Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Evaluation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee approves superintendent's composite evaluation amid debate over transparency
Summary
The committee approved a composite summative evaluation for Superintendent Brad Morgan after Kim Craven presented an anonymized synthesis of committee comments. Members debated process changes and whether individual evaluations should remain public; the measure passed with at least one recorded no vote.
The North Middlesex Regional School Committee on Sept. 16 approved a composite summative evaluation for Superintendent Brad Morgan after a contentious discussion about format and transparency.
Kim Craven, who compiled the composite, told members she had anonymized and consolidated individual comments and added bulleted points so a reader would not have to cross-reference the self-assessment. "The composite is not supposed to be these direct quotes or correlation to any one individual," Craven said, adding that the overall performance ranking—proficient—would not change with wordsmithing.
Several members protested the late format change. Lisa Bloom said she preferred individual evaluations be public because committee members are elected officials and "the public can see what each of our evaluations are." Randy Rausch criticized the timing and said he had expected to see the individual-format evaluation sooner; he later recorded a dissenting vote on the motion.
Keenan Francois moved to approve the composite evaluation; Patrick McPhillips seconded. The motion passed by roll-call with a majority in favor; one member voiced a no vote during roll call. Chair read the result and the committee forwarded the composite evaluation to the superintendent as the committee's official evaluation.
Members asked that the committee outline goals and that Brad Morgan present his self-assessment and proposed goals at a future meeting as part of the evaluation cycle.
The committee also discussed process improvements for future evaluations, including naming an outside assembler if the committee wishes and clarifying the format in advance of distribution so members have time to review.
