District officials cite ‘considerable’ interest in superintendent post

Staff Writer

San Benito Logo_w:sky

San Benito CISD officials have confirmed new details in the search for a new superintendent, which is headed by Waterford School Services Inc.

Arnold Padilla, president of the SBCISD Board of Trustees, specified Friday that the search for a superintendent is “on track.”

Dr. Jess Butler and Dr. Felipe Alanis, consultants with Waterford, are in the process of finding a new superintendent based on certain qualifications and character traits set forth by school district officials, faculty and the public through open forums.

“Dr. Butler and Dr. Alanis have kept us abreast, via email, as to what they’ve been getting as far as interest,” Padilla said.

Currently, Padilla said the board is not aware of an exact number of applicants but did confirm a “considerable amount of interest” for the post.

“They have estimated — not said direct numbers — that there is about 25-30 applicants that are interested,” Padilla said.

Padilla said the estimation includes those who have applied and may, or may not include individuals who have simply expressed interest and said that they will apply for the position.

“So we do believe that by the time of the closing date of the application period, that we will have a substantial number of applicants,” Padilla said.

From that pool of applicants, Alanis and Butler will sort through the applicants, conduct background checks and reviews to narrow down potential candidates for the position.

Those potentials will be broken down into another set of groups, according to Padilla. They are divided into those who meet the criteria, those who come close to meeting the criteria, and those who show promise, but do not come as close to meeting it.

“This will give an opportunity for the board members to evaluate the applicants,” said Padilla, adding, “and do our due diligence, and make sure that the right individual is selected.”

Alanis specified on Friday that of the applicants, as many as five hail from out of the state. In addition, Alanis said that the board has expressed a desire to “expedite” the process.

“The Board wanted to expedite it (search for a new superintendent) a little bit, so we’ve cut down about a week or so, or 10 days,” Alanis said. “It’ll vary based on the board’s schedule to meet with them (applicants) and interview.

“We’re looking at maybe Nov. 1 to 10 is when the board names a lone finalist and goes into a 21-day waiting period – ending sometime in early December,” added Alanis, himself a former SBCISD superintendent. “That’s the target date right now, it may change a little bit but that’s what we’re basing it on right now.”

Until then, the Board does have access to all the applicants, but are not part of the initial selection process to be performed by Waterford.

Padilla indicated that if things go as planned, by “around the 20th of October, we should be narrowing down our selection to maybe the top two candidates – or three.”

“If everything goes well, and we believe it will, we should have someone selected by the first week of November, and possibly coming on board by the latter end of November to maybe … the first week of December,” Padilla said.

“We’re all ready to bring someone new on board, for no reason other than to move the district – and to continue moving the district – forward,” said Padilla. “I have no doubt that we will find a qualified individual amongst this amount of applicants.”

Superintendent of Schools Antonio G. Limon has said that he is not taking part in the process.

“I’m not involved in that at all as per board request. … So I couldn’t tell you anything about it,” said Limon, adding, “I have a contract with the district for two more years, and my contract calls for me to become Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources.”


Permanent link to this article: https://www.sbnewspaper.com/2014/09/19/district-officials-cite-considerable-interest-in-superintendent-post/


Skip to comment form

    • The Negotiator on September 25, 2014 at 10:56 am
    • Reply

    I’m going to put it in easy terms. No matter what any of us say or think, the old or new board alike will always make what they feel is the best decision; it will never be perfect. The problem I have is when our children are not put first, then that’s when we as taxpayers need to voice our opinions. These board members are forgetting why they got elected, and that was to protect our children’s best interest as well as our teachers, not line their pockets or make good on all the political favors they owe. I know some bloggers feel Mr. Limon did nothing wrong to get himself suspended, and that it was all just some board members making things personal; I’m sure some of it was. The fact still stands if Mr. Limon was so innocent, then why wouldn’t the accusations be made public? Why seal all that was found? For those of you backing Mr. Limon. Can you give us readers some examples of anything good Mr. Limon has brought to our district (for our children & the advancement of academics)? In my personal opinion I can’t seem to recall any. So please correct me if I’m wrong.

    • Juan on September 22, 2014 at 7:35 pm
    • Reply

    Why is it that it is not allowable to state said charges,what would be wrong with this.Our tax monies were spent to prove or disprove his deeds,so why can’t we the people,the ones that “bankrolled” all this at least be told what they were.If Mr.Limon is in fact totally innocent of the charges,I would think he’d be jumping at that opportunity for all to see.The excuse of a pending lawsuit is trite,as he will,and maybe its his right to sue,anyway.So in essence the good citizens of san benni are simply putting off the inevitable.

  1. @ Triple P
    Actually let me correct you, the new majority has spent more $$$$ than the previous majority… It’s simple do the math.. Let me help you genius: $1million( Anna Cruz Project), $30k consultants- compadres( insurance consultants), and let’s not forget all the $$$$$ for raises to their friends about $80k.. I don’t mind tax dollars being spent to protect our children ( Limon’s -investigation- salary), but to ignore the evidence that was presented to the newly elected board members and they ignored it plus gave him a 2 year free ticket of employment. Just simply ignorance!!!!! On the other hand, wasting tax dollars for the board’s members personnel benefit is just wrong and wasteful and that’s what these have shown.. So, go ahead triple p continue supporting incompetence because that’s what these clowns have shown since being elected!!!

    • BS on September 20, 2014 at 7:33 am
    • Reply

    I bet Super Arnold is pushing to get this process over done with! But, the question that should be asked is, who do they owe this political favor too? I’m more than sure they will screw this one up as well. They brought back Limon when they had all the evidence to can him. Tax payers keep a close eye on how this plans out with our wonderful new majority.

      • Triple P on September 22, 2014 at 8:46 am
      • Reply

      Don’t forget to add in the fact that the old majority had “all the evidence to can him” before the new majority did and didn’t can him. Don’t forget they suspended him for over a year and still paid him and two other interims. Right or wrong, at least tax payers are saving a little more than they were last year…

        • Como es Juan on September 22, 2014 at 1:02 pm
        • Reply

        Really they had the evidence to fire him? Then why didn’t the old board do it May 23rd 2013 when they suspended him with pay? Ohhhhhhh that’s right, because they didn’t. Your comment is baseless and purely speculation. Neither you nor I know exactly what Limon was suspended for. We also do not know what the allegations were or why he was never fired. BUT you can go by what you hear out on the street.

          • Triple P on September 23, 2014 at 8:43 am
          • Reply

          It was a sarcastic statement hence the use of quotation marks – “all the evidence to can him”.

          My comment was made in reference to the comment I was replying to. Nothing more, nothing less. You have your opinion and I have mine. In reference to the comment, Limon was suspended with pay, one interim was hired and paid, another interim was hired and paid. Now its just Limon (who is working) and getting paid. Based on this, which is what my comment was based on, money is being saved. The comment wasn’t made about compadres and projects and this and that. Now on to your statement… “I don’t mind tax dollars being spent to protect our children ( Limon’s -investigation- salary), but to ignore the evidence that was presented to the newly elected board members and they ignored it plus gave him a 2 year free ticket of employment.” If you choose to address the ignorance of the new board, do not leave out the ignorance of the old board. “So, go ahead triple p continue supporting incompetence” If choose to point fingers at those that support incompetence, please be sure to point a finger at yourself. According to your statement, the old board was ignorant to the evidence they had because they did nothing with it. They didn’t fire him. They somehow protected the children by “( Limon’s -investigation- salary)”. The investigation yielded nothing. He wasn’t fired. He was paid not to work. Talk about incompetence. And your opinion bashes the new board for paying him to work? For not getting rid of him? The old board paid him not to work. The old board didn’t fire him. They had all the info the new board has before they had it. ????? Flush the toilet already. Your BS stinks!

            • Como es Juan on September 23, 2014 at 9:32 am
            • Reply

            Don’t forget to add in the fact that the old majority had “all the evidence to can him” before the new majority did and didn’t can him. <—– those were your words, not mine.

            That is what I am talking about. What evidence do you know of that the old or new board had on Mr. Limon? Your comment is all speculation. That is all I am talking about.

            You can go ahead and have your opinion on the rest. You are right, they suspended him with pay, hired 2 interims etc. etc etc. That doesn't change the fact that you or I know of any evidence. You can't call either the old board or new board ignorant. I am not saying they aren't. You just cant call them that all based on speculation. Now, if YOU were there when the law firm presented evidence and saw or read everything then your comment would hold more water. But we both know you weren't. So once again, your comment is baseless and purely speculation.

            Nice try though twisting my words. Better luck next time.

              • Triple P on September 23, 2014 at 2:22 pm
              • Reply


              The first paragraph was addressed to you. The second paragraph was addressed to Simply. Furthermore, please reread what I commentated towards you. It was a sarcastic remark. I wasn’t speculating anything. Try using your brain a little more rather than your emotion and reread it. To be more clear, I support the fact that Limon has his job because I believe, in my opinion, that there is no evidence to fire him, thus the reason why the new board reinstated him. I was being sarcastic towards the other comment made because the comment was accusing the new board of being wrong, ignorant, and incompetent. Based on that, IF it were true, THEN the old school board would be guilty of the exact same accusations yet the person making the comment didN’T accuse the old board of that, only the new board. You have a lot of learning to do Mr. Juanillo. I was gonna say you took all the fun out of my commen;t but reflecting back, your lack of understanding is quite funny.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.