Board sets timeline for superintendent evaluation, schedules individual meetings and May 6 follow-up

The Hernando County School Board reviewed and adjusted the timeline for the 2024–25 evaluation of Superintendent Pinder during its Feb. 25 workshop, agreeing on individual meeting deadlines and a schedule for compiling and discussing scores but not taking a formal contract action.

Board member Duvall, who led the item, told trustees the district moved the evaluation earlier in the year because Pinder does not have a multiyear contract and trustees must complete individual meetings ahead of a public discussion. She pointed the board to the rubric in the packet (page 27) that the board will use to rate nine standards and assemble a points-based score. Duvall said, "the final rubric is average, and Kelly takes care of doing that," referring to staff member Kelly Pogue.

The board agreed each trustee should meet with the superintendent before April 20. The board will hold a workshop on April 22 to discuss the compiled evaluations in public; Duvall said that is the date when evaluations become public record. Trustees discussed timing for negotiating terms of employment if they decide to extend a contract. Several trustees argued the board should not negotiate final contract terms on the same day as the public workshop; after discussion the board tentatively identified May 6 as a reasonable follow-up date for negotiation and possible action, allowing time for a board-appointed negotiator to meet with Pinder.

Why it matters: The schedule determines when the board will make a decision about extending or renewing the superintendent's employment and who will lead contract negotiations; trustees noted the need for adequate negotiation time if they decide to continue Pinder’s employment. Board members discussed that the chair has often led negotiations and the chair agreed to serve as negotiator if the board accepts that role.

Additional directions and logistics: Trustees asked staff to set up individual evaluation meetings before April 21. Duvall reiterated that the rubric and nine performance standards have been used historically and will form the basis of each trustee’s completed evaluation form. Legal counsel and staff had no additional recommendations during the workshop.

No vote to extend or amend the superintendent’s contract occurred during the workshop. The board discussed the sequence: individual meetings up to April 20, workshop on April 22 to make evaluations public and discuss outcomes, and a negotiator-appointed follow-up (tentatively May 6) to negotiate terms if the board votes to pursue an extension.

Ending: Staff (Kelly Pogue) was asked to schedule the required individual meetings before the April 20 deadline and to compile averages from each trustee’s rubric for the April 22 workshop; the board did not set a firm date for any contract vote during the Feb. 25 workshop.