The Mercer Island School District board accepted the superintendent's annual summative evaluation after extended public comment and a divided board vote.

Public comment: the meeting drew a series of public speakers who largely praised Superintendent Fred Rundle's leadership and district initiatives. Parents, volunteers and community organizations highlighted recent programs and pilot work, the district's communications and attention to student supports. Megan Banta, a parent and PTA volunteer, credited the superintendent and staff for launching a dyslexia intervention pilot this year and said, "As a direct result, this year, we have a pilot program running at both Island Park and Northwood Elementaries with 6 classrooms across grades 1, 2, 3, and 5." Several other speakers, including Lisa Dean, Jamie Lundeen and Sharon (last name in transcript "Prez"), told the board they supported Rundle's student‑focused approach and his efforts on equity, safety and arts programming.

A smaller number of public commenters raised concerns about board culture, retaliation and curriculum. One commenter left a multi‑page packet alleging misconduct by unnamed board members and said parents feared retribution; the speaker asked the board to consider resignations. Another commenter urged the board to address perceived shortcomings in math instruction and curriculum.

Board deliberations and vote: board members discussed board policy 16 OE5 (monitoring of superintendent performance) during the meeting and debated whether the board had sufficient and timely information when it approved some prior contractual decisions. One board director said they could not approve the summative evaluation, citing operational concerns across academics and finances and referencing a Jan. 14 memo in the record. Other directors and several student representatives praised Rundle's engagement with student voice and district initiatives.

The board took a formal vote to approve the superintendent's summative evaluation (motion and mover/second not specified in public transcript). The vote passed with a recorded opposition from at least one director in the public record; the transcript records at least one "nay" and indicates the motion carried. The transcript does not contain a full roll‑call with all individual votes listed publicly.

Why it matters: superintendent evaluations are a formal board responsibility and can shape district direction, personnel decisions and public confidence. The meeting revealed both strong community support for the superintendent's work (program pilots, student supports, arts and counselor services) and persistent community concerns about governance tone, curriculum and financial choices.

What's next: with the summative evaluation approved, the board and superintendent will continue regular monitoring under operational expectations and board policy; several board members requested follow‑up on specific policy language and asked staff to deliver additional data where they had outstanding questions.