the Open Meetings Act and public-comment requirements.
We do not need another promise that the superintendent is being “evaluated.” We need to know how.
MITCHELL AND BENALLY HAVE A SPECIALITY RESPONSIBILITY TO ANSWER
Three members of the Board have now been replaced through an election.
President Mitchell and Vice President Benally remain.
Your terms continue until the November 2027 election.
That means the people of McKinley County cannot simply wait for a future election to address these issues.
You were members of the Board when the Stride controversy occurred.
You were members of the Board when NMDOJ identified Open Meetings Act violations.
You were members of the Board during the prolonged labor dispute and arbitration.
You were members of the Board when Masonjones was terminated and his case proceeded to arbitration.
And you remain responsible for overseeing Superintendent Hanks.
Accordingly, you owe the public an explanation of what you personally did to prevent these problems and what you have personally done to correct them.
It is not sufficient to say that you acted in the district’s best interest.
Public officials must demonstrate that they are willing to put the public interest ahead of personal relationships, administrative loyalty, political considerations, and the preservation of their own authority.
The question is simple: Why should the public continue to trust you to lead this Board?
We expect an answer supported by actions, policies, records, and results.
LEADERSHIP IS A RESPONSIBILITY—NOT AN ENTITLEMENT
Your continued membership on the Board through November 2027 does not automatically entitle either of you to continue serving as Board officers.
Leadership requires public confidence.
If President Mitchell and Vice President Benally are unwilling or unable to carry out the independent investigations, financial reviews, policy reforms, labor-relations reforms, and superintendent-oversight reforms demanded in this letter, then we believe they should relinquish their officer positions to the newly elected members of the Board at the earliest lawful opportunity.
If either believes that he or she cannot faithfully and ethically perform the responsibilities of Board membership itself, then that person should step down.
This is not a threat.
It is a matter of public responsibility.
No individual elected official is more important than the institution he or she was elected to serve.
OUR DEMANDS
MCFUSE therefore calls upon the GMCS Board of Education to:
1. Account for the Stride settlement. Provide a complete public accounting of the approximately $24 million payment and its impact on district finances, reserves, staffing, programs, and future operations.
2. Investigate the Stride decision-making process. Conduct an independent review of the termination process, including the role of former Superintendent Hyatt and the Board’s failure to independently address the apparent conflict of interest.
3. Implement the required Open Meetings reforms. Publicly identify every corrective action taken in response to the New Mexico Department of Justice findings.
4. Review Board governance. Establish safeguards ensuring that major contractual decisions are made by the Board when legally required and are not presented for after-the-fact ratification.
5. Investigate the Masonjones matter. Commission an independent investigation into the circumstances surrounding Sawyer Masonjones’s investigation, discipline, and termination, including possible anti-union retaliation or interference.
6. Investigate the district’s treatment of MCFUSE. Examine whether district administrators have engaged in a pattern of hostility, retaliation, intimidation, interference, or bad-faith conduct toward union representatives and employees.
7. Establish meaningful supervision of Superintendent Hanks. Publish the policies, performance standards, evaluation procedures, conflict-of-interest safeguards, and accountability mechanisms currently governing the superintendent.
8. Restore a constructive labor relationship. Commit to good-faith collective bargaining and to resolving disputes through the procedures established in the collective bargaining agreement and applicable law.
9. Hold a public accountability session. Schedule a properly noticed Board meeting devoted specifically to these issues and provide meaningful opportunity for public comment.
THE PUBLIC DESERVES BETTER
MCFUSE is not asking the Board to agree with every criticism made by employees or the union. We are asking the Board to demonstrate that it is capable of examining its own conduct. When an arbitrator overturns a termination, the district should ask what went wrong. When binding arbitration rejects the district’s bargaining position, the district should ask what it can learn.
When the Department of Justice identifies violations of the Open Meetings Act, the Board should correct them.
When a $24 million settlement results from a contract dispute, the public deserves a complete financial accounting.
When a superintendent has sought employment with a district contractor and then becomes involved in terminating that contractor, the Board should investigate the conflict.
And when employees repeatedly report that they are treated as adversaries because they exercise their rights through their union, the Board should investigate rather than dismiss those concerns.
Employees are not the enemy.
The union is not the enemy.
Contractors are not the enemy.
Parents and community members who ask difficult questions are not the enemy.
They are stakeholders in the same public institution.
A strong school district does not fear disagreement.
It welcomes scrutiny, follows the law, respects its employees, protects public money, and holds its own leaders accountable.
The members of MCFUSE are asking the GMCS Board to demonstrate that those principles govern this district.
President Mitchell and Vice President Benally, you have until November 2027 before the voters again decide who should hold your seats.
But responsible governance cannot wait until November 2027.
You have the opportunity now to demonstrate that the public interest comes before institutional self-protection and that accountability applies to the Board itself.
Do not ask the public simply to trust you.
Demonstrate why it should.
The citizens of McKinley County did not elect you to protect the Board from accountability. They elected you to provide accountability.
Respectfully,
The Members of MCFUSE) On behalf of the MCFUSE membership
