Five months after the Denver school board gave Superintendent Alex Marrero an early two-year extension on his contract, the board of education discussed the policy for his evaluation Thursday.

But the proposed policy was not made available to the public until after The Denver Gazette inquired about it.

Scott Pribble, a district spokesperson, said the proposed policy — which Thursday morning had required a password to read — was locked in error.

New public comment rules require individuals to speak on agenda items and to register 24 hours in advance.  So, while the error over the superintendent’s evaluation policy was later corrected, the document wasn’t available when the district was accepting signups for Thursday’s public comment.

Marrero’s evaluation and contract have been a divisive issue.

In a split vote in May, the board approved extending Marrero’s contract, which at the time still had 13 months before expiring.

At the time of the 5-2 vote, dueling letters — one supporting Marrero, the other urging a pause on renewing his contract — underscored the community divide between those calling for a deliberate review process and others who feared his critics were escalating tensions.

Marrero’s new contract contains significant changes that include a 5-2 supermajority requirement to remove him without cause (previously this only required a simple majority) and 90-day notice, up from the 60-day notice that was previously required.

Directors Kimberlee Sia and John Youngquist did not vote for the early extension, saying they did not have an opportunity to provide input on the contract.

Legal experts have said that the Denver school board may have run afoul of Colorado’s open meetings law by channeling discussions about Marrero’s contract extension through the district’s attorney and a secret, two-member committee.

Among those who have raised concerns was Steve Zansberg, a prominent First Amendment attorney who represents The Denver Gazette.

The Denver school board has long faced criticism for operating behind closed doors, which board members have consistently brushed aside, insisting they operate transparently. Yet in extending Marrero’s contract, the board sidestepped open debate in favor of private channels that will shield Marrero from being ousted without broad support.

Supporters and critics alike said privately that November’s election was a consideration in the May 1 vote to extend his contract early (which had been set to expire in June 2026).

His contract extension was raised during Tuesday’s candidate forum.

After rattling off a number of reasons why Director Scott Esserman said he believed Marrero is doing a good job (returning armed police to campus, suing the Trump administration over its immigration policies and the district’s academic achievement), candidate Caron Blanke pushed back.

“I’m curious, if you feel that way, why there was secrecy and a violation of Colorado open meeting laws to extend the superintendent’s contract prematurely and without a performance evaluation,” Blanke asked.

Blanke is running against Esserman for the open District 3 seat being vacated by board President Carrie Olson, who cannot run again because of term limits. Esserman is currently an at-large member.

“Ugh, so it’s interesting that, once again, you have your facts wrong,” Esserman said. “There was no open meeting law violation around that. The only open meeting law violation that occurred was around returning cops to East High School.”

Two years ago, a Denver district court ruled the board had violated the state’s open meetings law by privately debating behind closed doors the return of school resource officers after a student shot two administrators at East High School.

The judge ordered the audio recording of the executive session released.

“This is not an isolated incident,” Zansberg has said about the board’s actions. “I think it’s irrefutable that there is a pattern of conduct that the district has not abided by the state’s transparency laws.”

Four current members, including Esserman, were present in that executive session.

Only five people signed up to speak during the meeting Thursday, which was held to obtain public input.

Marathon meetings with lengthy public testimony prompted the Denver school board to move community input to workshops held weeks before regular meetings — before an agenda is even published.

During the forum hosted by EDUCATE Denver Tuesday at Regis University, all the candidates who will be on the ballot next month were asked whether they agreed with the changes to public comment.

None did — including the three incumbents running for re-election.

The board also considered a policy setting rules for when it can seek outside legal counsel, something Director Xochitl Gaytán has called racist, saying the proposal weakens the authority of the district’s Black general counsel.

On Thursday, the board spent several hours dissecting the proposed language in these policies.

The board unanimously voted to move the policy on the superintendent’s evaluation to a second read.

A final draft of the superintendent’s evaluation is supposed to be discussed in executive session by Oct. 31 each year.

But because the policy isn’t expected to receive its third and final reading until Oct. 30, it’s unclear when Marrero’s evaluation will take place.