Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance Evaluation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board split over superintendent evaluation and role of Council of Great City Schools
Summary
Vice President Dr. Cathy Evans Brown opened discussion on incorporating adopted 2024–25 student-outcome goals into the superintendent evaluation; board members split over the district’s relationship with the Council of Great City Schools and whether the ad hoc evaluation committee was handpicked or broadly offered.
Vice President Dr. Cathy Evans Brown opened the Executive Affairs segment by reviewing the 2024–25 strategic goals — career and college readiness, and literacy and numeracy targets for economically disadvantaged students — and said the board would incorporate those goals and guardrails into the superintendent’s evaluation.
Dr. Evans Brown described work by an ad hoc evaluation committee that included board members Terry Shuda and Paulette Woods and said the committee had consulted Bob Hart, who advises on superintendent evaluations in other New York State districts. She proposed that the evaluation tool include student-outcomes goals plus weighted categories such as board relationships, community relations and business/finance (including budget and facilities management).
Board members then debated the council and the evaluation process. Board member Tom Hurd urged a deeper review of the Council of Great City Schools and its history and cautioned against allowing a nonprofit to unduly shape district governance. Hurd called for more transparency and deeper study of the council’s influence before expanding the relationship.
Other board members strongly defended the partnership. President Sharon Cottman and board member Cindy McCutcheon said the council has supported the district for decades, provides training and resources used by nearly 80 urban districts, and that participation need not mean unconditional acceptance of every recommendation. Several members urged local customization of the council’s framework for Buffalo’s needs and recommended small, offline conversations among board members to reduce public confusion.
Terry Shuda and Paulette Woods — both members of the ad hoc committee — said participation in the committee was voluntary and disputed claims that it was handpicked. Members discussed scheduling a half-day retreat or workshop on Jan. 17 to onboard two new board members and align on evaluation criteria. Several members asked the ad hoc committee to return with written notes and clarified weighting and quantification for evaluation elements.
No final change to the evaluation instrument was adopted at the meeting; board members agreed to continue ad hoc work, prepare follow-up materials and hold a January session to finalize components prior to an eventual formal evaluation process.
