FORT DAVIS — As interim Fort Davis ISD Superintendent Ralph Treynham and school board trustees remain silent about the process for who will lead the district moving forward, this week a consultant provided some basic information on future plans.

Treynham has declined to comment since the school board appointed him on April 14 and he began working on April 26. However, at The Big Bend Sentinel deadline, he emailed that he would be available in the future for comment. Treynham replaces Superintendent Graydon Hicks, who the board placed on paid administrative leave on March 9. 

On March 28, the board approved a contract with J&P Advisory Group — its only public action that night after leaving Hicks in limbo on leave — but did not provide the public with any details on what the contract involved. The Big Bend Sentinel obtained the contract through a records request. The contract provides for monthly services from the consultants, such as reviews of TEA-mandated reports, finances, board training and the district’s early childhood partnership program at a rate of $1,500 a month, with more personalized “executive consulting” at a daily rate.

The group’s founder and CEO, Jim McClellan, said Monday that his firm selected four interim superintendent candidates to provide to the school board, which ultimately picked Treynham. “He’s a former Fort Stockton superintendent with a lot of experience,” McClellan said. McClellan — a former ​​Sanford-Fritch ISD superintendent — said the idea is to stabilize Fort Davis ISD and make sure it is running smoothly and then work with the board on next steps for a permanent replacement.

Hicks could not be reached for comment for this article, but in previous conversations, he said he is still in the dark about the exact reason for his removal on March 9. Hicks previously said the placement on paid administrative leave was related to him refusing to follow a board directive that would break the law. 

The school board and its president, James Weaver, had refused to comment on Hicks’ situation because it’s a “personnel issue,” but they have released statements that say Hicks was placed on leave because of “his inability to work with the board in three closed sessions.” Statements also denied that Hicks or the board had done anything illegal, nor did the board request Hicks do something illegal.

Hicks continues to be paid his $126,500 a year salary while the district moves forward. The board had extended his contract for another school year (2025-2026) in January to start on July 1. His current contract — which ends June 30 — states that his termination is governed by Texas Education Code Chapter 21, which outlines the most standard way educators are let go, by nonrenewal of their contract. The law states the district must notify the superintendent 30 days in advance of their contract’s end, and the superintendent is allowed to request a hearing on the nonrenewal, which they can also request be public.

The Sentinel has filed an open records request for Treynham’s contract and salary, which has not been posted on the web yet, as required by law.