Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Superintendent Contract topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves superintendent Tamara Willis’s contract after debate over objective performance standards and compensation
Summary
Trustees voted (recorded as 7–0, 2 absent) to renew the employment contract for Tamara Willis as superintendent. Public commenters and some trustees pressed for explicit, objective performance standards and questioned proposed compensation increases and a $15,000 annuity.
Get email alerts on the Superintendent Contract topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Susquehanna Township School District board approved an employment contract for Tamara Willis, recorded in the meeting as passing by roll call '7–0, 2.' The contract renewal was Item G on the agenda.
Public commenters urged the board to include objective performance standards in the contract, with one speaker citing state law that such standards belong in superintendent contracts and arguing the draft before the board lacked measurable criteria. Other residents raised concerns about the compensation package cited in publicly posted salary listings, characterizing the proposed increase as roughly 14% and calling particular attention to a $15,000 annual annuity and life-insurance language in the contract.
Board members acknowledged public concern. One trustee noted the importance of presenting the 'entirety of what should be included' when asking for a vote and suggested the board should ensure compliance with requirements. The board president and other trustees said their superintendent assessments and materials are posted online and that the district follows precedent used by other districts.
After discussion, the board proceeded with a roll-call vote on Item G, 'employment contract for Tamara Willis as superintendent of schools,' and the motion passed with a recorded result of 7 yes, 0 no and 2 absent. Trustees did not enter objective performance standards into the publicly recorded contract during the meeting; the board’s solicitor was cited in the discussion as having advised that the contract as presented was within legal authority.

