Emails raise questions over RPS handling of former facilities director’s resignation

Richmond Public Schools Superintendent Jason Kamras initially accepted the resignation of former Director of Facilities Bobby Hathaway, but was later overruled by the Richmond School Board, according to emails released to The Richmonder under the state’s Freedom of Information Act.

The emails also show that the School Board did not receive the first internal investigation into Hathaway until two weeks after the report was completed.

That investigation, completed on April 21, discovered that Hathaway conducted a security breach and enlisted two subordinates to turn off cameras so that he could return a zero-turn lawn mower to the facilities site undetected. Investigators also found that Hathaway misappropriated school funds, and recommended twice that Hathaway be terminated immediately.

Board member Emmett Jafari (8th District) wrote in a May 11 email that a personnel report from Kamras “lists Mr. Hathaway under ‘Resignations’, effective 4/16/2026.”

“Apart from this inconsistency as to exactly what actions the employee faced, this would also appear to be an application of discipline in a manner not reflective of the misconduct,” Jafari wrote.

State law requires school boards to have the exclusive final authority over employment personnel actions in a district, including dismissals.

RPS Communications Director Alyssa Schwenk said that all applicable state laws were followed by RPS, “including Kamras’ right to accept a resignation, pending an official vote of the Board at the next Board meeting.”

“Supt. Kamras initially was inclined to accept the resignation, as it would sever the financial relationship immediately and shield the Division legally. After consultation with the Board, both parties agreed that given the seriousness of the actions in the investigation, termination was the appropriate course of action,” she wrote. “Therefore, Mr. Hathaway was reinstated and provided back pay, as is required while he is afforded his termination appeal rights under the law.”

Board Chair Shavonda Fernandez (9th District) echoed those thoughts.

“Supt. Kamras initially was inclined to accept a resignation,” she wrote. “All employment decisions are made pending Board action. After conversation with the Board, we collectively agreed that termination was the best course of action based on what we read in the investigation report."

Jafari also asked Kamras why “there was such a substantial delay” in presenting the findings of the first investigation to the Board. The emails do not show a response from Kamras to Jafari’s question.

When asked about Kamras’ delay in presenting the report, Schwenk said that the Board received the report at the May meeting for discussion, which was the next scheduled meeting after the report was filed.

It also appeared to James “Jim” Smith, president of Teamsters 592 – the union representing Hathaway – that Hathaway’s resignation was accepted, emails show.

About four days after Jafari’s email, Patrick Herrel, the division’s chief operating officer, and Sandra Lee, director of employee and labor relations, held a meeting with Hathaway over the phone, informing him that he had to sign a “Recommendation for Termination of Employment” letter, according to an email listing a timeline of events crafted by Chief of Staff Shareyna Chang to Board members. The administrators informed him that he could instead sign an “Acknowledgement of Resignation in Lieu of Termination.”

“Bobby said he would sign the form as long as ‘RPS’ wasn’t trying to do something,’” Chang wrote.

Shortly after that meeting, Lee received a call from Smith.

“He was upset and did not understand why a resignation that was accepted was not being acknowledged,” Chang wrote.

By May 22, Chang wrote that Richard Hawkins, attorney for the union, emailed Lee.

But despite the phone call meeting, Lee wrote to Hathaway and Teamsters in a May 26 email that there was “an administrative delay” in getting the letters to Hathaway, making May 26 the official notice date.

School employees recommended for dismissal can either accept or appeal the decision, but must decide within five business days.

Hathaway now had until June 2 to respond, leading to him receiving an extra six weeks of pay through June 2.

Investigators also recommended that the two subordinates – a supervisor and technician – be demoted and issued a letter of reprimand, respectively. Kamras told the Board in an email that he had executed the recommendations.

But that wasn’t enough for Jafari, who called for the individuals to be terminated alongside Hathaway.

In Chang’s series of events, Herrel and Lee also met with the supervisor and technician to notify them that they were now recommended for termination from employment on May 15. The supervisor signed the “Acknowledgement of Resignation in Lieu of Termination” letter on May 21, while the technician requested to begin the appeal process.

A source familiar with the matter said that both employees are no longer employed by the district.

Jafari further suspected that the act is not a “one-off incident,” asking for administrators to review any other potential instances where security systems were tampered with. But he noted overall that the incident highlights a bigger problem.

“These reports indicate that there has been an ongoing unacceptable absence of oversight of those involved, the department involved, attention to the obvious concerns advanced by other employees overtime, and the safekeeping, protection and monitoring of RPS funds, equipment and property by the Superintendent’s Office,” he wrote.

Contact Reporter Victoria A. Ifatusin at vifatusin@richmonder.org