Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Leadership Retention topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill would let local boards reappoint incumbent superintendents to new four-year terms after year two
Summary
Sen. King and supporters told the Ways and Means Committee that Senate Bill 887 creates an option for local boards (except Prince George's and Baltimore City) to reappoint a superintendent to a new four-year term any time after the incumbent completes two years.
Senator King told the Ways and Means Committee on March 27 that Senate Bill 887 would allow local boards of education (other than Prince George's County and Baltimore City) to reappoint an incumbent superintendent to a new four-year term any time after the end of the superintendent's second year, if the board so chooses.
"After spending the effort to find someone who has all the qualifications and the temperament to lead a district, the last thing a board wants is for that person to be recruited away by another county or state," King said in her opening remarks, arguing the change would help retain experienced leaders. Under the bill as described, a board that chooses reappointment must act no later than March 1 and the new four-year term would begin July 1 of that year.
Mary Pat Fannin, executive director of the Public School Superintendents Association, testified in favor and provided turnover statistics: "Since the pandemic, there's been a 40% turnover in superintendents nationally. In Maryland, it's been even worse. We've had a 75% turnover since 02/2019," she said, urging the committee to consider the bill as a retention tool.
Committee members raised questions about potential timing effects on elected boards. Delegate Wu asked whether newly elected board members would have an opportunity to participate in hiring if a reappointment overlapped an election cycle. Fannin said it depends on timing and that the bill includes language to avoid making changes close to elections. Delegate Miller and Delegate Young both expressed concern that a lame-duck or outgoing board could use the reappointment authority in a way that limits the input of newly elected members.
King and proponents described the bill as a tool to preserve continuity where a superintendent and board are working well together, not as a mechanism to shield underperforming superintendents; the bill retains existing contract and removal mechanisms for cause. The hearing record shows questions from multiple delegates and testimony from the superintendents' association, but the committee did not take a final vote during this session.
The hearing concluded with the sponsor requesting a favorable report; no committee action was recorded at the hearing.
