Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Evaluation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board debates superintendent evaluation format, balks at direct tie from points to pay
Summary
Board members discussed revisions to the superintendent evaluation form and expressed concern about tying point totals directly to percentage raises; no policy change or formal action was taken.
Board members spent part of the April meeting discussing the district's superintendent evaluation framework, focusing on whether numerical point totals should be directly linked to percentage increases in compensation.
Why it matters: The evaluation framework determines how the superintendent's performance is measured and can influence compensation decisions. Several board members said a strict mathematical linkage from points to pay would be problematic.
During the discussion Kurt, the superintendent, asked the board for feedback on the evaluation format. Several trustees objected to a formula that would total points and automatically translate them into a pay percentage. One board member said they were “uncomfortable with the mathematical tying of the points to the raise percentage,” and another cautioned that not all evaluation categories have equal weight.
Board members suggested changes including removing explicit percentage values from the evaluation, retaining descriptive ratings (for example, meeting expectations vs. exceeding expectations), and adding a short narrative comment under each goal so evaluators could provide specific feedback tied to district priorities. Several trustees recommended the board revisit the form after the newly elected members have had a chance to use it.
No formal motion to change the evaluation instrument or to adopt a compensation formula was made. The board directed staff to collect feedback and to bring revised language back for further consideration, with a plan to reexamine the item in the fall and before the next evaluation cycle.
The discussion occurred in open session prior to closed‑session personnel matters; the board later took separate votes on FY2026 wage changes after closed session.
