Jim Kelly and Gary Woods are unfit to lead.

Paragraph 12 makes the agreement subject to board ratification. A separate official ratification vote has not been verified here; the executed agreement and district announcement support the reported commitment, not confirmation of completed implementation.

The district admits no wrongdoing and denies the allegations in the individual civil lawsuit. The agreement does not establish unlawful retaliation.

Kelly denied that he was trying to undo the board’s immigration-policy decision. Eckert said he did not condone releasing attorney-client privileges and initially sought to table the proposal, citing election timing.

Eckert did not respond to the article’s request for comment. The district would not disclose whether the material contained student information. We make no claim about undisclosed contents.

The district told the newspaper it relied on officials to search their own devices, had satisfied its Public Records Act obligations and had done all it legally could without an undue burden. That is the district’s position, not a court finding. The later Gilroy opinion concerns another agency.

Discrimination was alleged, not established by a trial verdict in this account. The district and Woods said the settlement did not admit wrongdoing or validate the claims and was intended to limit litigation costs.