Residents press for reconsideration after policy subcommittee picks; school committee approves superintendent's recommendations
Loading...
Summary
A contentious selection process for the district’s policy advisory committee prompted public comment and dozens of emailed requests for reconsideration; the school committee approved the superintendent’s recommended membership despite objections from some members and public commenters.
The North Kingstown School Committee approved the superintendent’s recommendations for the policy advisory committee on Oct. 7 after a heated discussion about how candidate names were selected.
Pam Panero, a parent who had applied in May to serve on the policy advisory committee, used public comment time to say she had been told she would be recommended by the administration but later learned her name was not put forward. “From May until now, this process has lacked transparency and accountability,” Panero told the committee.
Superintendent Duba and committee co-chairs described a multi-step review. Duba said applications were reviewed in June and again after a re-opening of the application process in September; she said she and the co-chair reviewed applications and reached a compromise on names to recommend. Several committee members and one co-chair said the policy’s text gives the superintendent authority to recommend members, while others said the committee’s practice had been to discuss recommended names before placing them on the agenda.
The controversy drew a wave of written correspondence. Committee staff read a list of emails and petitions submitted that day calling for reconsideration of Panero’s appointment; the meeting’s correspondence log included more than a dozen separate messages urging her inclusion.
During committee deliberations members debated whether the policy and the committee’s internal processes required the superintendent to consult or obtain agreement from co-chairs before names were submitted. One committee member said the selection process should be clarified in policy to avoid future disputes.
Despite the objections and public appeals, the committee voted to approve the superintendent’s recommended appointments to the policy advisory committee. The motion passed with a majority of members voting in favor and at least one member voting no.
Several members said they would like the policy language clarified going forward to make the role of co-chairs and the superintendent in nominations explicit, and some asked that applicants be notified before their names appear on a public agenda. The superintendent said she had contacted applicants and would continue to improve the notification process.
The newly approved advisory committee membership will begin advising the district on review and drafting of board policies. The committee’s membership and the selection process are likely to be revisited in future policy discussion.
